Third Person Reference in Late Latin: Demonstratives, Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the...

Mari Johanne Bordal HertzenbergThird Person Reference in Late Latin

Trends in LinguisticsStudies and Monographs

EditorVolker Gast

Editorial BoardWalter BisangJan Terje FaarlundHans Henrich HockNatalia LevshinaHeiko NarrogMatthias SchlesewskyAmir ZeldesNiina Ning Zhang

Editor Responsible for this volumeVolker Gast

Volume 288

Mari Johanne Bordal Hertzenberg

Third Person Reference in Late Latin

Demonstratives, Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae

ISBN 978-3-11-037836-8e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040194-3e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040209-4ISSN 1861-4302

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataA CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/BostonPrinting and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck♾ Printed on acid-free paperPrinted in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements

This is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which I defended in Octo-ber 2012. I wrote the dissertation as a PhD fellow on the project Pragmatic Re-sources in Old Indo-European Languages (PROIEL) at the University of Oslo.

In writing my dissertation – and later in revising it – I benefited from the help of many people. First, I am indebted to my PhD supervisor, Dag Haug, for his constructive feedback, support and encouragement. He led me into the fas-cinating world of Latin linguistics, and has taught me much of what I know about Latin and linguistics.

I am moreover grateful to my former colleagues in the PROIEL project, Eirik Welo, Angelika Müth, Hanne Eckhoff and Tatiana Nikitina, as well as PROIEL affiliates Federico Aurora and Øyvind Strand. Special thanks are due to Hanne Eckhoff and Tatiana Nikitina for comments on selected chapters of the disserta-tion, which I benefited greatly from.

The present book has also benefited from the feedback of my dissertation evaluation committee, which consisted of Monika Asztalos, Tore Janson and Silvia Luraghi. Tore Janson and Silvia Luraghi offered me insightful observa-tions and valuable suggestions at my doctoral defence.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the series editor, Volker Gast, as well as an anonymous referee, whose criticisms and suggestions significantly improved the manuscript. All remaining errors, of course, are my own responsibility.

The book would never have been completed without the support of my fam-ily and friends. My biggest debt I owe to my parents for their loving care and tireless support throughout my life. My grandfather secretly taught himself Latin and was perhaps the only one outside the academic world who under-stood what I was actually doing in my PhD project. I know that he would have been very proud of me today. I am grateful to my friends for making life full of fun and lending me shoulders to cry on whenever things get rough. Last, but by no means least, thanks to Kjersti for being who she is.

Contents

Acknowledgements | v

1 Introduction | 1 1.1 Previous Research | 2 1.1.1 The Nature of Demonstratives, Definite Articles and Personal

Pronouns | 2 1.1.2 The Interrelationship between the Demonstratives in Late

Latin | 4 1.1.4.2 On the Rise of the Personal Pronoun | 16 1.1.4.3 Ipse – ‘barbarisme à la seconde puissance’? | 16 1.1.4.4 Why Ille was Eventually the Preferred Definite Article / Personal

Pronoun | 17 1.1.5 Causal Factors behind the Changes of Ille and Ipse | 18 1.1.6 Research Questions | 19 1.1.6.1 Theoretical Issues | 19 1.1.6.2 The Interrelationship between the Referring Expressions | 20 1.1.6.3 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the

Itinerarium Egeriae? | 20 1.1.6.4 How did Ille/Ipse Become Definite Articles and Personal

Pronouns? | 20 1.1.6.5 The Causes behind the Changes | 21

2 Theoretical Foundations | 22 2.1 Definiteness | 22 2.1.1 Definiteness as Uniqueness | 23 2.1.2 Definiteness as Familiarity | 25 2.1.2.1 Familiarity in Heim’s (1982) File Change Semantics | 25 2.1.3 Definiteness as Inclusiveness | 27 2.1.4 Definiteness as Identifiability | 28 2.1.4.1 Lyons (1999): The Grammaticalisation of Identifiability | 29 2.1.5 Evaluation of the Proposals: Definiteness as the Identifiability of

Discourse Referents | 30 2.2 Accessibility and the Choice of Referring Expression | 35 2.2.1 The Variables Determining Accessibility | 36 2.2.1.1 Givenness Status | 36 2.2.1.2 Distance to the Antecedent | 38 2.2.1.3 Antecedent within the Current Frame/Sequence/Paragraph? | 39

viii | Contents

2.2.1.4 Animacy | 40 2.2.1.5 Antecedent Topicality | 40 2.2.1.6 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent | 43 2.2.1.7 Form of the Antecedent | 44 2.2.1.8 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs | 45 2.2.2 Other Variables that May Influence the Choice of Referring

Expression | 46 2.2.2.1 Competitors to the Role of Antecedent | 46 2.2.2.2 Type of Head Noun in the Anaphoric Noun Phrase | 47 2.2.2.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor | 48 2.2.2.4 Topicality of the Anaphor | 48 2.2.2.5 Backward and Forward Saliency | 48 2.2.3 Correlations between Accessibility and Various Referring

Expressions | 49 2.2.4 Accessibility and Grice’s Maxim of Quantity | 51 2.3 Definite Articles, Personal Pronouns and Demonstratives | 55 2.3.1 Definite Articles | 55 2.3.2 Personal Pronouns | 56 2.3.2.1 A Note on Null Pronouns | 58 2.3.3 Demonstratives | 58 2.3.4 When has a Demonstrative Become a Definite Article or a Personal

Pronoun? | 64 2.4 Intensifiers | 67 2.5 Summary | 70

3 Methods and Data Extraction | 71 3.1 The PROIEL Corpus | 71 3.1.1 Text Selection | 71 3.1.3.4 The Topic Guesser | 81

4 Full NPs, Overt Pronominal Forms and Null Pronouns | 89 4.1 A Restriction on pro | 91 4.2 Non-Anaphoric Uses | 94 4.2.1 New Referents | 94 4.2.2 ANCHORED Referents | 95 4.2.3 Inferable Referents | 96 4.2.4 Generally Known and Generic Referents | 97 4.2.5 Referents that are Present in the Immediate Situation | 99 4.3 Anaphoric Uses | 99

Contents | ix

4.3.1 The Choice between the Subject Anaphors | 100 4.3.1.1 Form of the Antecedent | 101 4.3.1.2 Syntactic function of the Antecedent | 104 4.3.1.3 Antecedent Topicality | 108 4.3.1.4 Topicality of the Anaphor Itself | 110 4.3.1.5 Animacy | 112 4.3.1.6 The type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs | 114 4.3.1.7 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents | 117 4.3.1.8 Distance to the Antecedent | 121 4.3.1.9 Summary and Discussion of the Data | 125 4.3.2 The Choice between the Non-Subject Anaphors | 135 4.3.2.1 Form of the Antecedent | 135 4.3.2.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent | 138 4.3.2.3 Topicality of the Antecedent and the Anaphor | 140 4.3.2.4 Animacy | 143 4.3.2.5 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs | 145 4.3.2.6 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents | 147 4.3.2.7 Distance to the Antecedent | 149 4.3.2.8 Summary of the non-Subject Anaphors and Discussion of the

Data | 152 4.3.3 Differences between the First and Second Part of the Itinerarium

Egeriae | 158 4.4 Summary | 163

5 High Accessibility Markers: Pronominal Forms | 166 5.1 Is Pronominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae? | 167 5.2 A Note on Is | 172 5.3 Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms | 173 5.3.1 New Referents | 173 5.3.2 ANCHORED Referents | 176 5.3.3 Inferable Referents | 179 5.3.4 Referents that are Present in the Immediate Situation | 180 5.4 Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms | 182 5.4.1 The Choice between the Pronominal Subject Anaphors | 183 5.4.1.1 Form of the Antecedent | 184 5.4.1.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent | 188 5.4.1.3 Antecedent Topicality | 192 5.4.1.4 Anaphor Topicality | 193 5.4.1.5 Animacy | 198

x | Contents

5.4.1.6 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs | 200 5.4.1.7 Position in the Anaphoric Chain | 202 5.4.1.8 Tendency of the Referent to be Picked up in the Later

Discourse | 204 5.4.1.9 Distance to the Antecedent | 208 5.4.1.10 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents | 210 5.4.1.11 Summing up the Pronominal Subject Anaphors | 211 5.4.2 The Choice between the Pronominal non-Subject Anaphors | 217 5.4.2.1 Form of the Antecedent | 217 5.4.2.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent | 220 5.4.2.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor | 223 5.4.2.4 Antecedent Topicality | 226 5.4.2.5 Anaphor Topicality | 228 5.4.2.6 Animacy | 229 5.4.2.7 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs | 232 5.4.2.8 Position in the Anaphoric Chain | 233 5.4.2.9 Tendency of the Referent to be Picked up in the Later

Discourse | 235 5.4.2.10 Distance to the Antecedent | 237 5.4.2.11 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents | 238 5.4.2.12 Summing Up the Pronominal non-Subject Anaphors | 239 5.5 Are Ille and Ipse Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium

Egeriae? | 241 5.5.1 Anaphoric Ille and Ipse | 241 5.5.1.1 Antecedent in the Same Sentence | 242 5.5.1.2 Antecedent in the Previous Sentence | 247 5.5.1.3 Antecedent Further Away | 251 5.5.2 Non-Anaphoric Ille and Ipse | 255 5.5.3 On the Context of Origin of the Personal Pronouns | 258 5.6 Differences between Part One and Part Two of the Text | 259 5.7 Summary | 260

6 Low Accessibility Markers: Full NPs | 263 6.1 Is Adnominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae? | 264 6.2 Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Full NPs | 267 6.2.1 New Referents | 267 6.2.2 ANCHORED Referents | 268 6.2.3 Inferable Referents | 272 6.2.4 Generally Known Referents | 273

Contents | xi

6.2.5 Generic Referents | 274 6.2.6 Referents that are Present in the Immediate Situation | 275 6.2.7 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles in their Non-Anaphoric

Uses? | 280 6.3 Anaphoric Use of the Full NPs | 284 6.3.1 Animacy Status PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in Part One | 290 6.3.1.1 Antecedent Topicality | 291 6.3.1.2 Anaphor Topicality | 293 6.3.1.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor | 295 6.3.1.4 Form of the Antecedent | 297 6.3.2 Interim Summary | 299 6.3.2.1 Ipse NPs | 299 6.3.2.2 Ille NPs | 300 6.3.2.3 Hic NPs | 300 6.3.2.4 Idem NPs | 300 6.3.2.5 Is NPs | 301 6.3.3 Possible Reasons for the Tendency of PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE to Show

Demonstrative NPs in Part One | 305 6.3.3.1 Are there Other Types of Referents in the Other Animacy

Categories? | 307 6.3.3.2 Animacy Status = TIME: Demonstratives as Tracking Devices | 308 6.3.3.3 Animacy Status = PLACE/CONCRETE: Demonstratives as Emotional

Devices / Discourse Prominence Markers | 310 6.3.4 Animacy Status PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in Part Two | 317 6.3.5 Animacy Status Other than PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE | 322 6.3.6 Differences between Part One and Part Two of the Text | 325 6.3.6.1 Why does TIME show More Demonstrative NPs in Part One than in

Part Two? | 326 6.3.6.2 Why do the Animacy Categories other than TIME Show More

Demonstrative NPs in Part One? | 330 6.4 On Ille NPs and Ipse NPs as Heads of Restrictive Relative

Clauses | 330 6.5 On the Contexts of Origin of the Definite Articles | 331 6.6 Summary | 332

7 Conclusions | 335 7.1 The Interrelationship between the Third Person Referring

Expressions | 335 7.1.1 An Accessibility Hierarchy of the Referring Expressions | 338

xii | Contents

7.1.2 Are Ille and Ipse Synonymous in the Itinerarium Egeriae? | 339 7.2 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the

Itinerarium Egeriae? | 340 7.3 How did Ille and Ipse Develop into Definite Articles and Personal

Pronouns? | 340 7.3.1 Did Ipse Develop into a Personal Pronoun and Definite Article

through a Demonstrative Stage? | 341 7.3.2 Why was Ille Eventually the Preferred Definite Article and Personal

Pronoun? | 342 7.4 On the Proposed Causes behind the Changes | 342 7.5 Is Egeria’s Latin Representative for Fourth Century Latin? | 343 7.6 Some Theoretical Implications for Accessibility and Referring

Expressions | 350 7.6.1 Accessibility and the Variables Determining Accessibility | 350 7.6.2 Correlations between Accessibility and the Various

Expressions | 353 7.7 Directions for Further Research | 354

Bibliography | 355

Index | 367

1 Introduction

This is a study of third person reference in the Late Latin text commonly known as the Itinerarium Egeriae.1 I take an accessibility theoretic approach to the re-ferring expressions, focusing on what is traditionally labelled demonstratives (hic, iste, ille, is, ipse and idem), bare NPs, and null pronouns. My approach is furthermore an onomasiological one. That is to say, instead of asking what each referring expression expresses2 (the approach which is usually taken in the relevant literature),

p pp y

does the author of the Itinerarium Egeriae which refer-ring expression does she most frequently use to refer to a highly accessible ref-erent?

The study of the Itinerarium Egeriae is motivated by the remarkably high frequency of demonstratives in this text. Moreover, the Itinerarium Egeriae is often discussed in connection with the development of the Romance definite articles (and third person personal pronouns), and conversely, the possible definite article status of ille and ipse is commonly discussed in linguistic studies of the Itinerarium Egeriae (in particular E. Löfstedt 1911; Trager 1932; Renzi 1976; Väänänen 1987; Nocentini 1990; Christol 1994; Vincent 1997; 1998; Fruyt 2003). Despite copious research on the development of the definite articles (less on the personal pronouns) in Latin/Romance, there is little agreement on many as-pects of that development and the situation of the demonstratives in Late Latin. Scholars moreover tend to overlook the fact that before we can say anything about their development, we must study ille and ipse synchronically and estab-lish their properties at the different stages in their development.

On this background, the aim of the present study is to give a detailed ac-count of how ille and ipse are used in the late fourth century, more specifically

1 There are several other variants of the author s name and of the title of the text. In addition to Egeria, variants of the former include Aetheria, Echeria, Heteria and even Silvia. Besides the title Itinerarium Egeriae, the text is often referred to as Peregrinatio Aetheriae. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the identity and name(s) of the author or title of the text. Since Itinerarium Egeriae is the most commonly used title today, that is what I will be using here. Neither will I discuss the dating of the text. Most scholars now agree on a late fourth or early fifth-century origin, which seems reasonable to me (see Maraval, 1982; Wilkinson, 1981 and references therein for discussions of these issues). 2 This would be a semasiological approach.

2 Introduction

in the Itinerarium Egeriae, thereby contributing to the discussion of the devel-opment of the definite articles and personal pronouns in Latin /Romance. Im-portantly, however, we cannot study ille and ipse in isolation, which has often been done.3 Rather, we must study ille and ipse as part of the larger system of referring expressions, including bare NPs and null pronouns. Hence, this is a study not only of ille and ipse, but of third person referring expressions more generally. As such, the present study differs from other approaches. Moreover, this study differs from most other approaches in two further respects. First, my approach is primarily a pragmatic one, and second, I make use of an electronic corpus and automatic data extraction, which enables the study of large amounts of data, and hence of referring expressions more in general.

In the remaining sections of this introductory chapter, I review the research on the demonstratives in Late Latin especially ille and ipse and their devel-opment. As I pointed out above, this is a synchronic study of the third person referring expressions in the late fourth century text Itinerarium Egeriae. The study is nevertheless intended as a contribution to the discussion of the devel-opment of the demonstratives in Latin/Romance, in particular ille and ipse. Hence, the literature that is primarily concerned with diachrony is relevant as well. As will beome clear, some issues regarding the demonstratives and their development have been thoroughly discussed in the literature, whereas other aspects have received little attention.

1.1 Previous Research

1.1.1 The Nature of Demonstratives, Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns

First, few scholars discuss the nature and properties of central concepts such as p p p

essential for a study of ille and ipse. Admittedly, we find some statements about the difference between demon-

stratives and definite articles. For example, the demonstrative is said to have become a definite article when it obligatorily accompanies the noun (Väänänen 1981: 121), when it is obligatory in at least one of its functions (Selig 1992: 116), when it is used in non-Classical ways (Renzi 1976: 31) or when it is merely a

3 Exceptions are Trager (1932), Väänänen (1987), Selig (1992), Christol (1994), Fruyt (2003) and Nocentini (1990). But they are concerned with the demonstratives only, not with referring expressions in general.

Previous Research 3

subsidiary tool (Rosén 1994: 145). Such statements, however, are rather impre-cise and not very informative with regard to the nature and functions of demon-stratives and definite articles.

Some scholars attempt to give more precise characterisations of the various categories. Renzi (1997: 8), for instance, gives a list of semantic features of demonstratives, personal pronouns and definite articles. I do not give the list in detail here. Suffice it to note that the fundamental difference between personal pronouns, definite articles and demonstratives is that demonstratives have a deictic feature, whereas personal pronouns and definite articles do not. The p p

a-ture. That is to say, a demonstrative locates the referent relative to the interlocu-tors.

To Harris (1980a; 1980b), definite articles and personal pronouns are [+definite]. Demonstratives are [+definite] as well, but in addition they are [+demonstrative]

y

[+demonstrative], he states (Harris 1980a: 142), automatically implies the mark-ing of proximity. Thus, demonstratives are also characterised by what he calls [1 proximity], [2 proximity] or [3 proximity], or [-proximity].4

DP Spec DemP D DPpron art

Figure 1: (2001) analysis of demonstratives, personal pronouns and articles

4 Classical Latin hic has the feature [1 proximity], iste [2 proximity], ille [3 proximity] and is [

4 Introduction

Giusti (2001) describes the development of demonstratives, definite articles and pronouns within a minimalist framework. Her approach is rather technical, and I do not discuss it in detail here. Suffice it to note that demonstratives and strong pronouns,5 she assumes, project full structures. Definite articles and weak pronouns, on the other hand, are functional heads.6 Figure 1 above illus-trates the difference (from Giusti 2001: 159). As we can see, the full structure projected by a demonstrative (DemP) or a strong personal pronoun (DPpron) occupies the specifier position in the DP (determiner phrase). The article (like the weak personal pronouns, although not included in the illustration), on the other hand, occupies the head position of the DP.

In sum, some attempts have been made in the literature to define the con-l-

ars leave such theoretical considerations out of their discussion. The interrela-tionship between the demonstratives in Late Latin, on the other hand, is widely discussed in the literature. The next section presents different views on the demonstratives in Late Latin.

1.1.2 The Interrelationship between the Demonstratives in Late Latin

With regard to the interrelationship between ille and ipse, Aebischer (1948) states, ille and ipse had merged in Late Latin, being sematically (nearly) identi-cal. According to Aebischer, ille and ipse are synonymous in the Itinerarium Egeriae. The period during which they were nearly synonymous, he claims (Aebischer 1948: 201), lasted for centuries.

Other scholars emphasise the distinct functions of ille and ipse in Late Lat-in. The common opinion on ipse is that it is anaphoric (Renzi 1976: 29; 1979: 260-261; L. Löfstedt 1981: 275; Väänänen 1987: 50; Nocentini 1990: 146; Orlan-dini 1992: 198; Selig 1992: 153; Christol 1994: 150; Pieroni 2010: 461). Vincent points to the topic marking function of ipse (Vincent 1997: 155; 1998: 418), a

5 Pronouns , she states, project a full structure (Giusti 2001: 165). Later, however, it becomes clear that it must be strong pronouns that project full structures, whereas weak pronouns, like definite articles, are functional heads (Giusti 2001: 168) 6 Some works on syntax distinguish between lexical and functional categories. The term lexical category

yy applies to those parts of speech and their phrasal counterparts that

form open classes and have full semantic content. The functional categories are the parts of speech that form closed classes and have mainly just functional content.

Previous Research 5

function that fits its etymological value of contrast and continuity (Vincent 1997: 159).

Carlier & De Mulder (2010), who recognise that both ipse and ille have ana-phoric functions, give a more detailed account of anaphoric ipse. Ipse, they argue (2010: 261), is a strong marker of identification that strengthens the ana-phoric chain when there is risk of ambiguity due to other intervening referents or because it is for some other reason unexpected that the referent is identical to the previously mentioned one. They give the following example of the latter (Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 258):

(1) [Ebroinus] Leudesio sub dolo fidem

Ebroin-NOM Leudesius-DAT under fraud-ABL.SG confidence-ACC.SG promitti se simulans fefellit, promise-INF.PASS REFL.ACC.SG feigning-NOM.SG deceive-PRF.3SG facto placito ut coniuracione facta made-ABL.SG meeting-ABL.SG that alliance-ABL.SG made-ABL.SG cum pacae discederint. Sed Ebroinus fallaciter with peace-ABL.SG part-PRF.3PL but Ebroin-NOM deceitfully agens ut solebat, conpatri acting-NOM.SG as be.wont-IMPF.3SG godfather-DAT.SG suo insidias praeparans ipsum POSS.REFL.DAT.SG ambush-ACC.PL preparing-NOM.SG ipse-ACC.SG Leudesium 7 Leudesius-ACC kill-PRS.3SG Ebroin deceived Leudesius by making a false promise that they should

arrange a meeting and, after having exchanged loyalty oaths to each other, should part friends. But, as usual, Ebroin acted treacherously. He laid an ambush for his godfather and slew this same Leudesius.(Fredegarius Continuationes 2, 8. century)

acter, after having given his word to his godfather Leudesius,

Somewhat differently, Fruyt (2003) assumes that ipse is an intensifier mean--

y y p2003:

102 103). Although ipse occurs in anaphoric noun phrases in the Itinerarium

7 In the Latin examples in this book, the noun phrase under discussion is underlined. Its ante-cedent (if any) is in boldface.

6 Introduction

Egeriae, Fruyt (2003: 102 103) points out, it is not itself anaphoric in this text (but it is in Augustine, for instance), insofar as it can be combined with ana-phoric ille or is (as in (2)). Ipse appears in anaphoric (as in (2)) as well as in non-anaphoric noun phrases (as in (3)):

(2) Specialis autem ille Ipse ille

special-NOM.SG but ille-NOM.SG ipse-NOM.SG ille-NOM.SG medianus, in quo descendit maiestas middle-NOM.SG in REL.ABL.SG descend-PRF.3SG glory-NOM.SG God-GEN y

God came down'8 (Itin. II. 5 6)

(3) Lectus est etiam locus ipse de read-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG also place-NOM.SG ipse-NOM.SG from libro Moysii book-ABL.SG Moses-GEN

Finally, Fruyt observes the use of ipse with the sense of Classical Latin idem, y y p

Nocentini (1990: 145) and E. Löfstedt (1911: 65). Whereas ipse is usually claimed to be anaphoric, ille is assumed to be used

when the referent has not been previously mentioned in the discourse, but is identifiable (usually) by virtue of a restrictive relative clause (Nocentini 1990: 146; Orlandini 1992: 198; Selig 1992: 165; Christol 1994: 149; Vincent 1997: 155; 1998: 416; Fruyt 2003: 109; Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 259). Such is the case in (4) for instance:

(4) in cuius capite ille locus

in REL.GEN.SG head-ABL.SG ille-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG est, ubi iterum locutus est be-PRS.3SG where twice spoken-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ei Deus that-DAT.SG God-NOM

8 The translations of passages from the Itinerarium Egeriae are adopted from Feltoe & McClure (1919), but occasionally altered to fit my view of the phenomena at hand, without this being indicated in the examples.

Previous Research 7

Fruyt (2003: 108 109) is alone, it seems, in noting that non-anaphoric ille can be the head not only of a restrictive relative clause, but also of an appositional subordinate clause, as in (5): (5) Illud sane satis admirabile ess ut

ille-NOM.SG truly very admirable-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that y y

Renzi (1976; 1979), L. Löfstedt (1981: 275), Väänänen (1987: 50), Fruyt (2003: 108) and Carlier & De Mulder (2010) find that ille can be anaphoric as well. Car-lier & De Mulder (2010) gives a more detailed description of anaphoric ille: ille, they state, implies that the referent is not already salient in the context or not presented as it was given before. As they put it, ille i-cation of the referent and creates thus a discontinuity in the referential chain, y

AD): (6) cernens regina fuerat fuisse

realising-NOM.SG queen-NOM.SG be-PLUPRF.3SG be-INF.PRF suggessit quod illam

incarcerated-ACC.SG propose-PRF.3SG that ille-ACC.SG parentem Francorum relative-ACC.SG Frank-GEN.PL

Illam parentem Francorumm s back to regina, p

noun phrase because this noun phrase gives new information about the queen, namely that she was a relative of the Franks.

Is does not have a very marked demonstrative character in the Itinerarium Egeriae according to Trager (1932: 13 14). This seems to imply that is is more like a personal pronoun. Is, Fruyt (2003: 106) argues, is restricted in the Itinerar-ium Egeriae. It is found in fixed expressions, and it is mainly used pronominally (see also Trager 1932: 12). According to Fruyt, pronominal is has two basic uses, y

8 Introduction

-headed relative clauses 107).9 Adnominally, it oc-curs in temporal and spatial expressions that is, in expressions like in eo loco,

ea horaa n-tini 1990: 144).

Iste, Trager (1932) argues, always appears in the context of a second person verb in the Itinerarium Egeriae

ye iste may still be syntactical-y y

time, however, he states (Trager 1932: 16), iste iste a

second person / medial demonstrative (as it is in Classical Latin), or as a first person / proximal demonstrative (like Classical Latin hic or English this). Ac-cording to Nocentini (1990: 146) and Christol (1994: 146), iste is a proximal deic-tic in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and it is used in direct speech (see also Adams 1967: 26; Väänänen 1987: 48). (7) is an example:

(7) Nam ecce ista via quam uidetis

for behold iste-NOM.SG road-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG see-PRS.2PL

Along the same lines, Fruyt (2003: 117) calls iste y

-linguistic uses in direct speech. Hic, according to Fruyt (2003: 112), has what she calls a resumptive func-

tion; it marks the transition from one sentence to another in the neuter singular or plural, a function observed also by Väänänen (1987: 48). In other words, it p y

(1996) terms (see Section 2.3.3 below). (8) is an example:

(8) Tunc dictum est michi: Haec est then said-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG I-DAT this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ciuitas regis Nam ciuitas city-NOM .sg king-GEN.SG Melchizedek-INDECL for city-NOM.SG hic est locus, ubi optulit this-NOM be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where offer-PRF.3SG Melchisedech hostias Deo Melchizedek-INDECL sacrifice-ACC.PL God-DAT pure-ACC.PL

9 The term light-headed relative is borrowed from Citko (2004). The term refers to relative clauses whose head is a demonstrative pronoun instead of a full noun phrase, as in French Jean lit ce quu il aime (lit. Jean reads this that he loves (from Citko 2004: 97).

Previous Research 9

sicut scriptum est eum fecisse. as written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-ACC.SG do-INF.PRF Statim ergo ut haec immediately then as this-ACC.PL hear-PRF.1SG y

where Melchizedek offered pure sacrifices to God, as it is written of p XIII.4 XIV.1)

In addition, hic -cata-

hic quii (x)

qq

of hic in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Fruyt (2003: 112) gives the following example: (9) (ipsam ergo Haec est autem

ipse-ACC.SG then valley-ACC.SG this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG but p in qua filii Israhel

valley-NOM.SG in REL.ABL.SG son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL commorati abode-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL

Finally, Väänänen (1987: 48), Christol (1994: 145) and Fruyt (2003: 112) find that hic too can be the head of a relative clause. Trager (1932) says nothing of the functions of hic

g y gc t-

- -presence of is, Trager (1932: 14) nevertheless states, hic meaning.

To sum up this section, we have seen how the interrelationship between the demonstratives in Late Latin, or more specifically, in the Itinerarium Egeriae, has been described in the literature. Scholars have moreover discussed when, how and why ille and ipse were transformed into definite articles and personal pronouns. As will become clear in Sections 1.1.3 through 1.1.5, opinions on these questions are far from concurrent.

10 Introduction

1.1.3 When did Ille and Ipse Become Definite Articles / Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles in the Itineriarium Egeriae?

Many works concerned with the development of ille and ipse into definite arti-cles and personal pronouns do not attempt to give a precise dating of the changes. Some statements can be found, but there is little general agreement, and nothing is to my knowledge said about the personal pronouns.

Stolz & Schmalz (1928: 480 482), assume that ipse is a full article in the Ve-tus Latina, the Latin Bible texts that existed before Jerome century Vulgate translation. Rosén (1994: 145) finds the beginning of the article in the works of Augustine (late fourth century AD). For E. Löfstedt (1956: 373) it is only in the sixth century that we find true instances of incipient definite articles in certain contexts. Other scholars date the emergence of the articles to the Ro-mance period, for instance Lapesa (1961: 29), Väänänen (1981: 121) and Banniard (1998: 319).

Although Trager (1932) dates the emergence of the definite articles to after the end of the seventh century (Trager 1932: 186), he nonetheless remarks that ille is more likely than ipse to retain its original demonstrative value in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. That is, ipse resembles a definite article more than ille does (Trager 1932: 26, 30). Along the same lines, Christol (1994) argues that ipse func-tions as an anaphoric article in the Itinerarium Egeriae, whereas ille retains its original demonstrative value. Pieroni (2014: 7) explicitly states that ille r-g

Itinerarium Egeriae. Nocentini (1990), on the other hand, takes the view that ille and ipse func-

10 in the Itinerarium Egeriae, being sometimes definite arti-cles and sometimes demonstratives. In each of their occurrences, ille and ipse can be characterised either as a demonstrative or as a definite article, but im-portantly, never as a compromise between the two categories. This is the as-sumption I will make as well (see Section 2.3.4 below).

1.1.4 How Ille and Ipse Developed into Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns

1.1.4.1 On the Rise of the Definite Article Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain how the definite article originated. As this section will show, the shift from demonstrative to definite

10 ille and ipse as incipient definite articles.

Previous Research 11

article has been explained in both syntactic, pragmatic, structural and phono-logical terms.

According to Meyer-Lübke (1920: 212; 1974: 216), the article was used initial-y-

Lübke 1974: 216). Vincent (1997; 1998) agrees with Meyer-Lübke to some extent, stating that objects in their normal, postverbal position appear without a deter-miner, whereas dislocated (i.e. topicalised) objects are indeed reinforced by ipse in Late Latin (Vincent 1998: 429). After the loss of case endings, Vincent states, when an object is topicalised and dislocated to the left from its normal, post-verbal position, this movement is indicated by pronominal resumption (by means of ille) or by the topic marker (ipse) (Vincent 1998: 430). (10) is an exam-ple of both. The direct object, cuppaa , appears in the first position of the sentence. The fact that cuppa is dislocated from the post-verbal position in which it would normally appear, is indicated both by the presence of ipsa in the object noun phrase and by the resumptive pronoun la (= illam):

(10) ipsa cuppa frangant la

ipse-ACC.SG cup-ACC.SG break-PRS.SBJV.3PL ille-ACC.SG all-ACC.SG p pLex Salica, 8. century)

Vincent acknowledges that ipse occurs with nouns in other syntactic functions as well; important for its development into definite article is its original value of contrast and identity (Vincent 1997: 155; 1998: 418). This makes ipse suitable as a marker of topic shift, and through its topic marking function ipse could devel-p p p

(Vincent 1997: 158). Unfortunately, Vincent does not account sufficiently for the development of ille

y yp

Rosén (1994) argues against Meyer-

with subjects. In her view, subjects do not need explicit definiteness marking because there is an evident logical aptness for a subject, if also a topic, to be definite. Therefore, a subject will appear with the definite article only when the article has already become constant and compulsory (Rosén 1994: 140). Howev-er, when the subject is dislocated from its normal position, the situation is dif-ferent. The definite article, she maintains, emerged precisely in the context of dislocated elements. She remarks that in Classical Latin, definiteness was ex-

12 Introduction

pressed by word order (Rosén 1994: 135).11 The origin of the definite article, then, can be found in those cases in which word order and syntactic position do not suffice to render a noun definite, or where position per se marks indefiniteness. Such is the case for example when the subject is dislocated from its normal, sentence-initial position, as in (11):

(11) Noverat eos iam illa

get.to.know-PLUPRF.3.SG that-ACC.PL already ille-NOM.SG mater mother-NOM.SG

1994: 141)

(2014) investigation of the Itinerarium Egeriae shows that post-verbal subject noun phrases tend to be marked by ille, and she considers this an im-portant context for the emergence of the definite article. She connects the pres-ence of ille in post-verbal subject noun phrases with the fact that these are parts of existential and presentative constructions. In such constructions, she claims, the subject noun phrase is not only argumental, but also fullfils a predicative and/or rhematic function, functions that are normally assumed by the verb. The atypical combination of the syntactic category subject with these functions calls for a specific marker, that is, ille. (12) is an example: (12) et ibi denuo legitur ille locus

and there anew read-PRS.PASS.3SG ille-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG euangelii resurrectionis Gospel-GEN.SG Resurrection-GEN.SG p

(Itin. XXXVIII.2, cited in Pieroni 2014: 5)

Dislocation is important to Nocentini (1990) as well. When word order had become fixed, he states (Nocentini 1990: 154 157), the definite articles originat-ed as a strategy for marking the state of the noun with respect to the pragmatic categories theme/rheme and given/new when word order is altered. When the theme is dislocated from its usual, initial position, for instance, the noun phrase will appear with ille or ipse.

11 Bauer (2009) discusses other strategies of definiteness marking in Classical Latin.


hand, the emotional, affective usage of ille and ipse was essential for their de-velopment into definite articles. The definite article, they assume, originated in contexts where a demonstrative is not required for the identification of the ref-erent, but is selected for expressive purposes and functions as a marker of focus of attention (Trager 1932: 163; Epstein 1993: 129; 2001: 186). The early, article-p y

i-tioned reinforced expressions, brought into use by the necessity of conveying y y y

logical analysis; on the contrary, [the demonstratives] are wholly non-logical y yyy yy

manner [led] to their beginning to function as articles, in places where there is no need for emp

p

Evaluating the hypothesis of Epstein, Carlier & De Mulder (2010) argue that by using a demonstrative the speaker not only signals the textual importance of the referent, as Epstein claims; he also tries to guide the hearer to the intended referent. A strict separation between referential use12 use is therefore artificial (Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 253). According to Carlier & De Mulder, the definite article originated as an explicit marker regulating speaker-hearer interaction. More specifically, the recognitional13 use of demon-strative ille is essential for its development into definite article. In this use, ille invites the addressee to mobilise previous knowledge to identify the referent (Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 263). Demonstratives used recognitionally and defi-nite articles are similar insofar as they do not require the referent to be present in the context or immediate situation. Carlier & De Mulder (2010: 264) point out, however, that there is an important difference: In the recognitional use of the demonstrative, the referent is identifiable on the basis of specific knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. In characteristic uses of the definite article, on the other hand, the identification of the referent is based on stereotypical knowledge, or knowledge shared by the all members of the relevant speech community.14 The distal demonstrative becomes a definite article when the shared knowledge necessary for the identification of the referent is no longer presented as specific to the speaker and addressee, but consists of knowledge shared by all members of the speech community (Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 264).

12 I.e. what I ca below). 13 See Section 2.3.3 below for an explanation of this term. 14 See examples (49), (51) and (52) in Section 2.3.1 below.

14 Introduction

According to Selig (1992), a structural reorganisation of the system of defi-niteness markers led to the rise of articles, without any change in the semantics of the determiners. In Classical Latin, she states (Selig 1992: 117), zero marking of (in)definiteness was the unmarked option, whereas explicit marking had an attention-

p

ps-

function. Table 1 shows the Classical Latin system:

Table 1: Organisation of the Classical Latin system of definiteness marking according to Selig (1992: 117)

Non-focalising Focalising1 (non-emphatic) Focalising2 (emphatic)

Ø + N Is + N Unus + N

Hic + N Iste + N Ille + N Ipse + N

In early Romance, the marking of (in)definiteness had become obligatory in specific noun phrases, and this led to a reorganisation of the (in)definiteness markers (Selig 1992: 118). The difference between zero marking and explicit marking was no longer focalising vs. non-focalising, but non-specific vs. specif-ic.15 Specific noun phrases were now marked by a determiner, and zero marking had become the marked option. As a result of this reorganisation, the originally non-emphatic determiners is and unus saw an increase in their contexts of use, which in turn resulted in their being defocalised to articles. The originally em-phatic determiners, then, took over the role of the non-emphatic determiner is (Selig 1992: 118). Table 2 shows the organisation of the determiners at this in-termediate stage of their development:

Table 2: Intermediate organisation of the system of definiteness marking

Non-focalising Focalising1 (non-emphatic) Focalising2 (emphatic)

Article (is/unus) + N Hic + N Iste + N Ille + N Ipse + N

15 -


Finally, ille took over from is the role of definite article, and new determiners were adopted in the focalising functions.

Giusti (2001) accounts for the transformation of ille and ipse into definite ar-ticles in phonological terms. As we saw in Section 1.1.1 above, she assumes that an article is syntactically the (functional) head of the DP, whereas demonstra-tive and strong personal pronouns project full structures in the specifier posi-tion of the DP. Figure 1 showed the difference. I repeat it here for convenience as Figure 2:

DP Spec DemP D DPpron art

Figure 2:

Giusti connects the reanalysis of ille as a functional head i.e. as a definite article with its phonological weakening into a monosyllabic word (ille > le). p y

rise of the definite article by appealing to phonological changes. For example, why do not all monosyllabic words become reanalysed as definite articles? Moreover, as Giusti herself points out, the situation could well have been the opposite: that the new syntactic analysis of ille triggered the loss of its first syl-lable (Giusti 2001: 167).

Finally, Classical Latin contexts in which the demonstrative appears in a nominalising function, often without a clear demonstrative value, have been considered important for the rise of the definite articles. As examples of this, Hofmann & Szantyr (1972: 191 192) mention instances in which the demonstra-tive appears with a Greek word, with a prepositional phrase, with an indeclina-ble noun or with an infinitive (see also Rosén 1994: 133). (13) is an example of ille + infinitive:

(13) Ipsum illud aemulari

ipse-NOM.SG ille-NOM.SG rival-INF

16 Introduction

Rosén (1994: 131) suggests that ille is a mere marker of nominalisation also when it is intercalated between a noun and an adjective, as in (14): (14) Porcus ille silvaticus

pig-NOM.SG ille-NOM.SG wild-NOM.SG p

To L. Löfstedt noun phrases precisely of the type in (14) consisting of noun + ille + adjective were essential for the development of ille into definite article j p

oreilles puissant attribuer une without our ears being capable of attributing a clear

me , translation mine] (L. Löftstedt 1981: 269).

1.1.4.2 On the Rise of the Personal Pronoun Whereas several suggestions have been made concerning the origin of the defi-nite articles, little has been said as to how the personal pronouns originated. As we saw in example (10) above, ille a personal pronoun as a means for indicating the dislocation of the direct object (Vincent 1997: 160 161; 1998: 430). However, this does not account for the rise of ipse as personal pronoun since ille, and not ipse, is used in cases of pronomi-nal resumption according to Vincent.

Giusti (2001) assumes a development of the personal pronouns in two steps: demonstrative > strong pronoun and strong pronoun > weak pronoun. Since demonstratives and strong pronouns have the same syntactic structure (see Figure 1 in Section 1.1.1 above or Figure 2 in Section 1.1.4.1), the development from demonstrative to strong pronoun, she argues (Giusti 2001: 168), only in-volves a morphological reanalysis of an element with the features of a demon-strative into an element with the features of a pronoun. The mechanism respon-sible for the further development into a weak pronoun is syntactic reanalysis.

1.1.4.3 Ipse ? per (1948) with

reference to ipse because, in his opinion, to become a definite article ipse had to

and then from demonstrative to definite article. Ille, on the other hand, is a


n-strative to definite article (Aebischer 1948: 202).

Others assume that ipse developed directly from intensifier to definite arti-cle (L. Löfstedt 1981: 275; Vincent 1997; 1998). According to Vincent (1997: 155; 1998: 433), the development of ipse took place through its topic marking func-tion. Since definiteness is an intrinsic property of topics, he argues (Vincent 1997: 158), the topic marker ipse was easily transformed into a definite article.

1.1.4.4 Why Ille was Eventually the Preferred Definite Article / Personal Pronoun

As we have seen, ille and ipse both occur in Late Latin. In fact, ipse has been found to be even more frequent than ille (e.g. Selig 1992: 133). In light of this, it is a paradox that definite articles and personal pronouns derived from ipse exist only in a minority of the modern Romance varieties.16 Some hypotheses have been put forward to resolve this paradox.

According to Carlier & De Mulder (2010: 262), ipse is more frequent than ille in Late Latin because it conveys a simpler and more precise referential instruc-tion as an anaphoric device than ille does. As we saw in Section 1.1.2, ipse in their view strengthens the anaphoric chain whereas ille creates a discontinuity in the anaphoric chain by introducing a new identification of the referent. Pre-cisely because ille does not require the referent to be strictly identical to an aforementioned one, it is more flexible than ipse. In addition, ille can signal that the identification of the referent is not to be found in the immediately preceding context, but that information outside of this context should be activated in or-der to identify the referent. In other words, ille is not only anaphoric, but also used in first mentions (Carlier & De Mulder 2010: 262 264).

Selig (1992) takes a similar view. Ipseeof its contrastive-emphatic value (Selig 1992: 184). Due to this value, it could only be used in certain contexts. Ille does not have such a contrastive-emphatic value. Ille is moreover a non-proximal demonstrative that places the referent

-p p

: 183) argues, ille is not only a less marked option than ipse, but also less marked than hic and iste, which explicitly place the referent in the vicinity of the interlocu-tors As the most neutral determiner, then, ille could straightforwardly develop into a definite article. Due to its contrastive-emphatic value and hence its usage

16 Definite articles and personal pronouns derived from ipse are found in Sardinian, Southern Italian and dialects of Catalan, Gascon and Provençal.

18 Introduction

limited to certain contexts, the same generalisation into a definite article was not possible for ipse (Selig 1992: 184�185, see Vincent 1997; 1998 for a similar explanation of why ipse could not develop into a clitic object pronoun).

Aebischer (1948) accounts for the paradox in another way. As long as a suf-ficient knowledge of Latin was preserved, one knew that ipse did not mean ille, as he puts it, and they were thus kept apart. Then the article became obligatory. In the areas south of Rome, which had been Romanised very early and intense-ly, and where Latin was believed to be known, the current, popular form, name-ly ipse, was retained. In Etruria, in Cisalpine Gaul, in Gaul and in the Iberian peninsula, where Latin had a weaker position, cultivated usage reacted, as it were, and gave ille as definite article, although slowly and partially (Aebischer 1948: 202).

In this section, we have seen various hypotheses concerning how the defi-nite articles and personal pronouns developed. The following section presents hypotheses that have been put forward to explain why these changes took place.

1.1.5 Causal Factors behind the Changes of Ille and Ipse

Several scholars see the development of the definite articles (and personal pro-nouns) in relation to word order change and the loss of morphological case marking (Renzi 1992; Nocentini 1990; Rosén 1994; Vincent 1997; 1998). The common opinion is that the rise of articles and pronouns follows the establish-ment of a fixed word order and the loss of case marking.

Renzi (1992), on the contrary, argues that the rise of articles precedes the loss of case marking. To him, the development of articles is a result of the change from O(bject)V(erb) to VO word order. The articles, he states, began as a means for adapting the Latin noun phrases to a VO order according to the Greenbergian universal that VO languages show the order case marker + noun in the noun phrase (Renzi 1992: 165�166). When Latin word order changed from OV to VO, he argues (Renzi 1992: 168), the expression of case was transferred from the case suffix to the element preceding the noun i.e. to the demonstra-tive to fit with the VO order. As a consequence, the old case suffixes lost their importance and eventually disappeared.

Another explanation is that adopted by Trager (1932), as well as by Lapesa (1961), Adams (1967) and Epstein (1993; 1994; 1995; 2001) for whom a wish for greater expressivity led to an overuse of demonstratives, which in turn resulted in a weakening of the demonstratives to definite articles.


The general Vulgar Latin tendency of marking elements analytically and explicitly was the factor leading to the rise of the definite article according to Harris (1980a; 1980b). This general tendency also led to an increasing tendency of explicit definiteness marking (Harris 1980b: 146).

Renzi (1976; 1979) discusses the possibility of Greek influence in the devel-opment of the definite article in Latin/Romance. The Greek definite article, he points out (Renzi 1976: 36; 1979: 261), is fully developed by the time the definite article starts to appear in Latin, and it functions in some ways that the article in Latin never does. Besides, Latin does not uncritically adopt the Greek usages of the article. Rather, the Latin authors adopt only those Greek usages that were already admitted in Latin (1976: 28; 1979: 260). Therefore, Renzi concludes, Greek influence cannot have been decisive (1976: 36), and we should see the development of the articles rather in relation to other changes, viz. increasing use of prepositions, loss of morphological case marking and development of auxiliaries17 (Renzi 1979: 262).

Before concluding this introductory chapter, a summary of the research questions that emerge from my review of the previous literature is in order. That is the subject of the last section.

1.1.6 Research Questions

1.1.6.1 Theoretical Issues a-

the existing literature, although some exceptions can be found. A precise un-derstanding of these categories is needed to say anything about the referring expressions in Late Latin and the development of ille and ipse.

An understanding of the semantics and syntax of these categories, however, is not necessarily required; it is in fact difficult to determine the correct categor-ical status of ille and ipse based on the semantics or syntax of demonstratives, definite articles and personal pronouns. If, for example, we base our analysis on semantic criteria and assume that the difference between a definite article and a demonstrative is [+demonstrative] vs. [-demonstrative], almost all occurrences of adnominal ille and ipse in the Itinerarium Egeriae are ambiguous. They can be

17 By the term auxiliaries Renzi presumably refers to the new periphrastic verb forms, e.g. habere + perfect participle (expressing present perfect tense) and habere + infinitive (express-ing future tense).

20 Introduction

i.e. a demonstra-tive with a [+demonstrative] feature feature i.e. a definite article. Hence, I take a pragmatic approach to the refer-ring expressions instead, assuming that different referring expressions require different degrees of accessibility (see Section 2.2).

1.1.6.2 The Interrelationship between the Referring Expressions We have furthermore seen that most scholars argue in favour of a division of functions between ille and ipse in Late Latin, or more specifically, in the Itin-erarium Egeriae, but that they have also been claimed to be synonymous. There need not be any uncertainty regarding the functions of ille and ipse, however. Their functions can in fact easily be established since there is a limited corpus of examples. There is more agreement regarding the other demonstratives, but I will be examining whether the claims set forth with respect to the other demon-stratives hold as well. In addition, as I mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, we cannot study ille and ipse in isolation. I will therefore be concerned with the use of the other referring expressions as well, in particular null pro-nouns and bare NPs. Where relevant, I will also compare the properties of the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae with their properties in Classical Latin as shown especially by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolkestein (2000).

1.1.6.3 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

As already mentioned, no attempt has been made at dating the emergence of the third person personal pronouns. Moreover, there is disagreement as to when ille and ipse became definite articles. The hypotheses that have been put for-y

apparently, on an assumption that ille/ipse are not definite articles if they are not definite articles in all their occurrences. The fact that ille/ipse are not defi-nite articles (or personal pronouns) in all their occurrences, however, does not necessarily mean they are never definite articles (or personal pronouns).

1.1.6.4 How did Ille/Ipse Become Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns? As we have seen, a hypothesis of the rise of the definite articles (and personal pronouns) adopted by several scholars sees them originating as a means for


marking the definiteness, syntactic function or discourse status of the noun phrase when the noun phrase is dislocated from the position in which it would normally appear. If the theory is right, I would expect to find ille and ipse fre-quently used with dislocated elements. Connected with this is the question as to which syntactic functions ille and ipse most frequently occur in

q with subjects,

objects or perhaps in other functions.

1.1.6.5 The Causes behind the Changes My focus in this study is not on why the definite articles and personal pronouns originated. Nevertheless, having established how the referring expressions, including ille and ipse, are used in fourth century Latin as represented by the Itinerarium Egeriae, as well as how the new uses of ille and ipse possibly emerged, it should be possible to expound the proposed causes behind the changes.

In the following chapter, I present the theoretical foundations underyling my study of the Itinerarium Egeriae.

2 Theoretical Foundations

In the present chapter, I outline the basic theoretical assumptions underlying the present study. Since the majority of the referring expressions I will be dis-cussing are definite expressions, I start with the major views on definiteness in p j

2.1). In Section 2.2, I outline the theory of accessibility and the choice of refer-ring expression in discourse, including the interaction between accessibility p

. In Section 2.3, I discuss the properties and uses of three major exponents of definiteness, personal pronouns, definite articles and demonstratives. In this section, I also discuss the question as to when a demonstrative has become a definite article and a personal pronoun. Section 2.4 is a discussion of the properties of intensifiers, insofar as ipse was originally an intensifier.18

2.1 Definiteness

In this section, I discuss the well-known uniqueness, familiarity, inclusiveness and identifiability hypotheses of definiteness, before I argue in favour of defi-niteness as the identifiability of discourse referents. y

ac-.

One is as a universal concept that exists in all languages, but has different ex-pressio

p may somehow

be equated with the use of the definite article (and/or other expressions of defi-q p

are concerned primarily with English, though without always making it clear whether they intend to establish a universal concept of definiteness or, more specifically, a theory of definiteness and the use of the definite article in Eng-lish.19

18 Ipse is indeed often labelled a demonstrative in Latin grammars, but it is more properly an intensifier, which is not used for referent tracking as demonstratives are. 19 Christophersen (1939) is explicitly concerned with the definite article in English, and the same apparently holds true for Russell (1905), Heim (1982) and Hawkins (1978; 1991).

Definiteness 23

As Lambrecht (1994) points out, between the cognitive concept of (non-) identifiability20 and the grammatical expression of (in)definiteness there is no immediate relationship, as shown by the fact that the formal grammatical mark-ing of definiteness varies from language to language, whereas the mental ability to identify referents appears to be universal (Lambrecht 1994: 79 80). In other words, Lambrecht views definiteness as a universal concept, which is the view I take as well. This is not to say, however, that the views of those who are con-cerned more specifically with the use of the definite article in English do not belong in the discussion of the universal concept of definiteness.

The aim of the following sections is to arrive at an understanding of what

most discussions of definiteness are based on English, the examples in these sections are English. Having said that, the conclusion I eventually arrive at, a theory of the universal concept of definiteness, is assumed to hold for Latin as well.

2.1.1 Definiteness as Uniqueness

The logical analysis of definite reference and the view on definiteness as uniqueness

y(1905) celebrated work. It was

penned as a response and reaction to Frege (1892). Frege distinguishes between the Sinn

pBedeutung The sense of an

expression is the meaning of an expression whatever the object to which it re-fers. In contrast, reference is the object denoted by the expression. We can illus-j yy

p

ing star . Both expressions refer to the same object, namely the planet Venus. Thus, according to Frege, these expressions have the same reference. Since the expressions de-note Venus in respect of its different properties, however, they have different sense. Referring expressions presuppose a reference to something, and the pre-supposition must be true for the sentence to be true or false.

As Russell (1905) observes, an expression may refer either to a specific ob-ject (the present king of Norwayy e denoting, and yet not denote any-thing ,21 as he puts it (the king of France, since there exists no king of France); or it may refer ambiguously (a man) (Russell 1905: 479).

20 I.e. (in)definiteness in his view, see Section 2.1.4 below. 21 This is contradictory and confusing. What Russell means is simply that an expression may have no (real-world) referent at all.


Russell, a definite description does not presuppose reference, and it is not a claim about an individual. In this way, definite descriptions are similar to quan-y p

finite expres-sion such as (15), in fact, expresses a conjunction of three propositions, as shown in (16):

(15) The king of France is bald. (16) 1. There is a king of France (existence)

2. There is only one King of France (uniqueness) 3. This individual is bald (predication)

Formally, the sentence in (15) can be represented as in (17)y

(17) x[KoF(x) bald(x)] These three truth conditions must all be met for the sentence to be true. If one of the propositions is false, the entire conjunction is false. If, then, someone ut-tered this sentence today, it would be false since there exists no king of France. If there were two kings of France, the uniqueness condition would not be met and the sentence would likewise be false. Finally, the sentence would be false if one and only one king of France did in fact exist, but this individual were not bald. Importantly, the uniqueness condition is what distinguishes definite de-scriptions from indefinite ones.

In his famous response to Russell, Strawson (1950) took him to task on sev-eral points; the Russell Strawson debate is still much discussed. I will not, however, detail its particulars here. Suffice it to note that whereas the definite article o

p

The definite article, according to Strawson, implies, or presupposes, that the speaker intends to speak about a particular individual. There is an important difference between assertion and presupposition. If something is presupposed, it is assumed to belong to the common knowledge of the interlocutors. What is asserted, on the other hand, does not belong to the common knowledge. Simpli-fied, we can say that presuppositions are old information, whereas assertions are new information. To Strawson, the definite article presupposes the existence of a unique individual to whom reference is made, but it does not assert it, as it q

Definiteness 25

2.1.2 Definiteness as Familiarity

We have seen that definiteness to Russell is uniqueness. Another important tradition concerning the nature of definiteness is the one following Chris-tophersen (1939), who views definiteness as familiarity. A condition for the use of the definite article, according to Christophersen, is that there is a basis of understanding between speaker and hearer. The use of the definite article re-quires the referent to be familiar not only to the speaker, but also to the ad-dres Now the speaker must always be supposed to know which individual he is thinking of; the interesting thing is that the the-form supposes that the

Familiarity implies that the po-tential meaning of a word

y

which it can be inferred that only one definite individual is meant (Chris-tophersen 1939: 72).

Importantly, an association with previously acquired knowledge is enough for the referent to be familiar. This formulation implies that no knowledge of the specific referent in question is required, only knowledge of something with which the referent can be associated. Thus, the familiarity may be indirect and very slight. For instance, the mention of a book is enough, Christophersen points out, to continue with the author (indirect/associative anaphora) (Chris-tophersen 1939: 73):

(18) I read a book and decided to write to the author.

2.1.2.1 Heim (1982) gives a formal semantic account of (in)definiteness, and as such, her work differs in many respects from that of Christophersen. I discuss it here since Heim, like Christophersen, also argues in favour of definiteness as famili-arity. y

to refer to the information built up in the course of discourse. File cards are discourse referents in the sense of Kart-tunen (1976). The idea is that when a new referent is introduced, a new card is added to the file, and every time the referent is mentioned again, the card is updated with the new information.22

22 Discourse Representation Theory introduced by Kamp (1981) shares many of its ideas with Heim s File change semantics.


on the basis of examples like the following:

(19) [In a store which sells sage plants not individually, but only by flats of

nine] Everybody who bought a sage plant here bought eight others along with it.

(from Heim 1982: 89)

It has unique reference if it is interpreted as picking out one particular sage plant per buyer. But for (19) to be true, Heim argues, it is not necessary to fix p p y y

holds for (20): (20) Every man who owns a donkey owns a second one to keep it company.

(from Heim 1982: 89) Heim, then, adopts the view on definiteness as familiarity instead. In her file change semantics, definite NPs must be familiar, and a noun phrase is familiar if it is co-indexed with a noun phrase that precedes it, that is, with an already existing file card. Conversely, indefinite noun phrases must be novel. To be novel, the noun phrase must not be co-indexed with any preceding noun phrase (Heim 1982: 300).

1939) for not taking referentiality into account as if all noun phrases were referential, which they are not. Consider the following examples:

(21) Bill wants a new car. It should be blue. (22) Every farmer who owns a donkey, beats it.

In both (21) and (22), the underlined noun phrases do not refer to a specific enti-ty in the real world. Rather, reference is to whatever item satisfies the descrip-tion. (21) and (22) also illustrate the fact that non-referential noun phrases, like referential ones, can be both indefinite and definite; a new car and a donkey are indefinite, whereas it is definite.

y

the noun phrases refer to a real-world entity, however, one leaves the definite-ness contrast in non-referential noun phrases unaccounted for (Heim 1982: 299). p

, are not real-world referents. Discourse reference is an abstract and purely formal con-cept, and it is the file cards that are familiar or novel, not real-world referents.

Definiteness 27

By keeping the file cards apart from real-world referents, Heim is able to ac-count for the definiteness contrast in non-referential NPs.

Heim acknowledges that certain types of NPs are problematic for the famili-arity

yp beware of the dogg u-

ation uses the sun is shiningg anaphora (I read a book and decided to write to the author) (Heim 1982: 370 371). Heim opts for a mechanism of accommodation to account for immediate and larger situation uses and asso-ciative anaphora. The idea behind accommodation is that the addressee is will-ing to accept a definite description if he is able to figure out the intended refer-p p

felicity condition and consists of adding to the file enough information to reme-dy the infelicity (Heim 1982: 372).

2.1.3 Definiteness as Inclusiveness

Hawkins (1978) defines definiteness in terms of speech act theory. According to Hawkins (1978), the speaker performs the following speech acts when using the definite article:

He (a) introduces a referent (or referents) to the hearer; and (b) instructs the hearer to lo-s to the totality of the

object or mass within this set which satisfy the referring expression.

(Hawkins 1978: 167)

is a set of objects availa-ble to speaker and hearer to which definite expressions can refer. The set is

a-tion of utterance (Hawkins 1978: 130). As stated in (c), the reference of a definite expression is to the totality of the objects, i.e. all the objects, which satisfy the expression.

To Hawkins (1978), the definite article is a universal quantifier. It refers to all the objects or all the mass in the pragmatically limited domain of quantifica-tion, whereas the sentence as a whole makes some claim about these objects. This property of the definite article is referred to as inclusiveness.23 The Russelli-

23 Inclusiveness is central to the accounts by e.g. Declerck (1986) and Chesterman (1991) as well.


an uniqueness, according to Hawkins, is not a property of definite expressions. Uniqueness only follows from the fact that with singular nouns the totality amounts to one object only (Hawkins 1978: 160).

We find a modified view in Hawkins (1991). Here, he is concerned with sin-gular noun phrases only. Without abandoning the inclusiveness generalisation, he modifies his view that uniqueness is not a property of definite expressions. In fact, the definite article entails existence and uniqueness, uniqueness being extendable to plural NPs.

is not properly defined. In Hawkins (1991) is

p-set

p, and is defined

in terms of Sperber and Wilson (1995) e-

ness in a P-set is conversationally implicated by the definite article. Hawkins (1991) points out that the P-set should always be manifest in actual language use, but not necessarily known in advance. Thus, he is able to account for imme-diate situation uses, but also, for example, larger situation uses and associative anaphora, where there is no prior mutual knowledge. In his earlier work, this was only possible in immediate situation uses.

2.1.4 Definiteness as Identifiability

The final major view on definiteness in the literature is the identifiability view. Identifiability is not very different from familiarity, but there are certain exam-ples that cannot be accounted for in terms of familiarity, for instance the follow-ing: (23) Yesterday I met the love of my life.

Depending on the situation, the love of my life may of course be familiar to the addressee. Yet the crucial point is that she need not be; the definite expression is felicitous even though the addressee has never heard of this person and does not know who she is. In this case, familiarity cannot account for the definite description. Lyons (1999) states the difference between familiarity and identifi-p y

account the tells the hearer that he knows which, on the identifiability account it tells him that he knows which or can work out which (Lyons 1999: 6).

To Lambrecht (1994), the formal grammatical distinction many languages make between definite and indefinite noun phrases, correlates with the cogni-

Definiteness 29

tive distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable referents.24 A referent is

d (Lambrecht 1994: 77 78).

More specifically, identifiability of a referent can be established in one of the following ways (Lambrecht 1994: 87): – The referent is unique because in the universe of discourse there is only one

referent which can be designated by the noun phrase in question (the sun, the president of the United States, John, mom). This includes generics, whether definite or indefinite.

– The referent is identifiable because of its salient status in the pragmatic universe of the speaker and the hearer (NPs like the kids, the car, the clean-ing lady as used e.g. by members of a family)

– The referent is identifiable by deictic or anaphoric reference. This includes inalienable possession (my left arm) and referents otherwise anchored in the individuality of one of the interlocutors ( -husband).

unites all instances of identifiability and justifies expression by a single gram-matical category is the existence of a cognitive frame within which a referent can be identified. As defined by Fillmore (1982: 111, cited in Lambrecht 1994: 90), a frame is a system of concepts organised in such a way that to understand one of them, you have to understand the whole structure in which it fits. When one of the things in such a structure is introduced, all of the others are automat-ically made available.

2.1.4.1 Lyons (1999): The Grammaticalisation of Identifiability Like Lambrecht (1994), who draws a distinction between cognitive identifiabil-ity and the grammatical expression of definiteness, Lyons (1999) distinguishes between the pragmatic concept of identifiability, which is assumed to be pre-sent in all languages, and grammatical definiteness, the formal marking of defi-niteness, which may be lacking. Identifiability means that the hearer is in a position to identify the referent of the noun phrase in question.

24 Definiteness is viewed as identifiability also by Givón (1978) and Gundel et al. (1993; 2001).


Lyons differs from other scholars in assuming that definiteness, strictly y ye-

ly grammatical category. It is clear, however, that definiteness as conceptual-ised by Lyons is based on identifiability. In fact, he sees definiteness as the grammaticalisation of identifiability (Lyons 1999: 278). Like Lambrecht (1994), Lyons acknowledges that there is no exact correspondence between identifiabil-ity and (grammatical) definiteness. First, there are uses of definiteness where identifiability does not fit. Lyons accounts for this in the following way: when identifiability comes to be grammaticalised as definiteness, this category will go on to develop other uses, uses which do not necessarily have anything to do with identifiability (Lyons 1999: 278). Conversely, there may be some instances of identifiability that are not treated as definite in a given language (e.g., gener-ics in English are identifiable, but not always marked as definite). Nevertheless, Lyons states (1999: 278), there is always a large central core of uses of definite-ness relatable directly to identifiability.

2.1.5 Evaluation of the Proposals: Definiteness as the Identifiability of Discourse Referents

So far, we have seen that scholars seek to describe definiteness mainly in terms of uniqueness, familiarity, inclusiveness or identifiability. Most of these theories are not devoid of problems, however. Is it possible to describe definiteness ac-curately by appealing to one of these notions?

Christophersen (1939) and Heim (1982) argue in favour of familiarity (see Section 2.1.2). However, many definite noun phrases are difficult to account for in terms of familiarity. Examples are immediate situation uses like (24), associa-tive/inferable uses like (25) and noun phrases with an establishing relative clause25 like (26):

(24) Beware of the dog! (25) I took the bus and asked the driver to please let me know where to get off. (26) The woman Bill went out with last night

The referent of the noun phrase in these examples is not familiar to the hearer. It can be, but it need not be, and these sentences work perfectly well in situa-

25 Establishing relative clauses establish a referent for the hearer without the need for previ-ous mention (Hawkins 1978: 131).

Definiteness 31

tions where the addressee is not familiar with the referent. An association with another referent, Christophersen (1939) assumes, is enough for the referent to be familiar. This might work in associative uses like (25), if we assume that all the referents associated with a familiar referent are automatically familiar as well. In (24) and (26) it is somewhat far-fetched to argue that the referent is fa-miliar. One could argue with respect to (24) that there is an association with the p

n-tain dogs ), the house possibly being familiar to the addressee. In (26), it is in principle possible to see the woman as associated with Bill, with whom the addressee appears to be familiar. However, the familiarity becomes very slight in these examples, and one should opt for a theory that captures these uses more straightforwardly. As we saw above (in Section 2.1.2.1), Heim accounts for uses like (24)-(26) by assuming a mechanism of accommodation. But again, if another theory of definiteness can account for these uses in a more straightfor-ward manner, without us having to hypothesise a special mechanism, this theo-ry is preferable.

As Hawkins (1978), Heim (1982) and Lyons (1999) observe, uniqueness can y(19)

and (20) above are problematic for a uniqueness account. Also plural noun phrases and mass nouns can hardly be accounted for in terms of uniqueness:

(27) e out the prizes.

(cited in Lyons 1999: 10)

As pointed out by Lyons (1999: 11), one could argue that uniqueness in such cases still applies, but to a set rather than to an individual. He rejects this view, however, stating that the set of the three prizes is not unique in the context since there is also a set consisting of the first and second prize, the second and third prizes, and so on (Lyons 1999: 11). Whether uniqueness works here de-pends on how one defines uniqueness: whether subsets such as that consisting p q

so that they render the reference non-unique. In my opinion, it is not necessarily obvious that reference cannot be unique here. Nevertheless, uniqueness is certainly not unproblematic.

As evidence against inclusiveness, Lyons cites among others the following example:

(28) [In a room with three doors, one of which is open] Close the door, please.

(from Lyons 1999: 14)


(29) [In a hallway where all four doors are closed. The speaker is dressed in coat and hat, and has a suitcase in each hand] Open the door for me, please.


The definition of inclusiveness is that reference is to all the objects in the con-text that satisfy the description. This is clearly not the case in these examples. There are three, respectively four, doors in the context, but reference is to only one of them. In (28), one may argue that the noun phrase refers inclusively to all the open doors in the context, which is only one. Likewise, in (29), it is clear from the situation that the reference is to the front door, and of front doors there is presumably only one. In this way, the noun phrase refers inclusively to all the front doors in the context.

Although it seems possible to argue in favour of definite noun phrases be-ing inclusive, inclusiveness often does not work with demonstrative noun phrases, which are also normally assumed to be definite. Consider the following example:

(30) [Pointing at one of several books in a book shelf] Give me that book,

please.

Like in (28) and (29), the reference here is not to all the objects that satisfy the description. Note, however, that utterances like that in (30) are normally ac-companied by a pointing gesture or some other gesture indicating which book is meant. One may in fact argue that such a gesture is actually part of the demon-strative description, and that the sentence is ungrammatical without it. If the gesture is assumed to be part of the demonstrative description, there is in fact only one object that satisfies the description, and that book does refer inclusive-ly to all the objects that satisfy the description. I leave this discussion for further research and assume for the moment that inclusiveness cannot easily account for examples like (30). It follows from this that demonstratives are either not definite or definiteness is not inclusiveness.

Synchronically, demonstratives and definite articles have partly overlap-ping functions (see Section 2.3 below); they are both used anaphorically, for instance. Diachronically, definite articles often arise from demonstratives. These facts indicate that demonstratives and definite articles are in some way connected, and that they share one or more properties that allow them to be used in the same functions and for the one to develop from the other. Definite articles and demonstratives in fact share the property of signalling an entity

Definiteness 33

which is either known to the addressee in advance or whose identity is possible to figure out, i.e. definiteness. Lyons (1999), however, working within a Chom-skyan framework, argues that demonstratives are not [+DEFINITE] and that their y

i-

articles are [+DEFINITE sition D and its projection DP that are definite, not the elements occupying the D position. Demonstratives, he suggests, are constrained to occur only in definite NPs merely by the fact that they are semantically incompatible with indefiniteness y y y y p

a-tives are incompatible with indefiniteness without being definite. Possibly, the incompatibility with indefiniteness follows from their demonstrative feature (i.e.

p y intuitively

is not indefinite. In this way, demonstratives can in fact be incompatible with indefiniteness without necessarily being [+DEFINITE]. Yet, as Lyons points out, there is an association of demonstratives with definiteness in that they either occupy the D position, which is definiteness according to Lyons, or they are obligatorily accompanied by the definite article (cf. Spanish el hombre aquel, lit. y p y p q

a-tives are not definite. On the other hand, if they are not definite, why are they associated with definiteness? Incompatibility with indefiniteness does not nec-essarily imply an association with definiteness, through the D position or through an accompanying definite article. In any case, whether definiteness is seen as a feature of the demonstrative itself or as a result of the structural posi-tion of the demonstrative, as noted above, demonstrative noun phrases are definite, and should also be accounted for by a theory of definiteness.

It is thus preferable to reject inclusiveness as a theory of definiteness rather than rejecting the definiteness of demonstratives. Note that the reference is not unique in (30) either: such noun phrases are also evidence against a uniqueness account of definiteness.

Identifiability appears to be what can best describe definiteness. Examples (24) to (30) above, which are problematic for uniqueness, familiarity, or inclu-siveness, can all be accounted for by identifiability. Lyons (1999: 9) argues against an identifiability account of definite noun phrases in future and hypo-thetical contexts, as in the following examples:

(31) The winner of this competition will get a week in Bahamas for two.



(32) The man who comes with me will not regret it. (from Lyons 1999: 9)

These examples are non-referential, or non-specific. Reference is not to a par-ticular individual, but to whatever entity satisfies the description; the noun y

in (1982) terminology, from real-world referents, we can uphold the view y p

, it is possible to identify a file card with the title the winner of this competition in (31) and a card with the title the man who comes with me in (32), even though we do not know who the real-world referents of these expressions are. Instead of the

t-r-

ents identifiability of discourse referents. Identifiabil-ity has the advantage of accounting for both familiar, unique and inclusive uses of definite expressions if the discourse referent of a noun phrase is familiar, unique or inclusive, it is also identifiable as well as for instances the other three approaches are not able to account for.

Examples like (28) and (29) above, however, may be viewed as problematic for the account of definiteness as the identifiability of discourse referents. In (28) and (29), the definite descriptions can in fact be straightforwardly account-ed for as identifiability of real-world referents. I want, however, a unified ac-count, and as we have seen, there are cases in which definiteness can only be characterised in terms of identifiability of discourse referents. It is, therefore, desirable to account also for examples like (28) and (29) in terms of identifiabil-ity of discourse referents, but how does the door in (28) and (29) become a dis-course referent?

As I explained above (in Section 2.1.2.1), Heim (1982), in her file change se-mantics, opts for a mechanism of accommodation in order to account for exam-ples like (28) and (29). This mechanism, however, is adopted to fit these kinds of non-familiar definite descriptions into the familiarity hypothesis. Accommoda-tion is not necessary in order to account for (28) and (29) on an identifiability account. In fact, Heim does not discuss the question as to how a real-world referent becomes a card in the file that is, a discourse referent. Implicit in her work, however, is that a real-world referent becomes a file card once it is men-tioned in the discourse. To Karttunen (1976), a discourse referent is established if it is possible to refer back to it by a co-referential pronoun or definite noun phrase later in the discourse. This too seems to imply that a real-world referent, if a discourse referent is in fact established, becomes a discourse referent merely

Accessibility and the Choice of Referring Expression 35

by being introduced into the discourse. That is, in (28) and (29), for instance, by its being mentioned, the door becomes a discourse referent. If the discourse referent has a corresponding real-world referent which it indeed have in (28) and (29)26 the discourse referent is identifiable if the corresponding real-world referent is. Conversely, if the real-world referent is not identifiable, the dis-course referent is not identifiable either. If there is no corresponding real-world referent, it is the discourse referent itself that is identifiable or not. In the follow-

27 i-

fiability of discourse referents. Although the definite/indefinite distinction in-fluences the choice of referring expression in discourse, this is not all there is to it. There are several exponents of (in) definiteness in a language. Definite arti-cles, personal pronouns and demonstratives, for instance, are all exponents of definiteness. I assume that the choice of referring expression is determined by the accessibility of the referent (as well as some other variables not directly relevant to accessibility). In the following section, I outline the theory of acces-sibility and the choice of referring expression in discourse.

2.2 Accessibility and the Choice of Referring Expression

may refer to different concepts. Keenan and Comrie (1977)

y pn-

guistic item to undergo a certain grammatical process, namely relativisation (cf. Section 2.2.1.6). To Ariel (1988; 1990; 1991), on the other hand, accessibility is a psychological and memory-

yp-y y

in the latter sense. From different perspectives several scholars are concerned with the choice

of referring expression in discourse (inter alia Isard, 1975; Linde 1979; Sidner 1983; Li & Thompson 1979; Givón 1983; Grosz et al 1983; Fox 1987; Sanford & Garrod 1981; Bosch 1983; Gundel et al. 1993; Ariel 1990). The approaches and the expressions investigated vary, but the basic assumption is that the choice of

26 Cases in which no real-world referent exists are examples like (21), (22), (31) and (32). 27 When I speak of referents that are present in the immediate (discourse) situation, it is of course the real-world referent that is present in the situation. Nevertheless, there is a discourse referent corresponding to the real-world referent in these cases too, as argued for (28) and (29).


referring expression, or more specifically, the choice of anaphoric expression, is somehow governed by the accessibility of the intended referent.

Based on the above-mentioned works, the basic theoretical assumption of the present study is that the accessibility of the referent is what determines the p y y

s adopted from Ariel (1988; 1990; 1991), we will not only make use of her assumptions and claims as to what determines the accessibility of a referent, but just as much of insights from other works on referential choice in discourse.

In addition to accessibility, there are certain other variables that are not strictly speaking accessibility determining, but that may nevertheless influence the choice of referring expression. In the following I survey the variables that are thought to influence accessibility and hence the choice of referring expres-sion (Section 2.2.1), as well as some other variables that may influence this choice without being (directly) accessibility determining (Section 2.2.2), before I y y

(Section 2.2.4).

2.2.1 The Variables Determining Accessibility

2.2.1.1 Givenness Status First, the givenness status of a referent correlates with accessibility or, more precisely, we should say that givenness status reflects accessibility. That is, accessibility is a speaker-oriented notion in the sense that it has to do with the y

sumptions about the mental status of the referent in the memory of the addressee. Givenness status, on the other hand, is hearer based; it encodes how the addressee determines the reference of the noun phrase. There is never-theless a correlation between th

p

the reference of the noun phrase. Givenness status and accessibility are two different, but related, concepts.

Ariel (1990) too, takes a similar view. She shows that there is no one-to-one relationship between givenness status as defined in terms of contexts (see the next paragraph) and referring expression. She therefore argues in favour of replacing givenness by accessibility as the principal factor determining the choice of referring expression in discourse, yet recognising that accessibility is dependent on givenness status insofar as the various degrees of accessibility are not arbitrarily related to context-types (Ariel 1990: 5 11).


Ariel (1990) defines givenness in terms of contexts.28 -new ref-erents are retrieved either from general/encyclopaedic knowledge, from the physical context or from the linguistic context. The following ranking of these p y

Figure 1: Accessibility ranking of givenness statuses in Ariel (1990)

The approach of Gundel et al. (1993) to givenness is not context-based. Rather, they define givenness in terms of cognitive activation states. The Givenness hierarchy as given in Gundel et al. (1993: 275) is as follows:

In focus > Activated > Familiar > Uniquely

identifiable > Referential > Type

identifiable

Figure 2: The Givenness hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993)

The degree of accessibility or cognitive activation in Gundel et terms decreases from left to right. The definitions of the cognitive statuses are as follows. When a referent is in focus, it is represented in short-term memory p

. The cognitive status acti-vated means that the referent is represented in short-term memory, but is not at the current centre of attention. Both activated referents and referents in focus are previously mentioned in the discourse. A referent that is familiar is repre-sented in memory. According to Gundel et al. (1993: 278) the representation is either in short-term memory or in long-term memory. However, if the referent is present in short-

y yl-p

th representation in long-term memory, if a distinction between a cogni-tive status

y

familiar referents belong to the general (world) knowledge of the addressee or the shared knowledge of speaker and hearer. When the referent is uniquely iden-tifiable

ye

28 That is, a DRT-like view on givenness, see Section 3.1.3.1 below.

Most accessible Linguistic context Physical context Least accessible Encyclopaedic context


of the nominal alone. Referential means that the speaker intends to refer to a particular object or objects. The addressee must either retrieve an existing rep-resentation of the referent or construct a new representation of it.29 Finally, the status type identifiable signals that the addressee is able to access a representa-tion of the type of object described by the expression.30

In sum, it follows from Ariel (1990) as well as from Gundel et al. (1993) that the givenness status of the referent influences accessibility. Moreover, as Ariel (1990) shows, the degree of accessibility varies within each givenness status category as well. This holds true especially for the referents that are mentioned previously in the discourse, as is reflected also in the fact that Gundel et al. (1993) distinguish two groups of previously mentioned referents, namely refer-ents in focus, and referents that are activated. The accessibility determining variables I discuss in the remaining part of this section apply to previously men-tioned referents.

2.2.1.2 Distance to the Antecedent Scholars have observed that the distance to the antecedent affects the accessi-bility of a referent. Givón (1983), for instance, notices the importance of distance as a factor affecting topic availability. Similarly, Beaver (2004: 26) assumes that distance is a constraint to which possible topics are sensitive; the longer dis-tance to the antecedent, the less likely a referent is to be a topic. Givón and Bea-ver are concerned with the possibility of a referent being a topic. Since topics are a special type of highly accessible referents, it nevertheless follows that distance is a factor which is relevant for the accessibility of a referent, and I believe antecedent distance is not only relevant for topic availability, but for the choice of anaphoric expression in general.

Chafe (1976; 1994), for instance, points out that the longer time from the last mention of a referent, the more information the addressee need to retrieve the intended referent. That is, the longer the distance to the antecedent, the less accessible the intended referent is, and the more informative anaphoric expres-sion we can expect. In the same vein, Garrod & Sanford (1982: 33) point out that

29 This cognitive status seems rather restricted. Gundel et al. (1993) assume that indefinite this in English requires this status (as in I saw this guy yesterday he was like so alpha, he looked like a football player, kinda 66 4 and like really big but toned (extract from a web forum post)). 30 The indefinite article in english requires the cognitive status uniquely identifiable, see below in 2.2.3)


pronouns tend to show antecedents that are recently mentioned, that is, highly accessible.

Ariel (1990) identifies several variables determining the accessibility of a referent and hence the choice of referring expression, but focuses on the dis-tance to the antecedent in number of sentences as the main variable influencing accessibility. More specifically, she shows that when the antecedent is in the same sentence, the anaphoric expression chosen is most frequently a pronoun. Demonstratives and definite NPs are rarely chosen. Antecedents in the previous sentence too prefer pronoun anaphors. Further away in the same paragraph, definite NPs and pronouns are almost equally frequent. If the antecedent is not in the same paragraph, a definite NP is preferred (Ariel 1990: 19).

2.2.1.3 Antecedent within the Current Frame/Sequence/Paragraph? Another variable but related to distance that has been shown to be relevant to the choice of anaphoric expression is whether or not the antecedent is within the same scenery/frame/sequence/paragraph. The terminology varies, but the idea is the same, namely that a discourse consists of minor units and that the choice of anaphoric expression is sensitive to the boundaries between these units.

As already mentioned, Ariel (1990: 19) finds that the choice of expressions depends on whether the antecedent is inside or utside the current paragraph. Sanford & Garrod (1981) show that change of scenery or frame affects the state of the working memory and is crucial, especially for high accessibility markers. That is to say, high accessibility markers i.e. pronouns (see Section 2.2.3 be-low) refer to entities within the current scenery or frame, and rarely to entities outside the current scenery/frame. Similarly, Fox (1987) argues that the choice between a full NP anaphor and a pronominal anaphor is determined by the presence or absence of an antecedent within the same sequence.

, or Itinerar-

ium Egeriae, is the chapter boundary. Each chapter in the Itinerarium Egeriae consists of one paragraph, the chapters are short, and generally contain a single series of connected and interrelated events. As we have seen, Ariel (1990) shows that paragraph boundaries play a role for the choice of expression. A chapter and a sequence/frame might not always correspond exactly. I nevertheless be-lieve chapter boundaries to be good indicators of change in sequence/frame. Moreover, chapter boundaries are marked in my electronic corpus, allowing the automatic retrieval of information on whether the antecedent is inside or out-


side the current chapter. In addition to chapters, the sections (subchapters) in the Itinerarium Egeriae, too, constitute minor sequences to whose boundaries the anaphoric expressions may be sensitive. Accordingly, I will examine the anaphoric expressions with respect to both chapters and sections.

2.2.1.4 Animacy Animacy is relevant for various grammatical phenomena.31 Animacy categories are commonly organised in hierarchies, where humans can be said to be more accessible than other referents. A common representation of the animacy hier-archy is one based on the tripartite distinction between HUMAN, ANIMATE and INANIMATE, which, as far as I know, goes back to Silverstein (1976): (33) HUMAN > ANIMATE > INANIMATE As regards the choice of referring expression, Dahl and Fraurud (1996) show, on the basis of written Swedish corpus data, that animacy is a strong determinant for the choice between pronominal forms and full NPs. In particular, they show that HUMAN and non-HUMAN referents behave differently with respect to pronom-inalisation; humans are more likely to be pronominalised than non-humans.

Finer-grained animacy categories than the tripartition shown in (33) can be identified. The animacy annotation in the electronic corpus I used for the pre-sent study is based on such a finer-grained distinction (more on this in Section 3.1.4 below).

2.2.1.5 Antecedent Topicality As Ariel (1990: 22 23) points out, (mainly discourse topics) constitute the most salient [i.e. accessible] entities more often than not In fact, topical ante-cedents, she states, are more accessible than non-topical ones regardless of the distance to the antecedent (Ariel 1990: 23 24). Gundel et al. (1993) too, assume that topical referents are highly accessible. To them, the topic of the preceding utterance, as well as any still-relevant, higher- i.e. on top of the givenness hierarchy (Gundel et al. 1993: 279).

Antecedent topicality seems to be particularly relevant to the difference be-tween pronouns and full NPs. A number of studies have shown either that top-

31 See e.g. Comrie (1981: 181 187) for an overview of phenomena controlled by animacy cross-linguistically.


ics32 are preferably picked up by pronouns, or vice versa, that pronouns typical-ly refers to the current topic of discourse (inter alia Purkiss 1978; Linde 1979; Sanford & Garrod 1981; Grosz et al. 1983; 1995; Sidner 1983; Gundel et al. 1993). These findings also imply that a non-topical referent is more likely to be picked up by a full NP than by a pronominal form.

Since there is good reason to assume that antecedent topicality influences the accessibility of a referent, it is important to have a clear understanding of y p

definitions in the literature: Strawson (1964) defines the topic of an utterance as (Strawson 1964: 104). Similarly, to Rein-

hart (1981: 5) the topic ion whose referent the sen-tence is about . Gundel (1985),

Beaver (2004) -looking centre in the Centering Theory of Grosz et al. (1995). y

aboutness topic. .33 We

find an adequate definition of topic in Lambrecht (1994):

TOPIC: A referent is interpreted as the topic of a proposition if in a given situation the prop-osition is construed as being about the referent, i.e. as expressing information which is releva

(Lambrecht 1994: 131)

It is often difficult to determine what the topic of a sentence is. In trying to iden-tify the topic, several aspects of the noun phrase are relevant. First, givenness status interacts with topicality. As Lambrecht (1994: 164 165) and Krifka & Mu-san (2012: 28) correctly point out, there is no one-to-one relationship between old information and topic. Nevertheless, topics must have a degree of pragmatic accessibility, and sentences with insufficiently accessible topics tend to be ill-formed (Lambrecht 1994: 160 165). According to the topic acceptability scale of

32 The terminology varies greatly here. Grosz et al. (1983; 1995) speak of centre , Linde (1979) of focus of attention , Gundel et al. (1993) of referents in focus , Chafe (1972) of foregrounded entities, Sidner (1983) of focus , Sanford & Garrod (1981) of topic . All these terms refer more or less to the same thing, namely the referent which is (or is assumed by the speaker to be) cur-rently the most highly activated one in the addressee s memory. 33 For simplicity I will henceforth use the term topic to refer to aboutness topics.


Lambrecht (1994: 165), the more easily accessible a referent is, the more ac-ceptable it is as the topic of the sentence:34

Active35 most acceptable Accessible36 Unused37 Brand-new anchored least acceptable

Figure 3: The topic acceptability scale of Lambrecht (1994: 165)

Active referents are the preferred topics. An active referent is usually realised as an unaccented pronominal form (Lambrecht 1994: 165). Accessible referents are also frequently occurring topics. Unused referents, on the other hand, can be topics only with difficulty, and brand-new referents are unacceptable as topics, Lambrecht states (1994:

y p p

(see footnote 35), Lambrecht is indeed right that brand-new referents are infre-quent topics.

In addition to givenness status, word order interacts with topicality. Tradi-tionally, topics have been associated with the initial position of the sentence (Lambrecht 1994: 117, 199 with references). Even though there is good reason to

- m-brecht 1994: 199 205), it accounts for the most general case of topic placement, and we should therefore consider word order when trying to identify topics.

Syntactic function is also relevant for identifying the topic of a sentence. There is cross-linguistically a strong correlation between the syntactic function subject and topic (Lambrecht 1994: 131 132). Yet it is important to keep in mind that we cannot equate topic with subject; topics are found in other syntactic functions as well. Finally, animacy is shown to have importance for the likeli-

34 opic acceptability is not a good term because all referents are acceptable as topics. However, some are more frequent as topics, or more likely to be topics, than others. 35 Referents that are currently active in the discourse in focus in Gundel et al. s (1993) terminology. 36 Referents that have been active earlier in the discourse or are inferable from some other active or accessible referent. 37 Referents that are present in the addressee"s long-term memory familiar in Gundel et al. s (1993) terminology.


ness of a referent to be a topic. The higher the referent is on the animacy hierar-chy, the more likely it is to be a topic (Comrie 1981: 191; Croft, 2003: 178).

Since it is difficult to identify the topic of a sentence, for the present study, topics were identified automatically by a program that uses these (and other) variables, more on which will be said in Section 3.1.3.

at a sentence is about, and topics are highly accessible. There is apparently a chicken/egg prob-lem here: are topics highly accessible because they are topics, or are they topics because they are highly accessible? A solution to this problem is not decisive for my study, however. Besides, one might argue that topicality and accessibility are just two sides of the same coin, one implying the other, without any causali-ty or directionality. Hence, I do not discuss this problem any further.

As we saw above, we can use certain variables to identify the topic of a sen-tence. Several of these variables are the same that determine accessibility. This follows naturally from the fact that topics are highly accessible referents. In using these variables to identify topics, however, one may get the impression that a referent becomes a topic through showing certain characteristics. We must be aware, however, that these variables are not what make a referent a topic. Rather, it is the other way around: the variables are used to determine what is already a topic, on the assumption that topics tend to show certain properties.

2.2.1.6 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent The syntactic function of the antecedent has been thought to play a role for the accessibility of a referent and hence for the choice of anaphoric expression.

Since Keenan & Comrie (1977), it is commonly assumed that there is a hier-archy of syntactic functions, where certain functions are more accessible38 than others:

(34) SU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP39 (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 66)

38 As mentioned in the introduction to Section 2.2, Keenan and Comrie use accessibilityy in a different sense than I do. 39 SU = subject, DO = direct object, IO = indirect object, OBL = major oblique case NP , i.e. arguments of verbs that are not direct or indirect objects, GEN = genitive, OCOMP = object of comparison.


Although the hierarchy was originally formulated with reference to the accessi-bility of noun phrases for relativisation, as pointed out by Keenan and Comrie y y

r-mining the accessibility of noun phrases as candidates and targets for syntactic processes (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 96). In fact, we can see the hierarchy as a grammaticalisation of my psychological notion of accessibility. Furthermore, Ariel assumes that the hierarchy of Keenan & Comrie indeed correlates with memory-

yt-

ly associated with various Accessibility rates should, I believe, be accounted for by the Keenan-Comrie NP Accessibility hierarchy, thus motivating the correla-tion between topics and subjects, etc. (Ariel 1990: 225).

Givón (1983) gives a simplified hierarchy of syntactic functions, distinguish-ing only between subjects, direct objects and other functions:

(35) SUBJ > DO > OTHERS (Givón 1983: 22)

In other words, subjects are assumed to be more accessible than objects, and objects in turn are more accessible than antecedents in other syntactic func-tions. In general, I will restrict myself to the three-way distinction as given in Givón (1983). On differences in accessibility between different syntactic func-tions see also Chafe (1976), Brennan et al. (1987), Crawley & Stevenson (1990), Halmari (1996), Kaiser (2000) inter alia.

As regards syntactic function of the antecedent as an accessibility-determining factor, note that it is not obvious that it is the syntactic function per se that determines the accessibility. Rather, it is possible to imagine the low accessibility of objects as compared to subjects, for instance, as a result of ob-jects being less central referents in discourse not because they are objects, but because objects are typically new referents, for instance. I will not pursue the possible epiphenomenal status of syntactic function here, however. In either case, whether syntactic function as an accessibility-determining factor is a pri-mary concept or it merely reflects other properties, it remains the case that ref-erents in certain syntactic functions are less accessible than others.

2.2.1.7 Form of the Antecedent A further variable that may influence accessibility is the form with which the referent is realised (pronoun, full NP etc.) in its previous mention. In particular,


it has been claimed that realisation in pronominalised form, especially as a null pronoun, increases the accessibility of the referent (Walker et al. 1994; Kameyama 1999; Kaiser 2003: 134 inter alia).

In sum, pronominal antecedents are more accessible than full NPs. Full NPs may in turn be more accessible than other antecedent types, i.e. events and propositions. Null pronouns have no semantic content on their own; they ac-quire their semantic content from the context. Since null pronouns have no semantic content in themselves, they do not provide any clues that help the addressee identify the intended referent. Hence, for the addressee to identify the intended referent of a null pronoun, this referent must be very highly accessible

more so than the referent of an overt pronominal form (see Section 2.2.3 be-low). Accordingly, the antecedents referred to by a null pronoun are more ac-cessible than antecedents referred to by an overt pronominal form. The ante-cedent forms can therefore be ranked as follows, from most accessible to least accessible: – Null pronouns – Overt pronominal forms – Full NPs – Other

2.2.1.8 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs According to Bever & Townsend (1979: 167) and processed more deeply than subordinate clauses, suggesting that the refer-ents of main clauses are more accessible than those of subordinate clauses. K 0) Finnish data indicate that referents appearing in main clauses are indeed more accessible than referents in subordinate clauses.

Subordinate clause antecedents, however, are presumably less accessible only when the anaphor itself is not in the same complex sentence as the ante-cedent. When the anaphor and antecedent are in the same complex sentence, there is no reason to believe that the antecedent is less accessible than if it were in a main clause. Specifically, this holds for examples of the following type, which are abundant in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

(36) We came to the place where Mosesi stood when hei received the tablets

from the Lord.


In sum, an antecedent appearing in a subordinate clause is less accessible than an antecedent that appears in a main clause only if reference crosses a complex sentence boundary.

2.2.2 Other Variables that May Influence the Choice of Referring Expression

As we have seen in the preceding sections, properties of the antecedent and the left context, as well as properties of the referent itself, influence accessibility, and by virtue of this, also the choice of anaphoric expression. Other variables are not directly relevant for the accessibility of the referent, but may neverthe-less influence the choice of expression. Notably, this holds for the presence or absence of competitors to the role of antecedent, syntactic function and topicali-ty of the anaphor itself and the type of head noun in the noun phrase. In addi-tion, backward and forward saliency may be relevant.

2.2.2.1 Competitors to the Role of Antecedent40 The presence or absence of other possible antecedents of the anaphor may in-fluence the choice of expression. Givón (1983) points to the role of ambiguity as a factor affecting topic availability. More precisely, when there are no competi-tors to the role of antecedent, the referent is highly accessible. If there are com-peting referents present in the context, on the other hand, the referent is less accessible (see also Fox 1987; Ariel 1990: 28).41

It is not obvious, however, which referents should be registered as competi-pe-

tween 1 and 5 clause to the left (Givón 1983: 14). Fox (1987) record as competi-tors the intervening referents that have the same gender as the intended referents, whereas Pennell Ross (1996) considers as competitors the intervening referents that are compatible with the number and gender of the intended refer-ent.

40 The presence or absence of competitors and the type of head noun in the anaphoric noun phrase (Section 2.2.2.2 below) are not properties of the antecedent or the referent, and as such they do not directly influence the accessibility of the referent in the same way as the variables discussed in Section 2.2.1. Rather, the intended referent becomes less accessible through the relatively high availability/accessibility of other referents. Hence, these variables are discussed in this section. 41 Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) discuss the role of competitors on the choice between the Classical Latin subject expressions (see Chapter 5).


Following Givón (1983), Fox (1987) and Pennell Ross (1996) I consider pos-sible competitors to be the referents that intervene between the anaphor and its antecedent. Admittedly, referents that are mentioned in the context immediate-ly preceding the antecedent can also be competitors. Consider the following example:

(37) Bill gave Johni a present, but hei

Here, both Bill and John are in principle possible referents of he. That is, Bill is a competitor to John to the role of antecedent even though Bill does not intervene between the antecedent and the anaphor. The problem, however, is that while referents intervening between the antecedent and the anaphor are always pos-sible competitors, referents that are not intervening are not necessarily competi-tors. The further back a referent is mentioned, they less likely it is to be a com-petitor. If we were to consider possible competitors not only the referents intervening between the anaphor and the antecedent, but referents mentioned further back as well, how far back should a referent be registered as a possible competitor? This would have to be determined arbitrarily. In order to avoid that, I choose to consider as possible competitors only the referents intervening be-tween the anaphor and its antecedent.

Not all intervening referents are competitors, however. The verb disambig-uates for number, so that competitors of null pronouns are only those interven-ing referents that have the same number as the intended referent. If the ana-phoric expression is an overt pronominal form, the overt pronominal contains information on gender in addition to the information on number expressed by the verb. Thus, competitors of overt pronominal forms are only the intervening referents that have the same number and gender as the intended referent.

2.2.2.2 Type of Head Noun in the Anaphoric Noun Phrase This variable is relevant for full NPs. When the head noun of the anaphoric noun phrase is of such general character as to make several possible referents available, the task of identifying the intended referent becomes more difficult. This seems to apply in particular to time expressions and place expressions. Such general nouns are place, time, hour and so on, which specify the intended referent only to a limited extent. Consider the following example: (38) We arrived in Italy on Mondayi. On that dayii


It is not obvious in this example that that day actually refers to Monday. This is shown by the fact that a demonstrative (which is more informative than a definite article, see Section 2.2.4 below) is used instead of a definite article, and in fact seems to be necessary to make the intended referent identifiable:

(39) ?? We arrived in Italy on Mondayi. On the dayii

2.2.2.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor Not all expressions may be possible in all syntactic functions. As we will see, syntactic function influences first and foremost the choice between a null pro-noun and other expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae. It may, however, be rele-vant for other expressions as well.

2.2.2.4 Topicality of the Anaphor As mentioned above (Section 2.2.1.5, see also Givón 1983; Lambrecht 1994), the preferred topic expressions are pronominal forms, and hence the topicality of the anaphor itself may influence the choice of anaphoric expression, in particu-lar the choice between pronominal forms and full NPs, but other expressions may be sensitive to topicality as well.

2.2.2.5 Backward and Forward Saliency Following Givón (1983), Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) discuss the Classical Latin subject expressions with respect to the number of mentions made to the referent in the preceding context, as well as the tendency of the referent to be picked up in the later discourse and for the noun phrase to refe p-p

Hence, I discuss these variables in Chapter 5 on the pronominal forms.42

42 The effect of these variables on the choice between full NP anaphors and pronominal anaphors and on the choice between the various forms of full NPs is not clear; the expressions showed no clear or interesting tendencies. Therefore, I do not discuss these variables in Chap-ter 4 and 6.


2.2.3 Correlations between Accessibility and Various Referring Expressions

In Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 I reviewed several variables that are assumed to influ-ence the accessibility of a referent and/or the choice of expression. The question remains, however, as to how accessibility correlates with the referring expres-sions in a language. That is, what is the accessibility required by the different forms?

Gundel et al. (1993) connect each of the referring expressions with a particu-lar cognitive status. Their Givenness hierarchy was given in 2.2.1.1 above. I re-peat it here with the (English) forms associated with each cognitive status (higher cognitive status = higher accessibility in my terminology):

In focus > Activated > Familiar >

Uniquely identifiable > Referential >

Type identifiable

it that this

this N

that N the N Indefinite this N

a N

Figure 4: The Givenness hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993), with forms

The status ustatus. It is the minimum cognitive status that the referent must have in order for the use of that form to be felicitous. The statuses are implicationally related. This entails that a form can encode not only its necessary and sufficient status, but all higher statuses as well. For instance, the, which requires the status q

v-ertheless, the use of a form lower in the hierarchy to refer to a referent of higher cognitive status is sometimes inappropriate, or it conveys some special effect, a pp p y p

(Gundel et al. 1993: 294 303) (more on this in the following Section 2.2.4).


Ariel (1990: 73) gives the following, highly detailed, accessibility marking scale:

Low accessibility Full name + modifier 43 Long definite description Short definite description Last name First name Distal demonstrative + modifier Proximal demonstrative + modifier Distal demonstrative (+NP) Proximal demonstrative (+NP) Stressed pronoun + gesture Stressed pronoun Unstressed pronoun Cliticised pronoun

High accessibility Extremely High Accessibility Markers [i.e. gaps, including pro, pro and wh traces, reflexives, and Agreement]44

Figure 5: The accessibility scale of Ariel (1990: 73)

The main distinction made by Ariel (1990) is between high accessibility mark-ers, intermediate accessibility markers and low accessibility markers. The high accessibility markers include pronouns and gaps, intermediate accessibility markers are (pronominal) demonstratives, whereas definite descriptions (full NPs) are low accessibility markers (see also Ariel 2001). The same three-way distinction can be derived from the Givenness hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993). Given this, a simplified accessibility hierarchy like the following can be as-sumed (see also Kaiser, 2011): (40) Pronouns > demonstratives > full NPs

43 Namy names are archetypal proper names like Joan Smith, as opposed to less archetypal ones like (The) Alliance) (Ariel, 1990: 44). 44 In my opinion, grammatical categories like traces and agreement do not belong in the accessibility hierarchy because they are purely abstract syntactic entities which are not used for referent tracking.


In addition, since pronominal forms are less informative i.e. contain less in-formation assisting the addressee in identifying the referent than full NPs, I assume there is a main distinction between pronominal forms (including pro-nominal demonstratives) on the one hand, and full NPs (including demonstra-tive NPs45) on the other, a fact which is not stated clearly in the literature. More-over, null pronouns

y

because they contain no information at all (but receive their semantic content from the context, as I pointed out in Section 2.2.1.7 above). Therefore, null pro-nouns require even higher accessibility than overt pronominal forms. In sum, we can establish the following accessibility hierarchy:

High accessibility

Pronominal forms Null pronouns

Overt personal pronouns Pronominal demonstratives

Full NPs Demonstrative NPs

Low accessibility Definite NPs

Figure 6: The accessibility hierarchy

So far, we have seen the variables that affect accessibility as well as certain other variables that may influence the choice of referring expression. This is not all there is to it, however. More specifically, certain cooperative principles, as formulated by Grice (1975), play a role too. This will become clear in the follow-ing section.

2.2.4 Accessibility and G

As we saw in Section 2.2.3, Gundel et al. (1993) assume that their Givenness hierarchy is implicational, so that a form that is lower in the hierarchy a lower accessibility marker can be used to refer to a referent higher in the hierarchy a more accessible referent. As I pointed out above, however, the use of a lower form to refer to a referent higher in the hierarchy is sometimes inappropriate, or

45 I use the term demonstrative NP to refer to noun phrases that consist of a demonstrative determiner and a head noun with or without attributes (that (popular) book). The same term is used by e.g. Apothéloz & Reichler-Béguelin (1999). Gundel et al. (1993; 2001) speak of demon-strative phrases .


it conveys some special effect. This holds true primarily for the pronominal forms. As regards the full NPs, Gundel et al. (1993) note, it is frequently the case that a lower form is used to refer to a referent which is higher in the hierarchy. y

p-proach.

Grice assumes that conversation is governed by what he calls the coopera-tive principle, namely that the interlocutors are expected to make their conversa-p p y p

accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice 1975: 45). The cooperative principle is stated in four maxims, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation and the maxim of man-ner. As already mentioned, of relevance to us here is the maxim of quantity.

The maxim of quantity, as given in Grice (1975: 45), consists of the following two principles: 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current pur-

poses of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

We can refer to the former as Q1, the latter as Q2. With respect to the division between demonstrative NPs and definite NPs, we have seen that definite NPs are lower accessibility markers than demonstrative NPs in the hierarchies of both Ariel (1990) and Gundel et al. (1993). Whereas demonstrative NPs in the terminology of Gundel et al. (1993) require the referent to be familiar, it is enough for a definite NP that the referent be uniquely identifiable. Since a famil-iar referent is also uniquely identifiable, definite NPs can refer to familiar refer-ents as well, and they often do. In fact, a demonstrative NP will be used only if there is good reason for it (Gundel et al. 1993: 301). According to Gundel et al.

do not make your contribution more informative than is required , ensures that the lowest possible form, viz. the definite article, is used even when the referent is of a higher cognitive status and thus a demon-strative would be possible as well. That is, a definite article is normally pre-ferred to an adnominal demonstrative even when the referent is familiar.

Regarding the relationship between pronominal demonstratives and per-sonal pronouns

p p interacts with the Givenness hierar-

chy in another way. According to Gundel et al. (1993: 293), the first part of the y y

required ) secures the use of an unstressed personal pronoun in most cases, even though a demonstrative is in principle possible because a referent that is in focus (the status required by personal pronouns), is also activated (the status


required by pronominal demonstratives). The point is that when a demonstra-tive is used, Q1 conversationally implicates that the referent is not in focus (Gundel et al. 1993: 297). This renders a demonstrative inappropriate when the referent is in focus. Rather, Gundel et al. (1993: 293) point out that demonstra-tives signal a focus shift (following Isard 1975; Linde 1979, Bosch 1983 and Sid-ner 1983), precisely because the referent in such cases is not in focus.

The claim that a demonstrative is not suitable when the referent is highly y

) which is at work in the case of personal pronouns vs. pronominal demonstratives

pa-

tive than required ) is at work in the case of definite articles vs. adnominal demonstratives300) explanation relates to the fact that pronominal forms have little descriptive content, and information about cognitive status is crucial for the identification of the referent. Full NPs, on the other hand, contain more descriptive content, which makes an explicit signal of cognitive status unnecessary.

It is implicit in the work of Gundel et al. (1993) that the higher form in the Givenness hierarchy, the more informative. This is not necessarily so. Informa-tiveness in a Gricean sense, I believe, must be seen independently of the Givenness hierarchy, and both Q1 and Q2 are at work in the relation between definite articles and adnominal demonstratives as well as in the relation be-tween personal pronouns and pronominal demonstratives. According to Gundel et al. (1993), adnominal demonstratives are more informative than definite arti-cles, whereas pronominal demonstratives are less informative than personal pronouns. This follows from the fact that adnominal demonstratives are higher in the Givenness hierarchy than definite articles, and that pronominal demon-stratives are lower than personal pronouns.

In my opinion, demonstratives are in both cases the most informative de-vices. As we will see in Section 2.3, whereas definite articles and personal pro-nouns are [+DEFINITE], demonstratives are [+DEFINITE] and [+DEMONSTRATIVE]. In this sense, demonstratives are more informative than both definite articles and personal pronouns, because they not only indicate that the referent is identifia-ble and thus definite, but also make the reference clear b the intended referent and contrasting it with other possible referents, either in the real world or in the discourse (see below in Section 2.3).

In the case of adnominal demonstratives vs. definite articles, then, Q2 ) secures the use of a definite article

unless there is good reason to use a demonstrative instead because demonstra-tives are more informative. This is the view taken by Gundel et al. (1993) as well.


When the referent is relatively highly accessible, as in the following example, a demonstrative NP is not impossible, but it is unnecessary and seems somewhat too s

(41) a. We reached the valley which leads up to the mount of God. The valley

is truly huge. When we came to the valley, we... b. ? We reached the valley which leads up to the mount of God. That/this val-

ley is truly huge. When we came to that/this valley, we...

It seems that the result of substituting a definite NP with a demonstrative NP is not as bad as substituting a personal pronoun for a pronominal demonstrative, cf. example (43) below. This is probably because full NPs are more informative than pronominal forms; hence, the exact form of the full NP is of less im-portance.

for a demonstrative to appear is when accessibility is so low that it would not be made clear by a definite article that the reference is to the previously mentioned referent. In this case Q1 Make your contribution as in-formative as is required ) makes a demonstrative appear. Anaphorically, a more informative demonstrative is necessary as a means of explicitly signalling that the referent is in fact previously mentioned:

(42) a. One valuable outcome of these organizational studies was the

refinement of our notions of three different approaches that could be incorporated in an automated message filtering system. We refer to

these [those?] techniques as the cognitive, social, and economic ap-proaches to information filtering.

(Thomas Malone et al., Intelligent information sharing systems. Communications of the ACM 30(5): 391 (1987),

cited in Gundel et al. 1993: 302) b. ? We refer to the techniques as the cognitive, social, and economic

approaches to information filtering.

The relationship between pronominal demonstratives and personal pronouns is p p p p

et al. 1993), a personal pronoun suffices, and a demonstrative would be more ):

(43) a. A UFO was seen over Oslo today. It was blue. b. * A UFO was seen over Oslo today. That/this was blue.

Definite Articles, Personal Pronouns and Demonstratives 55

The UFO is highly accessible because it is what the sentence is about (the topic). A demonstrative in this case would imply the presence of some other UFO in the context with some other quality than the colour blue.

When accessibility q y

n-formative as required

y) in order to make it clear that the intended referent is not

the one which is in focus, viz. most highly accessible, but some less accessible entity. This holds for (44), for instance:

(44) a. And the living room was a very very small room with two windows that y

that. (from Linde 1979: 348)

b. * And the living room was a very very small room with two windows

that y

it.

A personal pronoun would imply that that reference was to the living room, which is what the sentence is about (the topic) and also highly accessible. More information than that provided by a personal pronoun is necessary for identify-ing the correct referent, and a demonstrative is therefore imposed. Taking this view on informativeness, one avoids the problem of why it is Q1 that is at work in the one case and Q2 in the other, since both principles apply to both cases.

2.3 Definite Articles, Personal Pronouns and Demonstratives

2.3.1 Definite Articles

Following Lyons (1999), we can describe a deseems to have as its sole or principal role to indicate the definiteness [...] of the noun phrase (Lyons 1999: 1). In other words, definite articles are [+DEFINITE], as already mentioned. Since definiteness in Section 2.1.5 was argued to consist in identifiability, this means that the definite article can appear in a noun phrase whose referent is identifiable. This also coincides with the assumption by Gun-del et al. (1993) that the definite article signals that the referent is uniquely iden-tifiable (see Section 2.2.3 above).

There are many ways in which a referent can be identifiable. Definite arti-cles are therefore used in several different functions. Examples of the various uses a definite article may have in a language are shown in (45) through (52): Anaphora:


(45) Once upon a time there was a king. The king had three daughters.

Indirect anaphora:46 (46) I took the bus and asked the driver to please tell me where to get off.

With an establishing relative clause or other modifier: (47) The woman Bill went out with last night wants to marry me.

Immediate situation uses: (48) Beware of the dog!

General world knowledge (49) and shared knowledge of speaker and addressee: (49) Newspaper heading:

After the tsunamii

(50) Husband to his wife: If you pick up the childrenn

Uniques: (51) The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old.

Generics: (52) The lion is a mammal.

2.3.2 Personal Pronouns

Personal pronouns can be regarded the pronominal counterpart to definite arti-cles (e.g. Lyons 1999), 47 and, as already mentioned, like definite articles they are [+DEFINITE]. Because they contain little information assisting the addressee in

46 Called inferable by Prince (1981), associative anaphora by Himmelmann (1996). 47 in fact argues that personal pronouns derive transformationally from definite articles.


identifying the referent, however, they are much more restricted in their uses than are definite articles, which always accompany a noun (or other element). Personal pronouns are high accessibility markers (see 2.2.3 above), and their primary use is anaphoric (E.g. Isard, 1975: 289; Chafe 1994, 97; Gundel et al. 1993): (53) The womani Billj went out with last night says shei wants to marry himj. Note, however, that personal pronouns have non-anaphoric uses too (shown e.g. for present-day English by Wales, 1996: 36 42). Bosch (1983) cites the fol-lowing example (Bosch 1983: 146): (54) The man who shows he deserves it will get the price he desires.

Here, it refers cataphorically forward to the price he desires. Example (54) is non-specific; there is no real-world referent corresponding to the discourse referent. Also in specific contexts like the following, a personal pronoun is pos-sible: (55) If you show you deserve it, you will get the price. Moreover, a personal pronoun is possible in examples like the following, where the noun phrase contains additional information that assists the addressee in identifying the referent (in this case an establishing relative clause): (56) He who won got the price. The cataphoric use of personal pronouns (as in (54) and (55)) as well as the use of personal pronouns with an establishing relative clause or another modifier (as in (56))48 tend to be ignored by scholars concerned with the mental status / accessibility of referring expressions (see Section 2.2 above). The general as-sumption that personal pronouns require high accessibility does not account for these uses of personal pronouns.

48 Cataphora is also used with reference to examples like (56). Here, however, there is no reference to an element in the following context, contrary to (54) and (55), where it points forward to the price (he desires). I reserve cataphora for the latter.


2.3.2.1 A Note on Null Pronouns In the discussion of accessibility and the choice of referring expression in Sec-tion 2.2, I tacitly assumed that there is such thing as null pronouns, a special type of pronouns that require higher accessibility than overt pronominal forms. It is not obvious, however, that null pronouns do in fact exist. That is, in the sentence Caesarem amoo argue that there is no element occupying the subject position of amo, and that amo simply has no subject. Syntactic theorists, on the other hand, maintain that there must be an empty element occupying the subject position in such cases.49 The postula-tion of this empty element follows from the assumptions that every clause must p y p y

Chomskyan theories). I do not go into the details of that argumentation here; in fact, it is not important for the present study whether there is some empty ele-ment occupying the subject position of amo or not. In either case, it is clear that if a verbal argument is not overtly expressed, the intended referent must be highly accessible for the addressee to be able to identify it. Nevertheless, I as-sume for the present purposes that there is an empty element a null pronoun

occupying the subject position of amo in a sentence like Caesarem amo. Null pronouns, moreover, can appear in other syntactic functions too.

2.3.3 Demonstratives

Demonstratives must be something more than just [+DEFINITE], otherwise they would not be any different from definite articles or personal pronouns. Demon-stratives are sometimes said to be characterised by a distance feature (e.g. Andersen & Keenan, 1985). Diessel (1999; 2006), Himmelmann (1996) and Lyons (1999) argue against such a view, showing that demonstratives do not invaria-bly express distance. According to Diessel (2006), rather than expressing dis-y p g p

Lyons (1999)

y

49 This element is labelled pro (used for finite verb forms) or PRO (used for infinite verb forms) within Chomskyan theories. Within Lexical-Functional Grammar, too, a PRO is postu-lated in f-structure (but this is not identical to n theories, notably be-cause PRO within LFG is only present in the f-structure and is not assumed to occupy a specif-ic position in the linear string).


demonstratives, and assumes that [+DEM(ONSTRATIVE)] is the feature characteris-ing demonstratives and distinguishing them from definite articles. I assume

eal world or in the discourse. Even though not all demonstratives express a distance contrast, some demonstratives undeniably do. I thus take the view that demonstratives are always [+DEFINITE] and [+DEMONSTRATIVE], and, in addition, some of them have a distance feature. Be-

; they imply a contrast with another referent. Adnominal demonstratives seem to ex-press a contrast with a referent of the same kind but with different properties (that book (with the blue cover), as opposed to the book with the green cover, for instance).

Because of their [+DEMONSTRATIVE] feature eature demonstratives are more restricted than definite articles. As we saw in Section 2.2.3, demonstratives are assumed to be intermediate accessibility markers, and in the Givenness hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993), demonstratives require at least the cognitive status familiar, namely that the referent be represented in the y

ives must in addi-short-term memory.

Gundel et al. (1993), however, do not take into account the extra-linguistic use of demonstratives; if an entity is present in the discourse situation / extra-linguistic context, it is not necessarily activated or familiar to the addressee. The addressee may have already seen the object in which case he is familiar with it, and the object is also present in his short-term memory but that is not a prerequisite for a demonstrative to be felicitously used. I mentioned in Section 2.1.3

q y50 on the definite

article. monstratives differ from definite articles by being y g

is, the referent must be either known to the hearer through previous mention or visible in the situation for a demonstrative to be felicitous (Hawkins 1978: 152). Thus, this approach captures also the extra-linguistic uses of demonstratives.51 In addition, however, demonstratives have cataphoric uses, as in:

(57) I tell you thiss

50 I.e. that the definite article instructs the hearer to locate the referent in some shared set of objects. 51 But not the cases in which the referent is present in the addressee s memory without previ-ous mention.


This use is net al. 1993) or by visibility in the situation (Hawkins 1978). The referent, howev-er, is present in the immediate linguistic context. This suggests that the referent of a demonstrative need not be present in the preceding context; the referent may be present in the immediate following context as well. In sum, the referent y

in the immediate linguistic or extra-linguistic context (i.e. the immediate situa-tion). Thus, we can formulate the following constraint on demonstratives:

CONSTRAINT ON DEMONSTRATIVES: Demonstratives require the referent to be present either in mory or in the immediate linguistic or extra-linguistic context.

One particular use of demonstratives is problematic for this constraint, howev-er. A demonstrative, either pronominal or adnominal, may appear as the head of a restrictive relative clause without the referent being present in the address-

-linguistic context: (58) Those who did this, will be punished.

(59) Those students who did this, will be punished.

Although (59) seems to favour a reading in which the referent is in fact present

-term) memory, this need not be the case. I suspect that in examples like (58) and (59), the demonstrative is not characterised by a [+DEMONSTRATIVE] feature. These are special uses of the demonstratives, and

demonstrative closely resembles a definite article (when adnominal) or a personal pronoun (when pronominal) in these cases.

Demonstratives have various uses.52 In some cases a demonstrative is nec-essary for the identification of the referent, according to make your contribution as informative as is required .53 That is, reference would y q

52 Finer-grained taxonomies of demonstrative uses than the uses mentioned here are found e.g. in Levinson (2004). 53 Himmelmann (1996), following Sidner (1983), argues that a demonstrative may be neces-sary in some cases not for the identification of the referent but because a definite article would create some unwanted effect, such as a focus shift in the terminology of Sidner (1983).


use 1996) terms (see also Fillmore, 1982: 54). Like definite articles and personal pronouns, demonstratives can be ana-phoric, as in (44) above, repeated here as (60), or cataphoric, as in (61):

(60) And the living room was a very very small room with two windows that

that. (A personal pronoun would refer to the living room)

(61) This is what I believe: All men were created equal. (A personal pronoun would imply reference to a previously mentioned

referent) Himmelmann (1996) and Levinson (2004) distinguish a separate category of

deictic use of demonstratives. These are cases in which the demon-strative refers to a proposition or event:

(62) that storyy

(cited in Himmelmann 1996: 224)

I do not treat discourse deixis as a separate category, but discuss the discourse deictic uses in the Itinerarium Egeriae together with the anaphoric ones; the

ferring expression refers back to something previously mentioned in the discourse.54 Finally, demonstratives refer to referents that are present in the immediate situation, as in (30) above, repeated here as (63):55 (63) [Pointing at one of several books in a book shelf] Give me that book,

please. (Without the demonstrative, it would not be clear which book is intend-ed)

54 The referring expressions may nevertheless behave differently in cases of discourse deixis than in other cases of anaphoric reference (see Section 4.3.2.8). 55 Himmelmann (1996) includes neither discourse deixis nor immediate situation uses among the tracking uses. Tracking use is therefore a wider notion to me than it is to Himmelmann. Tracking use in my view are all uses of demonstratives in which the demonstrative is neces-

sary for the identification of the referent.


As already mentioned, the above-mentioned uses of demonstratives are cases in which a demonstrative is necessary for the identification of the referent, and I call these tracking uses of the demonstratives. The tracking use is general-ly restricted to the above-mentioned contexts, and there are certain contexts in which tracking demonstratives are not appropriate. First of all, Himmelmann (1996: 210-211) takes the possibility of being used in indirect anaphora as a property characterising definite articles and personal pronouns, but not demon-stratives (see also Lyons 1999: 20; Diessel 2006: 477 inter alia). Demonstratives are indeed not easily used in indirect anaphora: (64) * I took the bus and asked that/this driver to please tell me where to get

off. This, however, is not always true. Apothéloz & Reichler-Béguelin (1999), for instance, show that demonstratives are currently used in indirect anaphora in French. Also, consider the following example from Isard (1975: 290): (65) First square 19 and then cube that. According to Gundel et al. (1993: 282; 2000), if the link between the inferable referent and the referent from which it is inferred is strong enough to activate a representation of the inferable n-strative is indeed possible.

Likewise, when the referent is unique, demonstratives are generally not possible (e.g. Himmelmann 1996: 210).

(66) *That/*this Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years

old. When the referent is generic, reference is to the entire class of objects satisfied

point out one concrete referent belonging to this class, which is not the intended meaning of generic sentences: (67) * That/*this lion is a mammal.56

56 Obviously, the example is grammatical on the reading where reference is to one concrete lion. When reference is to lion-kind , however, the sentence is ungrammatical, and the latter reading is the one intended here.


uses of demon-thatt

the demonstrative is not, strictly speaking, necessary for the identification of the referent, but serves to remind the addressee that the referent is one which is

(1996) cites the following example from the Pear Stories as an example of the recognitional use of demonstratives: (68) ...it was filmed in California, those dusty kind of hills that they have out

here in Stockton and all [...] (cited in Himmelmann 1996: 230)

In this example, the referent is identifiable without the demonstrative as well: (69) ...it was filmed in California, the dusty kind of hills that they have out here

in Stockton and all [...]

The same holds true for the following example: (70) a. That dog next door kept me awake last night.

b. The dog next door kept me awake last night.

A final use of demonstratives is what Lakoff (1974) calls the emotional use of demonstratives.57 Emotional uses of demonstratives share with the recogni-tional demonstratives the property of referring to a referent that is known to both the speaker and the addressee. In addition, they may create a sense of intimacy, camaraderie or closeness (Lakoff 1974): (71) that throat? (Said by a doctor to a patient) According to Wolter (2006), knowledge or emotion about the referent of the demonstrative (Wolter 2006: 83). Emotional demonstratives are often possible when a demonstrative would

57 Lakoff considers emotional also cases in which this is used in place of the indefinite article, what Gundel et al. (1993) refer to as indefinite thiss . I find it hard to regard this use of this as emotional.


(see also Wolter, 2006), e.g. with uniques: (72) This Obama is really a great guy!

2.3.4 When has a Demonstrative Become a Definite Article or a Personal Pronoun?

We have seen that demonstratives, definite articles and personal pronouns are definite, and that they have partly overlapping uses. Moreover, definite articles and personal pronouns often arise from demonstratives. Now the question aris-es as to where the distinction between a demonstrative and a definite article or personal pronoun should be drawn diachronically. That is, when has the demonstrative ceased to be a demonstrative and become a definite article or a personal pronoun? Scholars discussing the diachronic relationship between definite articles and demonstratives differ somewhat in their opinions as to when a demonstrative is no longer a demonstrative and is to be regarded a defi-nite article. To my knowledge, nothing is said about the distinction between demonstratives and personal pronouns. Greenberg (1978) assumes the following four stages in the development of defi-nite articles:

Stage 0: Demonstrative Stage 1: Definite article Stage 2: Generic article Stage 3: Noun-marker

Figure 7: Stages of the definite article in Greenberg (1978)

Relevant here is the transition from stage 0 to stage 1, that is from demonstrative

otes,

in general, thus including typically things known from context, general knowledge, or as g

-scientific discourse, identified because it is the only member of its class.

(Greenberg 1978: 61 62)


Himmelmann (1996) sees larger situation uses (general world knowledge, uniques) and associative anaphoric uses as the uses characterising definite articles and distinguishing them from demonstratives; the definite article sig-nals that the referent is to be retrieved indirectly, whereas the demonstrative focuses the hearer

y

(2010: 249) put it. To Krámský (1972), the essence of genuine articles is that they occur with generics.

Hawkins (2004) has a less restrictive view on when the demonstrative has become an article. He describes the development of definite articles in four stages (Hawkins 2004: 84 86). In stage 1, the deictic distinction between enti-ties close to the speaker and entities far from the speaker is abandoned. The article can therefore identify a referent relative to a whole pragmatic set (see Section 2.1.3 above), either the whole visible situation or the whole previous text. The definite article is limited to anaphoric reference to the previous text and objects that exist in the immediate situation of utterance. In stage 2, the definite article is extended to non-visible and larger situations, referents known from general knowledge and associative anaphora. In stage 3, the article is ex-tended to generics. In stage 4, the article is extended further, to specific indefi-p

tag-

Like Hawkins, Harris (1978: 70) regards the marking of the degree of proximity as the distinguishing feature of demonstratives.

In determining whether ille and ipse are definite articles / personal pro-nouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae, I make two important assumptions. First, my point of view is that of the individual speaker. There is a difference between regarding linguistic change from the point of view of the entire speech commu-nity and from the point of view of the individual members of the speech com-munity the individual speakers. From the point of view of the individual, a linguistic change is abrupt, and the linguistic item in question belongs to either the one or the other category. That is, in the development from demonstrative to definite article / personal pronoun the item in each single occurrence is either a demonstrative or a definite article / personal pronoun, not something in be-tween, or partly a demonstrative and partly a definite article / personal pro-noun. If one considers linguistic change from a speech community perspective, on the other hand, linguistic change is gradual. It does not affect all the speak-ers and all contexts at the same time. Rather, it spreads to more and more


speakers, and the item in question gradually acquires new uses.58 Hence, it is legitimat

q y q-like or

suchlike. Considering the change in a speaker perspective, on the other hand, implies that in each single occurrence ille and ipse must be either demonstra-tives or definite arti

p-like i-

cloïdes or something in between a demonstrative and a definite article / per-sonal pronoun. As mentioned in Section 1.1.3

p

vari elementi [...] saranno di volta in volta definibili come dimostrativa o deter-minativa e mai come un compromesso fra le due [ the various elements can each time be defined as demonstrative or determiner and never as a compromise between those two ion mine (Nocentini 1990: 143, italics added). 59

Considering linguistic change from the perspective of the individual lan-guage user implies that the functions/uses ille and ipse have or do not have in other occurrences are irrelevant to their analysis in one specific occurrence. If ille or ipse shows the properties of a definite article / personal pronoun in a given occurrence, it is a definite article / personal pronoun in this occurrence independently of whether it has from a speech community perspective ac-quired new uses, that is, in the case of definite articles, general knowledge uses, generic uses, associative uses etc. (cf. Greenberg 1978; Himmelmann 1996). What is decisive are the properties of ille and ipse in each single occurrence.

Definite articles, personal pronouns and demonstratives have certain pho-nological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties.60 I assume that the semantic and pragmatic properties are the most basic ones in the sense that these are what define the categories and distinguish them from the other categories of words. That is to say, an element showing the phonologi-cal, morphological, and/or syntactic properties of, say, a definite article is not a definite article unless it also shows the semantic/pragmatic properties of a defi-nite article. Definite articles are typically monosyllabic, prosodically weak and

58 I do not intend that the speech community perspective is generally irrelevant in describing the development of the Latin language. Once originated, the definite article and personal pronoun will begin their gradual spread to more and more speakers, and they will gradually acquire new uses. But the genesis of these new categories is abrupt and is to be found in the mind of the individual speaker. 59 This is not to say that more than one interpretation is not possible in a given example. It may be possible in a given example to interpret, say, ille as a personal pronoun or as a demon-strative. The point is that it can never be something in between. 60 The phonological, morphological, and syntactic properties are irrelevant for the present study, and I do not discuss these here. For an overview see e.g. Lyons (1999) and references therein.

Intensifiers 67

occupy a fixed position with respect to the noun. Yet an item showing all of these properties need not be a definite article. It can be a particle, for instance. Also in a process of grammaticalisation, the linguistic item in question typically acquires new uses and meanings before it undergoes phonological, morpholog-ical and syntactic changes (Hopper & Traugott 2003; Heine 2003; Heine & Kuteva 2006). Since it is the semantic/pragmatic properties of an item that de-termines to which category it belongs, I assume that ille and ipse are definite articles and personal pronouns when they show the pragmatic/semantic prop-erties of a definite article or a personal pronoun. It is not necessary for them also to show all the phonological, morphological, and syntactic properties typically associated with definite articles or personal pronouns.

2.4 Intensifiers

Intensifiers are focusing devices (Siemund 2000). Contrary to definite articles, personal pronouns and demonstratives, they are not used for referent tracking. König (1991) and Siemund (2000) also argue in favour of them being focus parti-cles. Intensifiers have been shown to express several different (but related) meanings.

Notions evoked to describe the meaning of adnominal intensifiers are re-markability/unexpectedness (Edmonson & Plank 1978; and for Latin, Bertocchi 1996), centrality (König 1991;61 for Latin, Joffre 2007), likeliness/expectancy (Primus 1992). Edmonson & Plank (1978), following Bolinger (1972), take a sca-lar approach to adnominal intensifiers. A scalar approach is taken by Primus (1992) as well. The point of the scalar approach is that the intensifier orders the referent in question and the alternatives evoked on a scale from least ex-pected/likely to most expected/likely; the intensifier makes the focus referent the least expected, least likely or most remarkable participant in the action or state described by the verb. Similarly, Bertocchi (1996) argues, remarkabil-ity/unexpectedness is the meaning of the adnominal intensifier in Latin. Ac-cording to Siemund (2000: 131), on the other hand, adnominal intensifiers do not always evoke a scale of likeliness. There is an ordering of focus and alterna-tives, but it is not scalar. Rather, an adnominal intensifier

132). That is, adnomi-

61 See König & Gast (precise by analysing intensifiers as expressions of an identity function.


nal intensifiers, Siemund (2000) maintains, express a contrast between a cen-tral referent and a set of more peripheral alternatives.

ces of intensifiers which can be described in terms of remarkability/unexpectedness/likeliness as well as occurrences in which these notions cannot appropriately describe the use of the intensifier. In my opinion, the notions of centre and periphery do not always fit the remarkability/unexpectedness cases very well, however. Consider the following example:

(73) The president himself wrote the letter.

(73) is justified by the fact

that the president is more central than others who could have written the letter

pn-

tral referent in comparison with the people working for him. On the other hand, the president is not more central when it comes to writing letters. Since some-p

central in this context. What himself expresses is that a generally central or important referent the president performed an action in which he is not a central participant. In other words, himself expresses unexpected-ness/remarkability. On the other hand, there are certainly cases in which re-markability/unexpectedness is not suitable for describing the use of the intensi-fier: (74) John himself is a musician.

(from Siemund 2000: 128)

As pointed out by Siemund (2000: 128), we cannot have expectations concern-in

p y p

that of being an actress. Centrality, on the other hand, can account for this ex-ample in that John is central by virtue of being whom the discourse is about, and obviously central with respect to his wife inasmuch as she is identified through her connection with John.

Since there are, on the one hand, intensifier uses that cannot be accounted for by remarkability/unexpectedness and, on the other, intensifier uses in which remarkability/unexpectedness seem to be more suitable than centrality, I assume that both centrality and remarkability/unexpectedness are necessary to describe all uses of adnominal intensifiers.

Intensifiers 69

Regarding what have been labelled sentence-final (Moravcsik 1972), non head-bound (Edmonson & Plank 1978) or adverbial (Siemund 2000) intensifi-ers,62 these are assumed by Edmonson & Plank (1978) to express the direct in-volvement of the referent in the action, to the exclusion of other possible partic-ipants (see Bertocchi 1996

p p

intensifiers ntensifiers, Siemund (2000) recognises what he calls inclusive adverbial intensifiers. Inclu-sive adverbial intensifiers imply that there is another individual for which the same property holds (Siemund 2000: 178). An example is you look well yourself, which implies that the speaker looks well too.

Finally, there are uses of intensifiers in which a reversal of semantic roles is expressed (e.g. Edmondson & Plank 1978; Siemund 2000). Edmondson & Plank (1978) give among others the following example, where the agent of the first coordinated sentence becomes the patient in the second coordinated sentence:

(75) Lucrezia poisoned Lorenzo, and was herself poisoned by Cesare.

(from Edmondson & Plank 1978: 386)

To sum up, the different meanings expressed by intensifiers are: – Centrality – Remarkability/unexpectedness – Reversal of semantic roles – Inclusiveness – Exclusiveness (exclusion of the involvement by others)

Some notion of contrast seems to be implicit in all these meanings. Demonstra-tives are contrastive as well (see Section 2.3.3 above), but intensifiers and demonstratives express different types of contrast.63 Contrary to adnominal demonstratives, which express a contrast with another referent of the same kind, but with different properties, the contrast expressed by an intensifier is p p

different from, but in some way related to [italics y

Consider the following examples:

62 That is, intensifiers that appear alone, not juxtaposed to a noun, as in John wrote the letter himself, as opposed to John himself wrote the letter, which is an adnominal intensifier. 63 This difference at least holds between adnominal intensifiers and adnominal demonstra-tives.


(76) That president wrote the letter.

(77) The president himself wrote the letter.

In (76), there is an implicit contrast with another president, whereas in (77) the implicit contrast is not with another president, but with, say, a member of the p

staff. It would be impossible to use that president to express a con-trast

p pthe president himself

cannot express a contrast with another president.

2.5 Summary

In this chapter, I presented and discussed the theoretical foundations that un-p pr-

gued in favour of a universal concept of definiteness that can be described as the identifiability of discourse referents. I went on to discuss accessibility and y y

quantity with accessibility. Further, I reviewed the properties of three major exponents of definiteness, namely definite articles, personal pronouns and demonstratives, and discussed the question as to when a demonstrative has become a definite article or personal pronoun. Finally, I outlined the properties of intensifiers.

With regard to accessibility, it is not obvious that all the variables thought to influence accessibility and/or the choice of referring expression are relevant for Latin, more precisely the Itinerarium Egeriae, and that the Latin expressions behave as expected with respect to these variables. Nor is it obvious that all the variables have an equally strong effect. In the present study, it will become clear how the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae behave with respect to these variables and which of the variables are most relevant. Also, I will attempt to establish an accessibility hierarchy of the referring expressions in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. Before we move on to the empirical part, however, a presenta-tion of the methods and data is in order. This is the subject of the next chapter.

3 Methods and Data Extraction

In the previous chapter, I discussed the theoretical assumptions underlying the present study. In this chapter, I focus on the practical matters, describing the corpus used and the annotation in this corpus (Section 3.1) and the ways in which the data were extracted (Section 3.2). Finally, I provide a note on the statistical methods I used in this study (Section 3.3).

3.1 The PROIEL Corpus

The study was carried out within the research project Pragmatic Resources in Old Indo-European Languages (PROIEL) at the University of Oslo. Hence, my data are extracted from the PROIEL corpus, which was developed as part of the PROIEL project.64 The PROIEL corpus was originally a parallel corpus of the Greek text of the New Testament and its translations into Latin, Old Church Slavic, Gothic and Classical Armenian. The corpus has later been extended to include several other texts in the above-mentioned as well as other old Indo-European languages, including the Itinerarium Egeriae in Latin

3.1.1 Text Selection

There exists only one manuscript of the Itinerarium Egeriae, that discovered by the Italian archaeologist and historian Gian-Francesco Gamurrini in 1884. All editions of the text are therefore based on this manuscript. Several editions of the Itinerarium Egeriae have appeared in the course of the years.65 The text of the Itinerarium Egeriae

pp yg-

inally from 1908 (fourth edition, Heraeus 1939) i-tion was a practical one. Instead of writing the entire text of an edition manually into the corpus, which would be a hugely time-consuming process, we wanted a y

freely available online,66 it was chosen and automatically imported. The import-

64 The corpus is available online at http://www.tekstlab.uio.no:3000 65 For an overview, see e.g. Maraval (1982: 46 49) 66 Available at


ed text was checked manually for errors and discrepancies against the original edition. In looking at large amounts of data, the small differences that exist between one edition and another do not affect the general picture to any large extent, especially for a text of which only one manuscript exists. The practical benefits of easy and efficient text importation were therefore considered more important than concern for details.

3.1.2 Multilayered Annotation

The PROIEL corpus contains several layers of annotation: – Morphological and syntactic annotation – Information structure annotation (see Section 3.1.3 below) – Semantic annotation, including animacy (see Section 3.1.4 below) The syntactic annotation is based on a dependency grammar enriched with secondary dependencies inspired by the structure-sharing mechanisms in Lexi-cal-Functional Grammar. The syntactic categories used in the PROIEL corpus are the following:

Table 3: Syntactic functions in the PROIEL corpus

Relation Explanation

PRED Predicate SUB Subject OBJ Direct (accusative) object OBL Oblique argument COMP Complement clause XOBJ Predicative complement ADV Adverbial XADV Free predicative ATR Attribute APOS Apposition NARG Argument of noun PART Partitive AUX Auxiliary

http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost04/Egeria/ege_it00.html

The PROIEL Corpus 73

Relation Explanation

VOC Exclamation

As Table 3 shows, OBJ includes only accusative objects. The relation OBL is used y j

u-luding what

are traditionally labelled indirect objects, as well as prepositional arguments. In addition, arguments of adjectives and complements of prepositions are tagged as OBL.

Further details of the syntactic annotation (secondary dependencies etc.) are not important to us, and I do not discuss those here (see Haug et al. 2009 for details). In the following sections, I describe the information structure annota-tion (Section 3.1.3) and the animacy annotation (Section 3.1.4).

3.1.3 Information Structure Annotation

d-k-

ground, givenness, saliency, anaphoricity etc. In my study, as in the PROIEL corpus, information structure includes givenness, anaphoricity, and topicality.

3.1.3.1 Givenness Annotation Givenness can be approached in terms of discourse or hearer status, and a fun-damental distinction is made between old/given and new (inter alia Kuno 1972; Halliday & Hasan 1976; Chafe 1976).

Several scholars opt for a basic tripartite distinction, sometimes with sub-groups. Chafe (1994), for instance, distinguishes between given, accessible and new. Prince (1992) defines old and new in terms of two cross-cutting dichoto-mies, namely three possible combinations: brand-new, unused and textually evoked. The p y

p-proach to givenness, and is based on a basic tripartite distinction between what they call old, mediated and new, with subgroups.

Such tripartition is the basis of the annotation scheme of Götze et al. (2007) as well, who distinguish between given, accessible and new. Prince (1981), in her seminal work on givenness, proposes a much more fine-grained classifica-


tion of what she, instead of givenness, i-bility of applying a more fine-grained classification like the one in Prince (1981), however, is reasonably rejected by Nissim et al. (2004) as being hard to apply in practice.67

A somewhat different approach to givenness is the DRT (Discourse Repre-sentation Theory) approach found in Riester (2008) and Riester et al. (2010). DRT was first presented in Kamp (1981). Its basic idea is that the interpretation of definite expressions depends on the discourse context, which is constantly changing as new discourse referents are introduced (see also Heim 1982). In technical terms, definite expressions are bound in the discourse context. Be-yond the discourse context, Kamp (2008) assumes several other contexts in which definite expressions can find their referents, such as the environment context (which comprises the elements in the immediate discourse situation) and the encyclopaedic context (which comprises encyclopaedic world knowledge). The referent of a definite description is not always found in a con-text, however. There are cases in which the referent has to be accommodated, viz. comes into existence at the time of utterance (Lewis, 1979).

Like the annotation scheme of Riester et al. (2010), the givenness status an-notation of the PROIEL corpus builds on the DRT idea of contexts, but without p

x-pressions since such a distinction is not applicable to languages without arti-cles, and a uniform scheme applicable to all the languages in the PROIEL cor-pus was desirable.

Based on a fundamental tripartition GIVEN MEDIATED/ACCESSIBLE NEW with subgroups, such as is found in Nissim et al. (2004), as mentioned above, as well as Götze et al. (2007), the following givenness status tags are used:

Table 4: Givenness status tags in the PROIEL corpus

Description Tag in the PROIEL corpus:

Context where the referent is to be found:

Anaphora OLD / OLD_INACT Preceding discourse (OLD_INACT is used for referents that are mentioned more than 13 sentences away)

67 The Givenness hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993) is another approach to givenness. They approach givenness in terms of cognitive statuses, as we have seen in Chapter 2.


Description Tag in the PROIEL corpus:

Context where the referent is to be found:

Situational use68 ACC_SIT The immediate discourse situation Indirect/associative anaphora

ACC_INF The referent is inferable from preceding discourse

Larger situation uses68 ACC_GEN General knowledge encyclopaedic knowledge (world knowledge) or the shared knowledge of speaker and hearer

None of the above NEW No context

In addition, a KIND tag is used for generic referents, such as tumbae in (78): (78) monticulus non satis grandis, sed factus sicut

little.hill-NOM not very big-NOM but made-NOM.SG as solent esse tumbae, sed grandes: be.wont-PRS.3PL be-INF tombs-NOM.PL but big-NOM.PL

(Itin. XIII.3) Kinds are different from individuals, and kind-referring noun phrases may have properties different from noun phrases referring to individuals, for instance regarding definiteness marking.

Non-specific referents are of a different nature than specific referents. These are referents that only exist inside certain embeddings, such as negation, mo-dality and quantification (so-called opaque contexts, see Karttunen, 1976); they are discourse referents with no corresponding real-world referent (see Section 2.1.5 above). It is possible to refer back to the letter by a null pronoun in (79) because the null pronoun is inside the modal embedding.

(79) Quotus enim quisque est qui how.many-NOM.SG for every-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG REL.NOM.SG epistulam paulo graviorem ferre possit letter-ACC.SG little.more weightier-ACC.SG convey-INF can-PRS.3SG nisi eam pellectione relevarit. if.not that-ACC.SG reading.through-ABL.SG lighten-PRF.3SG

68 Terms used e.g. by Himmelmann (1996).


If the null pronoun were not inside the modal embedding, the sentence would be ungrammatical: (80) * nemo epistulam paulo graviorem ferre

none-NOM.SG letter-ACC.SG little.more weightier-ACC.SG convey-INF potest. Itaque eam pellectione can-PRS.3SG therefore that-ACC.SG reading.through-ABL.SG relevat. lighten-PRS.3SG

-one is able to convey a letter rather weightier than usual. Therefore, he lightens it by skimming i

Since non-specific referents are of a different nature in that they do not have a real-world referent, only a discourse referent, they get their own tags:

Table 5: Non-specific givenness status tags in the PROIEL corpus

Tag Description

NON_SPEC_OLD The non-specific counterpart to OLD NON_SPEC_INF The non-specific counterpart to ACC_INF NON_SPEC The non-specific counterpart to NEW QUANT Quantifier restriction

A special non-specific tag is the QUANT tag, which is used for quantifier re-strictions. Quantifier restrictions are the words that determine the range of the quantifier, such as annos in (81): (81) Duces vero ii deliguntur qui

leader-NOM.PL but that-NOM.PL choose-PRS.PASS.3PL REL.NOM.PL una cum Quinto Sertorio omnes annos together with Quintus-ABL Sertorius-ABL all-ACC.PL year-ACC.PL

be-PLUPRF.3PL

3.21.5)


Finally, the givenness status ANCHORED is given to referents that have not been mentioned previously and cannot be retrieved from any other context but are identifiable through modification, for instance by a (definite) possessor (as in Moyses ... sepulchrum illius), a complement clause, or a restrictive relative clause, as in the following example:

(82) Nam ex illa hora, qua omnes nocte

for from ille-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG REL.ABL.SG all-NOM.PL night-ABL.SG in Ierusolima reuertuntur cum episcopo in Jerusalem-ABL return-PRS.3PL with bishop-ABL

Note, however, that ANCHORED is not a givenness status tag used in the PROIEL corpus, but in my data set. Noun phrases whose head noun is tagged as NEW or NON_SPEC and which contain additional information in the shape of e.g. a rela-tive clause or a possessive pronoun are returned as ANCHORED.

3.1.3.2 General Principles Behind the Givenness Annotation The general principle of the givenness annotation is to annotate all referential noun phrases, including null-anaphora. The verb of headless relative clauses is also annotated since in the dependency-based syntax of the PROIEL corpus they are equivalent to noun phrases. Relative pronouns and appositions are not tagged since they are always co-referential with their head.

Note finally that the annotation is linear, so that in (83), for instance, se is tagged as NEW whereas montes illi, inter quos ibamus gets an OLD tag:

(83) ubi se tamen montes illi,

where REFL.ACC.PL however mountains-NOM.PL ille-NOM.PL inter quos ibamus, aperiebant et faciebant through REL.ACC.PL go-IMPF.1PL open-IMPF.3PL and make-IMPF.3PL uallem valley-ACC .sg infinite-ACC.SG

y


On the other hand, it is always the head of the noun phrase which is tagged. Take monticulum istum, ipse ... ministrabat

pt

for instance. Ipse is the head of the noun phrase monticulum istum, ipse, where-as monticulum istum is analysed syntactically as an apposition. Because ipse is the head of the noun phrase, ipse gets a tag and not monticulum istum, even though monticulum istum precedes ipse.

3.1.3.3 Anaphoric Links All OLD and NON_SPEC_OLD referents get an anaphoric link that points back to the previous mention of the referent (co-reference link). The noun phrases tagged as OLD_INACT, on the other hand, do not get a link. The anaphoric links do not nec-essarily point back to annotated material. For instance, a noun phrase like eo loco

y po OLD and linked to a preceding adverbial ibi,

a-rises a stretch of discourse or points back to an event or series of events, the anaphoric link points back to the last finite verb of that passage. In the follow-ing example, for instance, hoc would be linked back to respondent: (84) dicet psalmum quicumque de presbyteris

say-PRS.3SG psalm-ACC.SG whoever-NOM.SG from priest-ABL.PL et respondent omnes; post hoc fit and answer-PRS.3PL all-NOM.PL after this-ACC.SG make-PRS.pass.3SG oratio. prayer-NOM.SG p

ne of the priests says a psalm to which all respond, and afterwards (lit. prayer is made;

Time expressions may get a link pointing back to the last finite verb in the stretch of discourse covering the time period the time expression refers to, as in (85), where eadem die would be linked back to profecta sum: (85) reuersa sum Tharso ad iter

returned-NOM.SG be-PRS.1SG Tarsus-INDECL to journey-ACC.SG meum, ubi facta statiua, triduana in my-ACC.SG where made-ABL.SG halt-ABL.SG of.three.days-ABL.SG in nomine Dei profecta sum inde name-ABL.SG God-GEN departed-NOM.SG be-PRS.1SG thence iter meum. Ac sic perueniens eadem


journey-ACC.SG my-ACC.SG and thus arriving-NOM.SG same-ABL .SG die ad mansionem, quae appellatur day-ABL.SG to station-ACC.SG REL.NOM.SG call-PRS.pass.3SG Mansocrenas [ ] Mansocrenae-ACC I returned to Tarsus and to my journey. From Tarsus, after a halt of

three days, I set out on my journey in the Name of God, and arriving on the same day at a station called Mansocren

The inferable (ACC_INF and NON_SPEC_INF) referents also get a link, but in

these cases, the link is not a co-reference link, but an inference link, pointing back to the element that licences the inference. Also in the case of QUANTs, it is possible to link back to antecedents that refer to the same referent. Such links do not necessarily express co-referentiality. They can also be inference links. Note that if a QUANT referent is picked up later in a specific (non-opaque) con-text, it gets an ACC_INF tag with an inference link pointing back to the QUANT noun phrase, as in the following example, where the null pronoun would be linked to omnes:

(86) omnes ad manum satis

all-NOM.PL to hand-ACC.SG draw.near-PRS.3PL very praecipuum est, PRO-SUB quod faciunt peculiar-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that arrange-PRS.3PL that

hey arrange 5)

Figure 8 below shows what the information structure annotation (givenness

and anaphoric links) may look like. It exemplifies several of the givenness sta-tus tags and their anaphoric links. The blue lines are the anaphoric links. For instance, we see that the first OLD Ierusolimam (in the seventh line from the top) is linked by a co-reference link to the previous occurrence of Ierusolimam. Like-wise, OLD Deo (in the fifth line from the bottom) is linked by a co-reference link to Dei, which in turn is linked back by a co-reference link to Deo in the previous sentence. Moreover, patriam and animus, which are indirect anaphors, ACC_INF in the PROIEL annotation, are provided with an inference link pointing back to the null pronoun referring to Egeria, the PRO-SUB in the line above. This PRO-SUB, in turn, is linked by a co-reference link to me.

There are two examples of referents that would be returned as ANCHORED in extracting my data, namely nomine Dei at the beginning of the annotated sen-


tence and corpus illius at the end. The head of the noun phrase is NEW, but the noun phrase contains modification by Dei and illius, respectively, which assists the addressee in identifying the referent.

Mesopotamiam, Syriae, Thomae and Edessam are tagged as ACC_GEN be-cause they are assumed to belong to the general world knowledge of the hearer. Note that when these referents are picked up again, they are of course OLD ra-ther than ACC_GEN (cf. illius which is tagged as OLD and linked back to Thomae). Moreover, we see that omnibus locis sanctis is given the QUANT tag because of the quantifier omnibus. The two occurrences of orationes are NON_SPEC because they do not refer to specific prayers, but whichever prayer is said in the specific plac-es; they have a discourse referent, but no corresponding real-world referent.

Figure 8: Example of the information structure annotation in the PROIEL corpus69

69 The anaphoric links are not easily readable when all are shown at the same time, as here. Some clarification is in order. The link from Ierusolimam in the annotated sentence goes back to Ierusolimam in the previous sentence. The link from me goes back to the PRO-SUB in the second line from the top, and the link from the first PRO-SUB in the annotated sentence goes back to me. The links from patriam and animus both go back to the first PRO-SUB in the anno-tated sentence, and the second PRO-SUB is linked back to the first PRO-SUB. The link from Deogoes back to Dei.


3.1.3.4 The Topic Guesser Information structure in the PROIEL corpus and in my study includes topicality. The noun phrases in the PROIEL corpus are not tagged for topicality, however; information on topicality is extracted using the so-called topic guesser.

We saw in Section 2.2.1.5 that topicality is not an easily defined notion. An additional problem in identifying topics is that the diagnostics crucially rely on native speaker intuitions, which are not available to us for Latin or indeed for any of the other languages in the PROIEL corpus. Therefore, it seemed a better solution to decompose topics into a set of multiple weighted features, annotate the noun phrases for these, and let a program determine topicality automatical-ly. To this end, members of the PROIEL project developed the topic guesser. The topic guesser is an algorithm that selects potential topic candidates and ranks them according to a number of parameters known to correlate with topichood cross-linguistically.70

The algorithm considers as topic candidates all arguments of main clause verbs that are annotated for givenness. The topic candidates are then ranked according to the following parameters: – Givenness status: OLD is best, NEW and ACC_GEN are excluded – Place on the hierarchy of syntactic functions: subjects are best – Place on the animacy hierarchy: HUMAN is best – Word order: first is best – Realisation: null pronouns, personal pronouns and personal names are – favoured – Relative saliency: is the topic candidate a member of a longer and tighter

anaphoric chain than the competition? – Properties of the immediate antecedent: does it outrank the intervening

referents on the syntactic function, animacy and givenness hierarchies?

The results of the topic guesser have been shown to accord with human in-tuitions at a frequency of about 90 %. The algorithm is therefore a reliable means of identifying aboutness topics. Also, in order to avoid circularity (be-cause the parameters used to identify topics are the same as those with which topicality is thought to interact), and to show that topicality cannot be equated with one of these parameters but is indeed determined by them all, parameters were removed one by one. As the effect of this was nil, all the parameters do indicate discourse prominence and must be included.

70 The algorithm was written by Dag Haug and Hanne Eckhoff.


3.1.4 Animacy Annotation

As mentioned before (in Section 2.2.1.4), the animacy annotation in the PROIEL corpus is based on a more fine-grained distinction than the traditional tripartite distinction between HUMAN, ANIMATE and INANIMATE.

More fine-grained animacy categories can be identified, as Zaenen et al. (2004) have shown. The lemmata in the PROIEL corpus are annotated for ani-

-grained classification. The partic-ular animacy categories in the PROIEL corpus are as follows:

Table 6: Animacy annotation in the PROIEL corpus

Animacy tag Short description (following Zaenen et al. 2004)

HUMAN Refers to one or more humans ANIMAL Non-human animates CONCRETE Concrete objects or substances NONCONC Events and anything else that is not prototypically

concrete but clearly inanimate ORG Groups of humans displaying some degree of group identity PLACE TIME applied to expressions referring to periods of time VEH Vehicles

Animacy tagging was done at lemma level in the Greek New Testament text. The animacy annotation of the Greek lemmata was then transferred to the Latin lemmata, and checked manually. The most frequent lemmata found in the Itin-erarium Egeriae but not in the New Testament were also tagged. Information about animacy for pronominal forms is provided through the anaphoric links. If the anaphoric link does not ultimately go back to a noun with an animacy tag, however, there is no information about animacy.

Animacy annotation being done at lemma level has the consequence that if a lemma normally refers to, say, an animal, that lemma will be tagged as ANI-MAL, even though at the token level there may be instances in which the lemma refers to a concrete entity, for instance. Such is the case with uitulus, the Itinerarium Egeriae, which is tagged as ANIMAL because the referent of uitulus is usually an animal, but which at the token level in the Itinerarium Egeriae refers to the Golden Calf, which is a concrete object rather than an animal.


3.2 Data Extraction

For the present study, every noun phrase of the Itinerarium Egeriae was extract-ed. In total, there are 6727 noun phrases,71 all of which contain information on the following: – Sentence id – Chapter title and chapter id – If the noun phrase contains a demonstrative, which one? – Demonstrative in the same case as the head noun?

(In order to distinguish between true adnominal demonstratives (mater il-la), and demonstratives that are actually pronominal (mater illius))

– Clause head person (In order to exclude the first and second person null pronouns)

– Phrase head (in the form it occurs in the text) – Phrase head lemma – Lexical reference

(What the noun phrase refers to. For the pronominal forms, this is not the same as the phrase head lemma)

– Part of speech of anaphor and antecedent – Syntactic function of anaphor and antecedent – Givenness status – Antecedent distance in words and sentences – Anaphoric (backward) chain length, in general and within the current chap-

ter – Forward chain length – The type of clause in which the antecedent appears – Antecedent within the same section? – Topicality of the antecedent and the anaphor – Number of same-number competitors – Number of same-number-and-gender competitors – Animacy – Is the noun phrase modified by a relative clause?

That is, the data for the noun phrase Ierusolimam in Figure 8 for instance, ap-pear as follows:72

71 I am not, however, interested in all of them. See the introductions to Chapter 4 through 6 for the data selected for the empirical studies. The data can be downloaded as an Excel file from http://folk.uio.no/mjhertze/data.xls


Table 7: Data extracted for Ierusolimam in Figure 8:

sentence_id demonstrative phrase_head_ part_ of_speech

dem_same_case chapter_title

57658 - Ne - Per. Aeth. XVII

chapter_id phrase_head_ lemma

phrase_head lexical_ reference

relation

1280 Hierosolyma Ierusolimam Hierosolyma obl

clause_head_ person

info_status antecedent_ distance_ in_words

antecedent_ distance_ in_sentences

antecedent_ relation

- old 27 1 obl

antecedent_ part_ of_speech

antecedent_ clause_type

antecedent_ in_same_ section

chain_length chain_length_ chapter

Ne main FALSE 1 0

forward_ chain_length

topic antecedent_ topic

no_of_ competitors_ same_number

no_of_ competitors_ same_number_ and_gender

2 FALSE FALSE 4 0

Animacy relative_clause?

Place FALSE

72 For practical reasons, the presentation as found in the downloadable Excel sheet is modi-fied here.


In Table 7, note first the sentence id and chapter id. Every sentence and chapter in the PROIEL corpus has a unique id.73 In this way, it is easy to look up the y y

column that there is no demonstrative because the noun phrase does not con-pemonstrative

about clause head person because the verb, uenissee

The length of the anaphoric chain is measured by the number of mentions made to the referent in the previous context. Chain length within the chapter was used to determine whether the antecedent is within the same chapter. For-ward chain length is measured as the number of mentions made to the referent in the subsequent context. Moreover, note that in counting the number of com-petitors, null arguments are not included.

Electronic corpora and automatic data extraction have clear advantages. It enables us to look at large amounts of data, and it greatly simplifies the task of collecting and analyzing our data. Occasional errors, however, inevitably occur in the automatic data extraction process, and some details may be wrong. But errors may occur in manually collected data sets too, and the benefits of an automatic approach as the one adopted here in my opinion outweigh its disad-vantages. Note in particular, however, that in my data set there are a few cases in which a noun phrase tagged with givenness status OLD does not contain in-formation about the antecedent. This holds true for less than ten noun phrases, however, and in any case, the missing data does not affect the results of the present study.

3.3 Statistical Methods

For statistical analysis and graphics, I make use of the computational statistics programming environment R, originally designed by Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka at the University of Auckland.74 In addition to its built-in capabili-

73 The same holds for all the lemmata and tokens, but they have not been used for the present study. 74 See http://www.r-project.org/index.html for more information about R. R can also be freely downloaded from this page.


ties, the capabilities of R can be extended through user-created packages, which allow specialised statistical techniques, graphical devices etc.

I use (primarily in Chapter 4) classification trees more precisely, condi-tional inference trees to visualise the relative contribution of the various vari-ables that are assumed to influence the choice of referring expression. The

75 is used to create the trees. The classifi-cation trees recursively subdivide the data into ever smaller sets and subsets. Splits are visualised as circles that represent those variables that can subdivide the data in a statistically significant way. Figure 9 is an example of a classifica-tion tree, created using the built-

y p

shows how temperature and wind speed predict the level of ozone:

Figure 9: Example of classification tree created in R

Let us consider a measurement with air temperature of 70 and wind speed of 12, for instance. As we can see, at the highest level the data are divided into two categories according to air temperature: either > 82. Our measurement, then, follows the left branch (temperature c-cording to wind speed: either

p > 6.9. Our measurement now follows the

75 Package documentation is available at cran.r-project.org/web/packages/party/party.pdf


right branch (speed > 6.9). The final division depends on temperature and has two categories: either > 77. Since our measurement has temperature it gets classified in node 5. If we look at the boxplot for ozone level in this node, we can see that our measurement is associated with a relatively low level of ozone.76

Furthermore, I make extensive use of tests of statistical significance. Signif-icance tests show whether a result is due to chance or indicates some real ten-dency. As is common practice, I set the statistical significance level to 0.05. That is, if the p-value is 0.05 or smaller, we can reasonably conclude that the result is not due to chance. I do not discuss statistical significance testing further, or the details of significance tests.77 Suffice it to note which tests are used and to what purpose.

I use chi-squared tests, Fisher tests and t-tests for this study. The p-values are computed in R. The chi-squared test is used to determine whether the differ-ence in number of occurrences between two or more forms or features is signifi-

-squared test (chi-squared test for independence) tests the correlation between one categorial dependent variable and one categorial independent variable (Gries, 2009: 192). In other words, it can be used to test whether the choice of expression shows significant correlation with, say, ante-p

-squared test is not reliable, and as an alternative, I use the Fisher test.

Finally, I use the t-test in cases in which there is one dependent inter-val/ratio variable and one independent nominal variable. That is, the t-test is used to determine whether the mean of two populations differs significantly. I use it here to test the differences between the forms with respect to anaphoric chain length, for instance.

3.4 Summary

In this chapter, I described the PROIEL corpus, the annotation in this corpus and how my data were extracted from this corpus. A note on statistical methods was also provided.

76 Example found at http://www.exegetic.biz/blog/2013/05/package-party-conditional-inference-trees/ 77 For introductions to the use of statistics in linguistics, see e.g. Baayen (2008) and Gries (2009). These works both show how R can be used for analysing linguistic data.


The remaining part of the book is organised as follows. In Chapter 4, I dis-cuss the three main groups of referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae; full NPs, overt pronominal forms and null pronouns. Chapter 5 is a study of the various kinds of pronominal forms, whereas Chapter 6 is an investigation of the various kinds of full NPs. Chapter 7 is a conclusion and summary of the find-ings.

4 Full NPs, Overt Pronominal Forms and Null Pronouns

The present chapter discusses the three main groups of referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, namely full NPs, overt pronominal forms and null pro-nouns.78 I examine how the choice of expression correlates with the variables thought to influence referent accessibility and/or the choice of referring expres-sion, as shown in Section 2.2.

Table 8: is a synopsis of the frequency of full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro:

Table 8: Full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro in the Itinerarium Egeriae79

Expression Number of occurrences

Full NP 4367 86.67 % Overt pronominal 408 8.1 % pro 264 5.24 %

whether proper nouns or common nouns, and whether the NP contains any yo-

nominal occurrences of what are trhic, ille, is, ipse and idem.80 Indefinite pronouns, relative pronouns, reflexive pronouns and possessive pronouns are not included. proo

78 For reasons of brevity, I will be labelling null pronouns as pro (but in the Latin examples they appear as PRO-SUB/OBJ/OBL). Importantly, pro is not to be confused with the pro of syn-tactic theories. Here, pro is simply short for null pronoun , whether of a finite or an infinite clause, and in any syntactic function. 79 As occurrences without givenness status tags (see Section 3.1.3) are included in this table and in Figure 10 below, the numbers in the subsequent figures and tables do not add up to the numbers in Table 8 and Figure 10. 80 It is not obvious that all of these are in fact demonstratives in the Itinerarium Egeriae (see Chapter 5 and 6). Iste is only used adnominally in the Itinerarium Egeriae.


subsumes all null arguments whose verbal head has third person morphology.81 The reason I discuss pro as a separate category is that pro is thought to require particularly high accessibility, and may behave differently than the overt pro-nominal forms. Also, as we will see, pro is (practically) never used in non-subject functions, whereas the overt pronominal forms are. Finally, I will not be concerned with quantified noun phrases (givenness status QUANT in the PROIEL annotation).

One might argue that relative pronouns appearing in so-connections should be included in the data set. These are cases in which it has traditionally been said that the relative clause is not really a relative clause, but functions as a main clause, and the relative pronoun is viewed as equivalent to a demonstrative (e.g. Kühner & Stegmann 1955: 319; Hofmann & Szantyr 1972: 570; see also references in Touratier 1980: 408 410). Bolkestein (1996) sees this type of usage of the relative pronoun as a specialised third person reference device. (87) exemplifies the free relative connection:

(87) castra posuerunt; quae castra amplius

camp-ACC.PL pitch-PRF.3PL REL.NOM.PL camp-NOM.PL more milibus passuum VIII latitudinem patebant. thousand-ABL.PL pace-GEN.PL breadth-ACC.SG extend-IMPF.3PL

miles in breadth. (Caes. Gal. 2.7.4) I leave the free relative connection out of my discussion for two reasons. First, it y

clauses (see e.g. discussion in Bolkestein 1996: 554 556), and it is by no means obvious that the free relative connection should be viewed as a phenomenon

ses at all (Touratier 1980: 408p

452; Calboli

81 By taking out null arguments explicitly marked as having a third person verbal head, we lose the null arguments of infinite verb forms, which carry no information about person. In-stead of including null arguments whose verbal head has a third person morphology, an alter-native approach is to exclude null arguments whose verbal head has neither first nor second person morphology. In this way, the null arguments of infinite verb forms would be included in the data set. However, null arguments of infinite verb forms may have first, second or third person reference. Thus, by including the null arguments of infinite verb forms, we would get a number of null arguments whose reference whether to a first, second or third person is un-known. Accordingly, the best solution is to explicitly include only those null arguments with a verbal head with third person morphology, thereby excluding the null arguments of infinite verb forms.

A Restriction on pro 91

1985). Moreover, the free relative connection is infrequent in the Itinerarium Egeriae; only 31 out of 562 relative sentences are possible instances of the free relative connection.82 Since there are few occurrences of the free relative con-nection, including these occurrences in the data set would not affect my conclu-sions in any substantial degree.

The chapter is organised as follows. In 4.1 I present the apparent restriction on pro that I have already mentioned, namely that it occurs in subject function only. In Section 4.2, I discuss the non-anaphoric uses of the full NPs, overt pro-nominal forms and pro. Section 4.3 deals with the anaphoric uses of these forms.

4.1 A Restriction on pro

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, (third person) pro seems to be restricted to subject function in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Figure 10 shows the distribution of the referring expressions in various syntactic functions:

Figure 10: Syntactic function of the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae83 As we can see, pro is practically absent in non-subject functions. There is, in fact, only one possible instance of a third person pro in non-subject function:

82 The relative is pronominal in 10 of them and adnominal in 21. 83 Pronominal in this pronominal form .

A Restriction on pro


(88) Duxit etiam nos et ad illum palatium lead-PRF.3SG also we-ACC also to ille-ACC.SG palace-ACC.SG superiorem, quod habuerat primitus rex higher-ACC.SG REL.ACC have-PLUPRF.3SG first king-NOM.SG Aggarus, et si qua praeterea loca erant, Abgar-NOM and if any-NOM.PL moreover places-NOM.PL be-IMPF.3PL monstrauit PRO-OBJ nobis.84 show-PRF.3SG we-DAT

higher ground, and if there were any other places he showed them to us.

The identification of pro objects (or obliques) is not as straightforward as the identification of pro subjects. In null subject languages, which include both Classical Latin and the Latin of the Itinerarium Egeriae, we can assume a pro subject whenever there is no overt subject of the verb.85 In other syntactic func-tions it is not always obvious whether a verb has a pro in object/oblique func-tion or if it is used absolutely and has no object or oblique argument whatsoev-er. In the PROIEL annotation, pro objects and pro obliques are inserted if (and only if) a specific referent can be inferred. In (88), this is indeed the case; the pro object refers to praeterea loca.

There is a third possible analysis of (88): the si-clause may be a free relative clause86 that functions as the direct object of monstravit. The fact that we find several Latin examples in which such a si-clause invariably with an indefinite qu-pronoun immediately after si is coordinated with a regular noun phrase object, points towards this analysis:

(89) sed vides-ne accessuram ei curam,

but see-PRS.2SG-INTERROG reach-FUT.INF.ACC that-DAT.SG care-ACC.SG ut sensus quoque suos eorum-que omnem that sense-ACC.PL also POSS.REFL.ACC.PL that-GEN.PL-and all-ACC.SG appetitum et si qua sint adiuncta desire-ACC.SG and if any-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL adjoined-NOM.PL ei membra tueatur? that-DAT.SG organ-NOM.PL protect-PRS.3SG

84 PRO-SUB/OBJ/OBLs are inserted in the examples only when relevant for the discussion. 85 With the exception of a small, well-defined group of impersonal verbs. 86 With maximalizing semantics (Grosu & Landman 1998).

A Restriction on pro 93

But do you mark how it will further be concerned to protect its sensory faculties also and all their desire, and any additional organs it may have

The precise analysis of this kind of constructions, however, is not essential for my study. Whether we assume the object of monstravit is pro or the si-clause, it remains a fact that pro (practically) never occurs outside subject function in the Itinerarium Egeriae since (88) is the only possible occurrence of a non-subject pro. Therefore, I do not discuss the syntactic analysis of (88) any further.

Since pro is in practice reserved for subject function in the Itinerarium Ege-riae, the behaviour of pro in this text is different from its behaviour in Classical Latin, where pro objects are not uncommon (see e.g. Mulder 1991, van der Wurff 1994 and Luraghi 1997 for discussion), and even the rule in some cases, e.g. in coordinated sentences which share the same object (Hofmann & Szantyr 1972: 824):

(90) Domum meam maioribus praesidiis munivi

house-ACC.SG my-ACC.SG better-ABL.PL defence-ABL.PL protect-PRF.1SG atque PRO-OBJ firmavi.87 and fortify-PRF.1SG y

. 1.4, cited in Luraghi 1997: 242)

The Romance languages differ in the extent to which they allow null objects,88 but the Romance languages certainly admit null pronouns in non-subject func-tions. In other words, the Itinerarium Egeriae differs from Classical Latin as well as from modern Romance as far as pro is concerned. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss possible reasons for this difference, however. The im-portant point is that pro is in practice absent in non-subject functions in the Itinerarium Egeriae. The tendency for pro to occur only in subject function in the

87 It is not obvious that there should be a PRO-OBJ here; one may argue that the object posi-tion is empty. Whichever position one takes, however, it does not alter the fact that this kind of sentences does not occur in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Moreover, if we follow the principles of the PROIEL annotation, we have to insert a PRO-OBJ here since we can infer a specific referent as the object of firmavi, namely the house. 88 On null objects in Romance see e.g. Rizzi (1986) on Italian, Raposo (1986) on European Portuguese, Lambrecht & Lemoine (2005) on French.

A Restriction on pro


Itinerarium Egeriae is so strong, in fact, that it seems to be a syntactic restriction rather than just a tendency.

4.2 Non-Anaphoric Uses

We saw in Section 2.2.3 that full NPs are lower accessibility markers than pro-nominal forms. Since not previously mentioned referents are less accessible than referents that have been, I expect full NPs to be the primary non-anaphoric devices. As will become clear, this is indeed the case in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

4.2.1 New Referents

As predicted, Table 9 shows that when the referent is NEW or NON_SPEC,89 the selected expression is a full NP in the vast majority of cases:

Table 9: Forms used for NEW and NON_SPEC referents

Full NP pro Overt pronominal

NEW 304 99,67 % 0 1 0,33 % NON_SPEC 416 96,52 % 14 3,25 % 1 0,23 %

When the referent is NEW or NON_SPECmemory nor in the (extra-)linguistic context and hence is hardly accessible at all. This accounts for the strong preference of NEW and NON_SPEC referents for full NPs. I comment on the few occurrences of pro and overt pronominal forms in Chapter 5.

Note furthermore that none of the full NPs is a proper name. This is because the proper names found in the Itinerarium Egeriae refer to famous persons and places from the Bible, such as Moses, Abraham, Jerusalem and Golgotha, and thus they are not NEW, but retrieved from the general knowledge of the address-ee

y and hence tagged as

ACC_GEN.

89 Recall from Section 3.1.3 that NON_SPEC is the non-specific counterpart to NEW.

Non-Anaphoric Uses 95

In her accessibility hierarchy (Figure 5 in Section 2.2.3 above), Ariel (1990: 73) assumes that proper names are lower accessibility markers than common nouns. This, however, does not seem entirely correct. A proper name like Moy-ses is indeed more informative than a common noun like, say, homo or uir,

use Moyses refers to a unique referent whereas there are many pos-sible referents of homo/uir in the world. Homo/uir therefore require a higher degree of accessibility in order for the addressee to identify the intended refer-ent. Nevertheless, the referent of a proper name is usually already present in the y y

memory, a proper name does not seem appropriate. If Egeria assumed that Mo-ses was not already known to the addressees of her journal, could she have referred to him simply as Moyses? I think not. Some further information would be required. Whereas the referent of a common noun may be and often is completely new to the addressee, proper names seem to require the presence of th

y

higher accessibility than common nouns.

4.2.2 ANCHORED Referents

When the referent is ANCHORED, the noun phrase contains additional information that assists the addressee in identifying the referent. Because of this additional information, pronominal forms are possible, although they are high accessibil-ity markers and normally used when the referent is previously mentioned. Con-sider Table 10:

Table 10: Forms used for ANCHORED referents


Full NP 357 88.15 % pro 0 0 % Overt pronominal 48 11.85 %

As we can see, the full NPs are preferred here, too. The following is an example of a full NP in which the noun phrase contains a genitive modifier and is there-fore ANCHORED:


(91) Itaque ergo duxit me primum ad palatium therefore then lead-PRF.3SG I-ACC first to palace-ACC.SG Aggari regis et ibi ostendit michi Abgar-GEN king-GEN.SG and there show-PRF.3SG I-DAT archiotepam ingens ipsius simillimam [ ] marble.statue-ACC.SG great-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG very.like-ACC.SG He thereupon led me first to the palace of King Abgar, where he showed

me a great marble statue of him p (Itin. XIX.6)

I discuss the full NPs in more detail in Chapter 6. Although full NPs are pre-ferred, overt pronominal forms are indeed used in some cases; when the noun phrase contains additional information assisting the addressee in identifying the intendended referent, a pronominal form can be an appropriate reference device even if the referent is not highly acccessible. Chapter 5 discusses the pronominal forms in more detail.

4.2.3 Inferable Referents

When the referent is inferable,90 the selected expression is a full NP in the ma-jority of the cases, as Table 11 shows:

Table 11: Forms used for ACC_INF and NON_SPEC_INF referents


ACC_INF 239 98.76 % 2 0.83 % 1 0.41 %

NON_SPEC_INF 38 100 % 0 0

That is to say, inferable referents are usually not accessible enough for a pro-nominal form to be used, and a full NP is sel

p

90 That is, ACC_INF or NON_SPEC_INF in the PROIEL annotation. Cases in which the referent is inferable are often considered anaphoric as well (indirect/associative anaphora). Yet, inferable referents may show a different distribution of forms from that of forms used for direct anaphor-ic reference. Thus, anaphoric / anaphora means only direct anaphoric reference in the pre-sent study.

Non-Anaphoric Uses 97

make your contribution as informative as is required . Such is the case in (92):

(92) Et incipient episcopo ad manum

and begin-PRS.3SG bishop-DAT.SG to hand-ACC.SG accedere singuli. 91 proceed-INF all-NOM.PL p

I discuss the inferable full NPs in more detail in Chapter 6. As we can see in Table 11, there are some albeit few occurrences in which an inferable refer-ent is realised in pronominal form. Chapter 5 discusses these in more detail.

4.2.4 Generally Known and Generic Referents

When the referent is generally known92 or generic,93 Egeria uses only full NPs, as Table 10 shows:

Table 10: Forms used for ACC_GEN and KIND referents

Full NP

ACC_GEN 487 100 % KIND 45 100 %

(93) is an example of a generally known referent, (94) of a generic one: (93) Haec est autem uallis ingens et

this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG but valley-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG and

91 Recall (from footnote 7 in Section 1.1.2) that in the Latin examples, the noun phrase under discussion is underlined whereas its antecedent is in boldface. In the case of an inferable referent (ACC_INF or NON_SPEC_INF) the noun phrase from which the referent is inferred, is in boldface. Likewise, in cataphoric examples, the antecedent that comes later is in boldface (as in hoc dixit: Dominus sepultus est ibi

pi ,

pthis: The Lord is buried there .

92 ACC_GEN in the PROIEL givenness status annotation. 93 KIND in the PROIEL givenness status annotation.


planissima, in qua filii Israhel commorati very.flat-NOM.SG in REL.ABL.SG son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL waited-NOM.PL sunt his diebus, quod sanctus Moyses be-PRS.3PL this-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL when holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM ascendit in montem Domini et fuit ibi ascend-PRF.3SG in mountain-ACC.SG Lord-GEN and be-PRF.3SG there quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus. forty-INDECL day-ABL.PL and forty-INDECL night-ABL.PL Now this is the great and flat valley wherein the children of Israel wait-

ed during those days when holy Moses went up into the mount of the y y p (Itin. II.2)

(94) In eo ergo uico, qui est in

in that-ABL.SG then village-ABL.SG REL.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in media planitie positus, in medio middle-ABL.SG level-ground-ABL.SG placed-NOM.SG in middle-ABL.SG loco est monticulus non satis place-ABL.SG be-PRS.3SG little-hill-NOM.SG not very grandis, sed factus sicut solent esse big-NOM.SG but made-NOM.SG as be.wont-PRS.3PL be-INF tumbae, sed grandes: tomb-NOM.PL but big-NOM.PL The village, which is situated in the middle of the level ground, has in

its midst a little hill of no great size, shaped as large tombs are wont to (Itin. XIII.3)

Personal pronouns are high accessibility markers. Demonstratives require

lower accessibility than personal pronouns. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in Section 2.2.3, pronominal forms, whether they are pronominal demonstratives or personal pronouns, require higher accessibility than full NPs because they contain little information assisting the addressee in identifying the referent. In particular, the referent of a personal pronoun must be present in the address-

-term memory and at the current centre of attention (Gundel et al. 1993). In other words, personal pronouns normally require previous mention of the referent. The referent of a pronominal demonstrative need not be present in short-term memory; it can be present in the immediate situation instead. Pres-ence in long-term memory, on the other hand, as is the case with generally known referents and generics, does not render the referent accessible enough for either personal pronouns or pronominal demonstratives to be used. Hence

Anaphoric Uses 99

the absence of pronominal forms when the referent is generally known or gener-ic.

4.2.5 Referents that are Present in the Immediate Situation

If the referent is present in the immediate situation,94 pronominal demonstra-tives are appropriate because the referent of a demonstrative need not be pre-sent in the linguistic context, but may also be present in the extra-linguistic context, i.e. the immediate situation (see Section 2.3.3). As Table 11 shows, there are indeed some occurrences of overt pronominal forms:

Table 11: Forms used for ACC_SIT referents


Full NP 21 75 % pro 0 0 % Overt pronominal 7 25 %

I discuss the pronominal forms further in Chapter 5 and the full NPs in Chapter 6.

Now that we have seen the distribution of forms for various kinds of refer-ents not previously mentioned, I turn to the anaphoric uses of the full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro.

4.3 Anaphoric Uses95

Table 12 shows the distribution of the anaphoric expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

94 Givenness status ACC_SIT in the PROIEL annotation. 95 Noun phrases with givenness status OLD, OLD_INACT and NON_SPEC_OLD in the PROIEL cor-pus are all anaphoric.


Table 12: Number of occurrences of the various anaphoric expressions in the Itinerarium Egeri-ae


Full NP 1775 79.70 % pro 248 11.14 % Overt pronominal 204 9.16 %

Since pro, as we saw in Section 4.1 above, occurs only in subject function (with one exception), I discuss the subject anaphors and non-subject anaphors sepa-rately with respect to the variables thought to influence accessibility and/or choice of anaphoric expression.

4.3.1 The Choice between the Subject Anaphors

Before looking at the data, an overview of the subject anaphors is in order. The number of occurrences of each anaphoric expression in subject function is shown in Table 13:

Table 13: Subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae



Although I distinguish between pro and overt pronominal forms, I take the basic division to be between full NPs as low accessibility markers, on the one hand, and pro and other pronominal forms as high accessibility markers, on the other (see Section 2.2.3). Therefore, I also discuss pro and the overt pronominal forms together as one group of high accessibility markers.

Anaphoric Uses 101

4.3.1.1 Form of the Antecedent As we saw in Section 2.2.1, a number of scholars assume that the form of the antecedent influences accessibility and thus the choice of anaphoric expres-sion. Figure 11 shows the distribution of full NPs, overt pronominal forms andpro across the various antecedent forms.

Figure 11: Distribution of anaphoric subject expressions across various antecedent forms

Recall from Section 2.2.1 that the antecedent forms to the left in Figure 11 are thought to be more accessible than the forms to the right. The behaviour of the anaphoric expressions is partly in accordance with this.

pro is the highest accessibility marker, and we can expect pro to be the pre-ferred anaphor when the antecedent itself is pro. This is indeed the case. pro occurs significantly more frequently than the full NPs when the antecedent is also pro (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). An example of pro referring back to an-other pro is the following:


(95) Item PRO-SUB ostenderunt locum, ubi filii also show-PRF.3SG place-ACC.SG where child-NOM.PL Israhel habuerunt concupiscentiam escarum. Nam PRO-SUB Israel-INDECL have-PRF.3PL desire-ACC.SG meat-GEN.PL for ostenderunt nobis etiam et illum locum, qui show-PRF.3SG we-DAT also and ille-ACC.SG place-ACC.SG REL.NOM.SG appellatus est incendium [...] called-NOM.SG be-PRS.SG burning-ACC.SG

el lusted for

V.7)

In some cases, however, a pro antecedent is picked up by a full NP anaphor. In these cases, the distance to the antecedent tends to be relatively long, but not always. In 26 out of 31 examples, the antecedent is more than one sentence away, but there are also cases in which the antecedent is in the same sentence, as in (96):

(96) Nam PRO-SUB duxit nos statim ad ecclesiam,

for lead-PRF.3SG we-ACC immediately to church-ACC.SG quae est foras ciuitatem in eo loco, REL.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG without city-ACC.SG in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG ubi fuit domus sancti Abrahae, where be-PRF.3SG house-NOM.SG holy-GEN.SG Abraham-GEN id est in ipsis fundamentis et de that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in ipse-ABL.PL foundation-ABL.PL and from ipso lapide, ut tamen dicebat sanctus ipse-ABL.SG stone-ABL.SG as however say.IMPERF.3SG holy-NOM.SG episcopus. bishop-NOM.SG p

where stood the house of holy Abraham; it stands on the same founda-y

XX.3) Here, however, there is a same-number-and-gender competitor (Abrahae), that probably induces the choice of a full NP in order to make the reference clear.

As we may expect since full NPs are low accessibility markers, full NPs are the preferred expressions when the antecedent itself is a full NP and hence low-

Anaphoric Uses 103

ly accessible. When the antecedent is a full NP, full NPs are highly significantly more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). (97) is an example of a full NP antecedent picked up by a full NP anaphor:

(97) Cui Iob ad tunc in eo loco

REL.DAT.SG Job-INDECL to then in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG facta est ista ecclesia, made-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-NOM.SG church-NOM.SG quam uidetis, ita tamen ut lapis cum REL.ACC.SG see-PRS.2PL thus however so.that stone-NOM.SG with corpore non moueretur in alio loco, body-ABL.SG not move-IMPF.PASS.3SG in another-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG sed ibi, ubi inuentum fuerat corpus

p

but there where found-NOM.SG be-PLUPRF.3SG body-NOM.SG y

such a manner that the stone with the body should not be moved, but y

The overt pronominal antecedents, too, show significantly more occurrenc-

es of pro anaphors than of full NP anaphors (p=0.01768, chi-squared test). This is what we might expect insofar as overt pronominal antecedents should be relatively highly accessible and thus good candidates for being picked up by a pronominal form, either pro or another. Still, there may be more full NPs than expected. Whereas pro antecedents, when picked up by a full NP, are usually not in the same sentence as the anaphor, this does not hold for the overt pro-nominal antecedents. The overt pronominal antecedents that are picked up by a full NP anaphor are in fact in the same sentence as the anaphor in 18 out of 32 occurrences. In other words, overt pronominal antecedents seem to be less ac-cessible than pro antecedents even when they are in the same sentence as the anaphor. Some modification is in order here, however. In a number of occur-rences in which a full NP refers back to an overt pronominal antecedent in the same sentence, the antecedent is se, and the construction is one in which the full NP is dislocated from its normal preverbal position and placed after se, as in the following example: (98) benedicuntur ab episcopo primum cathecumini,

bless-PRS.PASS.3PL by bishop-ABL.SG first catechumen-NOM.PL


item fideles. Recipit se episcopus then faithful-NOM.PL take.back-PRS.3SG REFL.3SG-ACC bishop-NOM.SG et uadent se unusquisque ad ospitium and go-PRS.3PL REFL.ACC.PL everyone-NOM.SG to lodging-ACC.SG suum, ut se resumant. POSS.REFL.ACC.SG so.that REFL.ACC.PL recover-PRS.3PL

then the bishop retir(Itin. XXV.6 7)

The givenness annotation in the PROIEL corpus is linear (see Section 3.1.3.2 above). Thus, se is analysed as the antecedent of episcopus because it precedes episcopus in the linear string. Se, coincidentally as it were, surfaces as the ante-cedent of episcopus, whereas episcopo is the true antecedent. Episcopo is not only a full NP antecedent, but also not in the same sentence as the anaphor, and anaphoric reference by means of a full NP may be less striking than it is at first glance.

As regards the antecedents that are neither pronominal nor full NPs, these are instances of discourse deixis, that is, the anaphor refers back to a proposi-tion/event (Himmelmann 1996). There is no significant difference between full NPs and overt pronominal forms here (p=0.2752, chi-squared test), whereas pro occurs once. Since pronominal forms require high accessibility and proposi-tions/events are typically lowly accessible, it is somewhat surprising that the pronominal forms relatively frequently occur in cases of discourse deixis. Yet, the proximal demonstrative hic is apparently suitable in this use, as will become clear in Chapter 5.

4.3.1.2 Syntactic function of the Antecedent As we saw in Section 2.2.1.6, the syntactic function of the antecedent has been thought to influence the accessibility of a referent and hence to be important for the choice of anaphoric expression.

Figure 12 shows the distribution of forms across subject antecedents, object antecedents and other antecedents.

Anaphoric Uses 105

Figure 12: Distribution of anaphoric subject expressions across antecedents in subject func-tion, object function and other functions

The choice of a full NP, pro or an overt pronominal form correlates significantly p p g-squared

test). As Figure 12 shows, there is a clear preference for full NP anaphors when the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object. Full NPs are significantly more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). Two examples of full NP anaphors are the follow-ing:

(99) [...] accessimus denuo ad alium locum [30 words omitted].

reach-PRF.1PL anew to other-ACC.SG place-ACC.SG In eo ergo loco, licet et tectum in that-ABL.SG then place-ABL.SG although also covered-NOM.SG


non sit, tamen petra ingens est [...] not be-PRS.3SG however stone-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

m-plement)

(100) Legitur etiam et ille locus de read-PRS.PASS.3SG also and ille-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG from euangelio, ubi dicit de ascensu Domini; gospel-ABL.SG where speak-PRS.3SG about ascension-ABL.SG Lord-GEN legitur et denuo de actus apostolorum, ubi read-PRS.PASS.3SG also anew about act-ACC.PL apostle-GEN.PL where dicit de ascensu Domini in celis speak-PRS.3SG about ascension-ABL.SG Lord-GEN in heaven-ABL.PL post resurrectionem. after resurrection-ACC.SG

Ascension, also that from the Acts of the Apostles which tells of the As-p

antecedent is a nominal argument)

Recall that antecedents that are neither subjects nor objects are thought to be less accessible than subject and object antecedents, and that full NPs require less accessibility than pronominal forms (whether overt or null). Thus, the fact that full NPs are the preferred anaphors with this type of antecedent is precisely what we may expect. Note also that in (100), the referent is not a central referent in the discourse; the Lord never takes part in the actions described in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. Hence the referent is less accessible and the task of identifying the intended referent would be more difficult if a pronominal form were used instead.

Subject antecedents show a slightly higher number of full NP anaphors than of pro. The difference is significant, but less so than when the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object (p=0.009874, chi-squared test). An example of a subject antecedent picked up by a full NP is the following:

(101) Intrat episcopus intro cancellos Anastasis,

enter-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG inside rail-ACC.PL Anastasis-GEN dicitur unus ymnus, et sic facit say-PRS.PASS.3SG one-NOM.SG hymn-NOM.SG and thus make-PRS.3SG

Anaphoric Uses 107

orationem episcopus [...] prayer-ACC.SG bishop-NOM.SG p y p

asis, and one hymn is said, then

(101) is from the second part of the Itinerarium Egeriae, in which Egeria de-scribes the liturgy in Jerusalem. As will become clear in Section 4.3.3, in the second part of the text, none of the referents in the second part of the text are central, and they are therefore likely to show full NP anaphors rather than pro-nominal anaphors.

Nevertheless, on the assumption that full NPs are low accessibility markers and that subject antecedents are relatively highly accessible, we might expect to find a preference for high accessibility markers, i.e. pronominal forms, when the antecedent is a subject. Pronominal forms are not even preferred if we drop the distinction between overt pronominal forms and pro and distinguish only be-tween full NPs and pronominal forms. There are 224 pronominal forms and 246 full NPs altogether, an insignificant difference (p=0.3102, chi-squared test). This indicates that subject antecedents are not necessarily highly accessible, and that other factors too are determining the choice of anaphoric expression. Nota-bly, distance to the antecedent seems to be important, as will become clear in Section 4.3.1.8 and 4.3.1.9. Indeed, if we consider subject antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor only, the incidence of full NP anaphors is only 14.02 %. (102) is an example of a full NP anaphor:

(102) Ac sic ergo nos alia die mane

and thus then we-NOM other-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG in.the.morning rogauimus episcopum, ut faceret oblationem, ask-PRF.1PL bishop-ACC.SG that make-IMPF.3SG oblation-ACC.SG sicut et facere PRO-SUB dignatus est, et as also make-INF deigned-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG and benedicens nos episcopus profecti sumus. blessing-NOM.SG we-ACC bishop-NOM.SG set.out-NOM.PL be-PRS.1PL p

ion, which he

A full NP seems superfluous in this example. If the selected anaphor were a pronominal form, we would still be able to identify the intended referent. The choice of a full NP may be motivated by a wish to make explicit the fact that the


subject of benedicens jbenedicens in any case, since

benedicens is a singular participle. This shows that language users do not al- for referential choice.

There is no significant difference between subject and object antecedents with respect to the distribution of anaphoric expressions (p=0.374, two-sided Fisher te

p p p p

subject and object antecedents (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). This suggests j js-

sibility and choice of anaphoric subject expression; the main distinction is be-tween subject and object antecedents, on the one hand, and other antecedents, on the other.

NPs, I conclude that antecedents that are neither subjects nor objects are often lowly accessible and thus induce the choice of a full NP. As regards the subject and object antecedents, the full NPs and pronominal forms (pro and other) do not differ significantly in frequency, a fact which leads to the conclusion that subject and object antecedents are not necessarily highly accessible, and are therefore sensitive to other accessibility determining variables.

4.3.1.3 Antecedent Topicality In addition to the syntactic function of the antecedent, the topicality of the an-tecedent may influence accessibility and the choice of anaphoric expression in a discourse. As Section 2.2.1.5 showed, several studies on referential choice have suggested that there is a link between topical antecedents and pronominal anaphors.

The choice of full NPs, pro or overt pronominal forms in subject function, however, does not significantly depend on antecedent topicality. The effect of this variable is not significant whether we consider the variable independently

-squared test) or all the variables in relation to each other (see Figure 21 in Section 4.3.1.9 below). As Table 16 illustrates, full NPs are the preferred expressions in both cases, followed by pro and the overt pronominal forms.

Anaphoric Uses 109

Table 16: Anaphoric subject expressions used for topical, respectively non-topical anteced-ents96


Topical antecedents

111 52.36 % 84 39.62 % 17 8.02 %

Non-topical antecedents

303 58.49 % 159 30.69 % 56 10.81 %

Antecedent topicality in the same sentence as the anaphor or in the imme-diately preceding sentence may be more important than topicality in general, however. If there are sentences

y and hence other topics intervening between

the antecedent and the anaphor, the referent is not the current topic of the dis-course. Figure 13 shows the distribution of anaphoric subject expressions for antecedents that are topics in the same sentence as the anaphor, or in the im-mediately preceding sentence.

Figure 13: Anaphoric subject expressions used for antecedents that are topics in the same p j p p

96 The numbers do not add up to the numbers in Table 13 because the OLD_INACT referents carry no information on the antecedent, and because there are also some other occurrences in which no information on the antecedent is registered (see Section 3.2).


As we can see, pro is now the preferred expression, and occurs significantly more frequently than the full NPs (p=0.008927, chi-squared test). In sum, then, y

to induce the choice of pro more frequently than a full NP. We find, however, a certain number of full NPs also when the antecedent is the topic of the previous sentence. This is probably due to distance; as will become clear in Section 4.3.1.8, pro prefers antecedents in the same sentence, and is less frequently the chosen anaphor when the antecedent is in the previous sentence.

4.3.1.4 Topicality of the Anaphor Itself Although the topicality of the anaphor itself is not an accessibility determining factor, the topicality of the anaphor may nevertheless influence the choice of anaphoric expression, as we saw in Section 2.2.2.

Figure 14 shows the correlations between anaphor topicality and the choice of anaphoric expression.

Figure 14: Anaphoric subject expressions used in topic function, respectively non-topic func-tion

Anaphoric Uses 111

There is significant correlation between choice of anaphoric expression and -squared test), but the referring expres-

sions do not behave entirely as we might expect. As Figure 14 shows, full NPs are the preferred expressions followed by pro and the overt pronominal forms

both in topical and non-topical function.97 Since pronouns are the preferred topic expressions (Givón 1983: 17; Lam-

brecht 1994: 165), I would expect topicality to induce the choice of a pronominal form (either pro or an overt pronominal form) more frequently than a full NP. Yet, full NPs are indeed the preferred expressions also in topic function; even if we consider pro and the overt pronominal forms together, the full NPs are still significantly more frequent (p=0.04323, chi-squared test). This shows that a topic is not necessarily realised as a pronominal form. (103) is an example of a topical full NP:

(103) ubi ostendit nobis in medio fontem

where show-PRF.3SG we-DAT in middle-ABL.SG spring-ACC.SG aquae optime satis et pure, qui a water-GEN.SG excellent-GEN.SG very and pure-GEN.SG REL.NOM.SG from semel integrum fluuium dimittebat. Habebat once continous-ACC.SG stream-ACC.SG send.out-IMPF.3SG have-IMPF.3SG autem ante se ipse fons quasi but in.front.of REFL.ACC.SG ipse-NOM.SG spring-NOM.SG almost lacum [...] pool-ACC.SG p

he showed us in the middle a spring of excellent and pure water, which sent out continuously a good stream. The spring had in front of it y

In most cases in which a topic is realised as a full NP, the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor (164 of 186 occurrences). It is further away than in the previous sentence in a number of cases as well (in 89 occurrences). As mentioned earlier and will become clear later (in Section 4.3.1.8 and 4.3.1.9), antecedent distance has a strong effect on the choice of anaphoric expression, pronominal forms being most likely to occur when the antecedent is in the same sentence, full NPs when the antecedent is further away. Long distance to the

97 The full NPs are significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms in both cases (p < 0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared test).


antecedent is therefore likely to be responsible for the relatively frequent use of full NPs in topic function.

4.3.1.5 Animacy As we saw in Section 2.2.1, animacy is another variable that has been showed to influence the choice of anaphoric expression. In this chapter, I will be con-cerned only with the distinction between HUMAN and non-HUMAN. The more fine-grained animacy categories become important in Chapter 6. Figure 15 shows the distribution of anaphoric subject expressions for HUMAN, respectively non-HUMAN, referents.

Figure 15: Anaphoric subject expressions used for HUMAN respectively non-HUMAN referents98

If we consider animacy independently of the other variables that are assumed to influence the choice of referring expression, we find that animacy has a signifi-cant impact on choice of anaphoric subject expression (p<0.0001, Pears -

98 Because some noun phrases do not carry information about animacy, the total number of noun phrases is not the same as shown in Table 13.

Anaphoric Uses 113

squared test). Section 4.3.1.9 will show, however, that topicality of the anaphor does not come out as a significant predictor if we see all the variables in relation to each other. The effect or perhaps lack of effect of animacy on the choice of anaphoric expression nevertheless deserves a comment.

Figure 15 shows that full NPs are the preferred expressions for HUMAN as well as non-HUMAN referents. Since HUMAN referents are presumably more acces-sible than non-HUMAN ones and better candidates for pronominalisation (Dahl & Fraurud 1996), I would expect a preference for pronominal forms when the ref-erent is HUMAN. However, full NPs are significantly more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). In other words, the referring expressions do not behave as we may expect.

(104) and (105) are examples of HUMAN referents realised as full NPs:

(104) Illud etiam retulit nobis sanctus ipse ille-ACC.SG also tell-PRF.3SG we-DAT holy-NOM.SG ipse-NOM.SG dicens [40 words omitted] Ostendit etiam nobis saying-NOM.SG show-PRF.3SG also we-DAT sanctus episcopus [...] holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG y p

(Itin. XIX.17 18)

(105) [...] de sabbato enim usque in quinta feria, from sabbath-ABL.SG for until to fifth-ABL.SG weekday-ABL.SGqua post cena noctu comprehenditur REL.ABL.SG after supper-ABL.SG night-ABL.SG take-PRS.PASS.3SG Dominus, sex dies sunt. [59 words omitted] Propterea Lord-NOM six-INDECL day-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL moreover autem Martyrium appellatur, quia in but martyrium-NOM.SG call-PRS.PASS.3SG because in Golgotha est, id est post Golgotha-INDECL be-PRS.3SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG behind Crucem, ubi Dominus passus est, [...] cross-ACC.SG where Lord-NOM suffered-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

supper, the Lord was taken by night. It is called the martyrium because it is in Golgotha behind the Cross, where th

y

XXIX.5 XXX.1)


The HUMAN referents are frequently well-known biblical persons like God, Jesus or Moses, as in (105), where the referent is Dominus

ps

are not central referents in the discourse and the fact that they are not central participants (hence lowly accessible), may induce the choice of a full NP rather than a pronominal form (see also Section 4.3.3 below).

Also when the referent is non-HUMAN, full NPs are highly significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms considered together (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). The fact that full NPs are preferred when the referent is non-HUMAN, how-ever, accords with the assumption that non-humans are less accessible than humans, and less likely to be pronominalised than humans, as shown by Dahl & Fraurud (1996).

4.3.1.6 The type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs A further variable thought to influence the choice of expression is the type of clause that contains the antecedent. More precisely, subordinate clause ante-cedents are assumed to be less accessible than main clause antecedents (see Section 2.2.1).

Like animacy, the type of clause that contains the antecedent come out as a significant predictor if we consider this variable independently of the others (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), but not if we consider all the variables simultane-ously (see Figure 21 in Section 4.3.1.9 below). Figure 16 shows the distribution of forms for main clause and subordinate clause antecedents, respectively. Since, as pointed out in 2.2.1, subordinate clause antecedents are presumably less accessible only when they are not part of the sentence containing the anaphor, Figure 16 shows only subordinate clause antecedents that are not part of the sentence containing the anaphor.

Anaphoric Uses 115

Figure 16: Anaphoric subject expressions used for main clause, respectively subordinate clause, antecedents

As Figure 16 shows, full NPs are preferred in both cases. Main clause ante-cedents show significantly more full NPs than pro, the next most frequent form (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). Also, if we consider pro and the overt pronominal forms together as a group, the full NPs are significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms (p=0.0007689, chi-squared test), though less so than when the antecedent is in a subordinate clause (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). If we take antecedent distance into account, we can explain the preference shown by main clause antecedents for full NP anaphors. As Section 4.3.1.8 and 4.3.1.9 will show, distance to the antecedent has a particularily strong effect on the choice of anaphoric expression in subjet function: if the antecedent and anaphor are in the same sentence, the selected anaphor is most likely a pronominal form; if the antecedent is further away, a full NP is more likely to be the selected anaphor. Indeed, in 182 of 213 occurrences in which a full NP anaphor picks up a main clause antecedent, the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor. Conversely, main clause antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor show a pronominal anaphor (pro or overt) in 71.3 % of the cases.


Subordinate clause antecedents, too, are more likely to be picked up by a full NP than by a pronominal form (overt or null) (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), but this is what we can expect insofar as subordinate clause antecedents are assumed to be lowly accessible.

I hypothesised that a subordinate clause antecedent is less accessible first and foremost if the subordinate clause does not belong to the sentence contain-ing the anaphor. Figure 17 confirms this hypothesis. It shows the distribution of anaphoric expressions for subordinate clause antecedents that are part of the

ce.

Figure 17: Anaphoric subject expressions used for subordinate clause antecedents within the same sentence as the anaphor

As we can see, when the subordinate clause antecedent is in the same sen-tence as the anaphor, pro is the preferred expression, being significantly more frequent than the full NPs (p<0.0001, chi-squared test) and indicating that sub-ordinate clause antecedents within the same sentence as the anaphor are often highly accessible (because pro requires high accessibility). It may also indicate that distance to the antecedent is of more importance than which type of clause the antecedent occurs in. As already mentioned, distance is indeed a strong determinant for accessibility and the choice of anaphoric subject expression, as will become clear in in Section 4.3.1.8 and 4.3.1.9. Also the fact that the type of clause in which the antecedent occurs does not come out as a significant predic-

Anaphoric Uses 117

tor in the classification tree in Section 4.3.1.9 below whereas distance does, confirms the suggestion that distance is more important than the clause type of the antecedent for the choice of anaphoric subject expression.

4.3.1.7 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents As I showed in Section 2.2.2, the appearance of one or more competing referents may influence the choice of anaphoric expression. Recall that I count as possi-ble competitors those referents that intervene between the anaphor and the antecedent. Furthermore, the verb disambiguates for person, so that competi-tors of pro are only those intervening referents that have the same number as the intended referent. If the anaphoric expression is an overt pronominal form, the overt pronominal form contains information on gender in addition to the information on number expressed by the verb. Thus, competitors of an overt pronominal form are only the intervening referents that have the same number and gender as the intended referent.

Figure 18 shows the distribution of anaphoric subject expressions in the respec-tive presence and absence of same-number competitors. The choice of anaphor-ic subject expression correlates significantly with this variable (p<0.0001, Pear-j

-squared test).


Figure 18: Anaphoric subject expressions used in the respective presence and absence of same-number competitors

As Figure 18 shows, when there are no same-number competitors, pro is the preferred expression, being significantly more frequent than the full NPs (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). An example of pro used in the absence of same-number competitors is the following:

(106) [...] perueni ad fluuium Eufraten, de quo satis

come-PRF.1SG to river-ACC.SG Euphrates-ACC of REL.ABL.SG very bene scriptum est esse flumen magnum well written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG be-INF river-ACC.SG big-ACC.SG Eufraten et ingens, et quasi PRO-SUB Euphrates-ACC and great-NOM.SG and almost terribilis est; terrible-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

Anaphoric Uses 119

the great river EuphratesXVIII.2)

The fact that pro is preferred when there are no same-number competitors is what we might expect given that in the absence of such competitors, the refer-ent is easily accessible, and that pro is a marker of high accessibility.

Conversely, when one or more same-number competitors occur, full NPs are the preferred expressions. Full NPs are significantly more frequent than pro, which is the second most frequent form (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), and also more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together (p<0.0001, chi-squared test).

Note that whereas pro is highly significantly more frequent than the overt pronominal forms when there are no competitors (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), there is only a barely significant difference between pro and the overt pronomi-nal forms (p=0.04123, chi-squared test) in the presence of one or more same-number competitors. An overt pronominal form is more likely to be the selected anaphor in the presence of same-number competitors because overt pronominal forms restrict the reference more than pro by virtue of containing information also about gender. Yet full NPs are by far preferred, showing that a full NP ra-ther than an overt pronominal form is often chosen as a means of making refer-ence clear in the presence of same-number competitors.

There is significant difference between contexts without same-number competitors and contexts without same-number-and-gender competitors p

-squared test). The contexts with one or more com-petitors, however, do not differ depending on what we consider competitors

-squared test). Consider Figure 19:


Figure 19: Anaphoric subject expressions used in the presence, respectively absence, of same-number-and-gender competitors

As we see, there is a relatively high number of full NPs when there are no same-number-and-gender competitors. pro is significantly more frequent than the full NPs here too (p=0.03534, chi-squared test), but much less so than in the ab-sence of same-number competitors. The relatively high frequency of full NPs may seem strange at first sight. However, in 14 of the examples, the reason is that the antecedent is se, and the construction is one in which the full NP is dislocated from its normal preverbal position and placed after se, as we saw in example (98) in Section 4.3.1.1 above. The same holds for the following example (=(83) on page 77): (107) ubi se tamen montes illi, inter

where REFL.ACC.PL however mountain-NOM.PL ille-NOM.PL through quos ibamus, aperiebant et faciebant uallem REL.ACC.PL go-IMPF.1PL open-IMPF.3PL and make-IMPF.3PL valley-ACC.SG

Anaphoric Uses 121

infinite-ACC.SG

ut

Moreover, the fact that null arguments are not counted (see Section 3.2) in

some cases leads to some examples being registered as having no competitors even though there is a competing null argument intervening, as in the following example:

(108) Monachi autem plurimi commanent ibi uere

monk-NOM.PL but many-NOM.PL dwell-PRS.3PL there truly sancti et quos hic ascites PRO-SUB uocant. holy-NOM.PL and REL.ACC.PL here ascetic-ACC.PL call-PRS.3PL Hi ergo sancti monachi dignati sunt this-NOM.PL then holy-NOM.PL monk-NOM.PL deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL nos suscipere ualde humane, nam et ad salutationem we-ACC receive-INF very kindly for also to greeting-ACC.SG suam permiserunt nos ingredi. POSS.REFL.ACC.SG permit-PRF.3PL we-ACC go.in-INF

These holy monks deigned to receive us very kindly, and permitted us to y g

-XI.1)

In sum, the reason contexts with no same-number-and-gender competitors differ from contexts with no same-number competitors can be accounted for in part by dislocations of the same type as se montes illi aperiebant in (107), or by the fact that pro is not registered as a competitor. In any case, the choice of ex-pression in the presence of competitors does not significantly depend on which referents we consider competitors those agreeing with the intended referent in number only or those agreeing with it in number and gender. This leads one to believe that the nature of the competitors whether of the same number only or same number and gender has little effect on the choice between full NP anaphors and pronominal anaphors in subject function.

4.3.1.8 Distance to the Antecedent Finally, distance to the antecedent and paragraph/sequence/frame boundaries have been assumed to influence the choice of anaphoric expression (see Section


2.2.1). For ease of exposition, we can treat these two variables together, and that is what I will be doing here and in the following chapters. Following Ariel (1990), Sanford & Garrod (1981) and Fox (1987), I distinguish between anteced-ents in the same sentence, antecedents in the previous sentence, antecedents in the same section, antecedents in the same chapter, and antecedents across a chapter boundary.

So far, we have seen that the factors indicating low accessibility in most cases induce the choice of a full NP, whereas the factors indicating high acces-sibility show less clear tendencies, and rarely a preference for high accessibility markers, that is, pronominal forms; high accessibility markers are more likely therefore to be sensitive to other variables. Notably, this seems to be antecedent distance.

Figure 20 shows the distribution of anaphoric subject expressions across the various distances.

Figure 20: Distribution of anaphoric subject expressions across antecedent distances

The categories to the left are thought to indicate higher accessibility than the categories to the right. As we see, if the antecedent is in the same sentence as

Anaphoric Uses 123

the anaphor, we find a strong preference for the highest accessibility marker, pro. pro is highly significantly more frequent than the full NPs (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). (109) is an example of pro referring back to an antecedent in the same sentence: (109) Haec est uallis Corra, ubi sedit

this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG valley-NOM.SG Corra-NOM where sit-PRF.3SG sanctus Helias Thesbites temporibus Achab holy-NOM.SG Elijah-NOM Thesbite-NOM.SG time-ABL.PL Ahab-INDECL regis, qua famis fuit, et iusso king-GEN.SG when famine-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG and bidding-ABL.SG Dei coruus ei escam portabat, et God-GEN raven-NOM.SG that-DAT.SG food-ACC.SG bring-IMPF.3SG and de eo torrentem aquam PRO-SUB bibebat. from that-ABL.SG torrent-ACC.SG water-ACC.SG drink-IMPF.3SG

ey of Corra, where holy Elijah the Thesbite dwelt in the time of king Ahab, when there was a famine, and at the bidding of God

(Itin. XVI.3)

On the assumption that a main distinction obtains between full NPs, on the one hand, and pronominal forms, on the other, if we consider pro and the overt pronominal forms together, they are also significantly more frequent than the full NPs (p<0.0001 chi-squared test) naturally, since pro already is.

Although pronominal forms are the preferred anaphors when the anteced-ent and anaphor are in the same sentence, a full NP sometimes appears instead. More specifically, a full NP is the selected anaphor in 65 occurrences. In 39 of these, animacy status is non-HUMAN,

p

neither subject nor object in 42 of them. As will become clear in Section 4.3.1.9, short antecedent distance has less effect if the referent is non-HUMAN or if the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object. Thus, in the following example, for instance, the fact that the animacy status is non-HUMAN and that the ante-cedent appears in the syntactic function oblique, may account for the choice of a full NP anaphor even though the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor:

(110) Missa autem, quae fit sabbato

dismissal-NOM.SG but REL.NOM.SG make-PRS.PASS.3SG Sabbath-ABL.SG


ad Anastase, ante solem fit, hoc at Anastasis-ABL before sun-ACC.SG make-PRS.PASS.3SG this-NOM.SG est oblatio, ut ea hora, qua be-PRS.3SG oblation-NOM.SG so.that that-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG REL.ABL.SG incipit sol procedere, et missa in begin-PRS.3SG sun-NOM.SG proceed-INF and dismissal-NOM.SG in Anastase facta sit. Anastasis-ABL made-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

e-fore sunrise, that is, the oblation, so that the dismissal may take place in the Anastasis at the hour when the sun

y p9)

When the antecedent is in the previous sentence, pro is less frequent. Full

NPs are preferred, being significantly more frequent than pro, which is the sec-ond most frequent form (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). If we consider pro and the overt pronominal forms together as a group, the full NPs are still significantly more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms (p=0.001214, chi-squared test). That pronominal forms are preferred when the antecedent is in the same sentence, whereas full NPs are preferred when the antecedent is in the previous sentence, indicates that antecedents in the previous sentence tend to be less accessible than antecedents in the same sentence. Note furthermore that whereas pro is significantly more frequent than the overt pronominal forms when the antecedent is in the same sentence (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), if the antecedent is in the previous sentence, there is no significant difference be-tween pro and the overt pronominal forms (p=0.07724, chi-squared test). In other words, pro

p p qo (Ariel 1990),

occurs more easily when the antecedent is in the same sentence, while overt pronominal forms, as markers of less accessibility, are equally good with ante-cedents in the same and previous sentence.

A full NP is the preferred anaphoric expression if the antecedent is further away than the previous sentence, too. Full NPs are significantly more frequent than pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together when the ante-cedent is in the same section (p=0.0006697, chi-squared test), in the same chap-ter (p<0.0001) and in another chapter (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). The fact that full NPs are preferred whenever the antecedent is further away than in the same sentence indicates that it is primarily antecedents in the same sentence that are highly accessible and can be picked up by a pronominal form. Crucial for the choice between a full NP and a pronominal form, then, appears to be the

Anaphoric Uses 125

than between antecedents within and outside the current frame/sequence/chapter (cf. Fox 1987; Sanford & Garrod 1981).

4.3.1.9 Summary and Discussion of the Data The general tendency that holds for the relationship between full NPs, pro and overt pronominal forms is that full NPs or pro are the preferred expressions in most cases. The overt pronominal forms are never preferred, and it is difficult to find clear tendencies in the use of these. The reason for the less clear tendencies of the overt pronominal forms compared to pro and full NPs may have to do with the specialised uses of the various overt pronominal forms (see Chapter 5). Since the overt pronominal forms show some specialised uses, the overt pro-nominal forms show little uniform behaviour when they are treated together as a group.99

Another general tendency revealed by the data is that the factors indicating low accessibility are indeed likely to induce the choice of a low accessibility marker, i.e. a full NP. Conversely, however, the factors indicating high accessi-bility do not necessarily induce the choice of a high accessibility marker, viz. a pronominal form (either pro or a full form) more often than a full NP. The nota-ble exception is distance to the antecedent. Antecedents in the same sentence show a strong preference for pronominal forms, in particular pro, and we have already seen with respect to some of the other variables that when a factor as-sumed to signal high accessibility shows a preference for full NP anaphors, long antecedent distance can often account for this preference.

In other words, antecedent distance is more important than the other varia-bles for the choice between pronominal forms and full NPs.

99 Some of the demonstrative NPs have specific uses as well (see Chapter 6). The full NPs, however, are much more frequent than the overt pronominal forms, and the majority of the full NPs are in fact bare NPs. Therefore, the specific uses of some demonstrative NPs do not to the same extent influence the properties displayed by the full NPs when they are considered to-gether as a group.


Figure 21: Classification tree for the subject anaphors, full set of predictors

Anaphoric Uses 127

The classification tree in Figure 21 confirms this assumption. The tree pre-dicts the choice of anaphoric subject expression considering all the accessibility determining variables simultaneously. As already mentioned (in Section 4.3.1.5 and 4.3.1.6), animacy and the type of clause in which the antecedent occurs do not turn out as significant predictors in the classification tree, although they come out as significant if we consider each variable independently. Although the classification tree, which considers all the variables simultaneously and compare their relative weight, provides results that differ slightly from those obtained by considering each variable independently (as explained in Section 4.3.1.5 and 4.3.1.6), the tree nevertheless confirms the greater picture estab-lished in the preceding discussion, namely that the choice of anaphoric expres-sion in subject function is primarily determined by distance to the antecedent.

The fact that antecedent distance is the most important predictor is fur-thermore confirmed by an examination of the effect of the factors indicating low accessibility that were shown in the preceding discussion to lead to a preference for low accessibility markers, i.e. full NPs. When the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, these factors no longer lead to the same preference for full NPs.

I have already shown (in Figure 17 on page 116) that subordinate clause an-tecedents are more frequently picked up by pro if they are in the same sentence as the anaphor. This holds for the other factors indicating low accessibility as well. First, short antecedent distance, i.e. antecedent in the same sentence, has a strong effect if the antecedent is a full NP. As we saw above (Section 4.3.1.1), full NP antecedents are more likely to show a full NP anaphor than a pronomi-nal anaphor. Now, if we only consider full NP antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor, we find that the pronominal forms are preferred, as Table 14 shows:

Table 14: Anaphoric subject expressions used for full NP antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor


Full NP 42 33.07 % pro + overt pronominal 85 66.93 %

The pronominal forms are now significantly more frequent than the full NPs (p=0.0001358, chi-squared test). (111) exemplifies the case:


(111) Hic autem ipse ornatus est this-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG adornment-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG et ipsa c ompositio et per octo and ipse-NOM.SG order-NOM.SG and throughout eight-INDECL dies paschae, quae et per epiphania, day-ACC.PL Easter-GEN.SG REL.NOM.SG also throughout epiphany-ABL.SG [24 words omitted] quia dies paschales PRO-SUB

because day-NOM.PL paschal-NOM.PL sunt. be-PRS.3PL

XXXIX.1)

As we saw in Section 4.3.1.3, the choice of anaphoric subject expression is not sensitive to antecedent topicality. Full NPs are preferred irrespective of whether the antecedent is topical or not. Yet, I found that topical antecedents in the same or previous sentence show a preference for pronominal anaphors. This, in fact, holds true also for non-topical antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor. Table 15 shows the anaphoric expressions used for non-topical antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor:

Table 15: Anaphoric subject expressions used for non-topical antecedents in the same sen-tence as the anaphor



As Table 15 shows, pronominal forms are more frequent than the full NPs, even significantly so (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). In sum, short antecedent distance has a stronger effect than non-topicality of the antecedent on the choice of anaphoric expression. Example (112) illustrates a non-topical anteced-ent picked up by a pro anaphor:

(112) Si uultis uidere loca, quae scripta

if will-PRS.2PL see-INF place-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL written-NOM.PL

Anaphoric Uses 129

sunt in libris Moysi, accedite foras hostium be-PRS.3PL in book-ABL.PL Moses-GEN go-IMP.2PL outside door-GEN.PL ecclesiae et de summitate ipsa, ex parte church-GEN.SG and from summit-ABL.SG ipse-ABL.SG from part-ABL.SG tamen ut PRO-SUB possunt hinc parere, [...] still as can-PRS.3PL h ence appear-INF pp

come out of the door of the church, and from the very summit, from the y

Moreover, we saw that the presence of competing referents, same-number

competitors as well as same-number-and-gender competitors, induces the choice of a full NP more often than a pronominal form (see Section 4.3.1.7). Ta-ble 16 shows the number of occurrences of each anaphoric expression in con-texts with one or more competitors and the antecedent in the same sentence as the anaphor:

Table 16: Anaphoric expressions used in the presence of competitors when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor

Full NP pro + pronominal

Same-number competitors

41 34.45 % 78 65.55 %

Same-number-and- gender competitors

29 28.43 % 73 71.57 %

The pronominal forms are now more frequent than the full NPs, and significant-ly so irrespective of competitor type (p=0.0006944 in the presence of same-number competitors and p<0.0001 in the presence of same-number-and-gender competitors, chi-squared tests). In (113), pro is used in this kind of context: (Ag-gari is a same-number-and-gender competitor here): (113) Itaque ergo PRO-SUB [sc. episcopus] duxit me primum ad

therefore then bishop lead-PRF.3SG I-ACC first to palatium Aggari regis et ibi PRO-SUB palace-ACC.SG Abgar-GEN king-GEN.SG and there ostendit michi archiotepam ipsius ingens show-PRF.3SG I-DAT marble.statue-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG great-NOM.SG


simillimam [...] very.like-ACC.SG y

me a great marble statue of him very m

In sum, antecedent distance has a particularly strong effect on accessibility. When the antecedent is in the same sentence, a pronominal form is likely to be the selected anaphor even when other factors indicate low accessibility.

Distance affects the syntactic function of the antecedent and animacy as well, but less so, as I said already in Section 4.3.1.8. As we saw in Section 4.3.1.2, if the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object, the full NPs are significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms (pro or overt). Table 17 shows the number of occurrences of full NPs and pronominal forms when the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object, but in the same sentence as the anaphor.

Table 17: Anaphoric expressions used for non-subject and non-object antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor



As we can see, the pronominal forms are now slightly more frequent than the full NPs. The difference is insignificant (p=0.4461, chi-squared test), howev-er. Nevertheless, full NPs were indeed shown above to be significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms when the antecedent is neither a subject nor an object. In other words, short distance to the antecedent neutralises the effect of a lowly accessible syntactic function, but it does not lead to a prefer-ence for pronominal forms. In the following example pro refers back to an ante-cedent in an attribute function:

(114) Hic est ipse locus, ubi benedixit

this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG where bless-PRF.SG sanctus Moyses homo Dei filios Israhel holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM man-NOM.SG God-GEN son-ACC.PL Israel-INDECL [25 words omitted] lecta etiam pars quedam read-NOM.SG also part-NOM.SG certain-NOM.SG

Anaphoric Uses 131

Deuteronomii in eo loco, nec Deuteronomy-GEN in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG and.not non etiam et canticus ipsius, sed et benedictiones, not also and song-NOM.SG ipse-GEN.SG but also blessing-NOM.PL quas PRO-SUB dixerat super filios Israhel. REL.ACC.PL say-PLUPRF.3SG over son-ACC.PL Israel-INDECL y

r-tain part of Deuteronomy was read, as well as his song, with the bless-ings which he pronounced over the 7)

Regarding animacy, comparing with Figure 15 in Section 4.3.1.5 above,

when the referent is non-HUMAN, we find a higher number of pronominal forms if the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor. Table 18 shows the number of occurrences of full NPs and pronominal forms:

Table 18: Anaphoric expressions used for non-HUMAN referents when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor


Full NP 39 52 % pro + overt pronominal 36 48 %

There is no preference for pronominal forms, however. The difference between full NPs and pronominal forms is insignificant (p=0.729, chi-squared test). The fact that non-HUMAN animacy is less affected by short antecedent distance than y y

s-sumption that humans are better candidates for pronominalisation than non-humans are. As will become clear in Section 4.3.2.8, the fact that the referents of the non-subject anaphors are rarely HUMAN can in part account for the rare choice of pronominal anaphors in non-subject functions.

So far, we have seen that short distance to the antecedent cancels or neu-tralises the effect of factors that are assumed to indicate low accessibility. Con-versely, long distance to the antecedent cancels or neutralises the effect of fac-tors that are thought to indicate high accessibility.

First, we saw in Section 4.3.1.2 that in considering subject antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor only, full NP anaphors are rare. Subject ante-cedents that are not in the same sentence as the anaphor, on the other hand, show a preference for full NP anaphors: 72.88 %. The full NPs are significantly


more frequent than the pronominal forms (pro and overt, p<0.0001, chi-squared test), indicating that longer distance is more important than a highly accessible antecedent function.

The same holds for animacy. If we consider HUMAN antecedents that are not y

significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms (pro and overt, p<0.0001, chi-squared test). This shows that although humans are more likely to be pronominalised than non-humans (Dahl & Fraurud, 1996), humans need not be pronominalised.

Likewise, although the choice of anaphoric subject expression is insensitive to antecedent topicality, we have seen that topical antecedents in the same or previous sentence show a preference for pronominal forms (see Section 4.3.1.3). Topical antecedents that are not in the same sentence as the anaphor, on the other hand, show a pronominal anaphor in only 31.97 % of the cases. That is, the full NPs are significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms (pro and overt, p<0.0001, chi-squared test), and long antecedent distance tends to cancel the effect of a topical antecedent.

Contexts without competitors, on the other hand, are not affected by long antecedent distance to the same extent. As we saw in Section 4.3.1.7, pronomi-nal anaphors are preferred in the absence of competitors. If we consider con-texts without competitors in which the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor, the incidence of full NPs increases, but the full NPs are either not more frequent than the pronominal forms or not significantly so, as Table 19 shows. Nevertheless, long distance has a certain effect here too because the incidence of pronominal anaphors indeed drops when the antecedent is not in the same sentence.

Table 19: Anaphoric expressions used in the absence of competitors when the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor

Full NP pro + pronominal

No same-number competitors100

22 44 % 28 56 %

No same-number-and- gender competitors101

57 57 % 43 43 %

100 p=0.3961, chi-squared test. in this case the full NPs are not 101 p=0.1615, chi-squared test.

Anaphoric Uses 133

Pronominal antecedents do not seem to be affected by long distance to the same extent either. I expect antecedents realised as pro or an overt pronominal form to show a preference for pronominal anaphors. This was in fact shown to be the case for pro antecedents (less so for overt pronominal antecedents) in Section 4.3.1.1. Now, if we consider pro and overt pronominal antecedents that are not in the same sentence as the anaphor, full NP anaphors still score only 42.11 %. This means that even when the antecedent is further away than in the same sentence, an antecedent realised as pro or an overt pronominal form is still relatively likely to be picked up by a pronominal anaphor. This leads us to believe that there is a parallel between pronominal antecedents and pronominal anaphors. That is, once pronominalised, the referent is likely to continue to be picked up by a pronominal form. This is partly true as far as pro is concerned. Although pro antecedents are relatively likely to be picked up by pro even if they are not in the same sentence as the anaphor (we find pro in 53.22 % of the cases), pro cannot refer to an antecedent that is too far away either. Consider Figure 22, which shows the number of sentences intervening between pro anaphors and their antecedents:


Figure 22: Antecedent distance in sentences shown by pro

As Figure 22 illustrates, pro rarely shows an antecedent that is more than two sentences away. Thus, once a referent is realised as pro, it is relatively likely to be picked up by pro, also when the antecedent is not in the same sentence, but not if the antecedent is further away than two sentences.

In sum, distance to the antecedent is a strong determinant on accessibility and the choice between the anaphoric expressions. First, this was shown by the fact that antecedent distance comes out as the most important predictor in the classification tree that consider all the accessibility determining variables in relation to each orther (Figure 21 on page 126 above). Moreover, short distance cancels or neutralises the effect of factors indicating low accessibility, whereas longer distance tends to cancel or neutralise the effect of factors indicating high accessibility.

Anaphoric Uses 135

4.3.2 The Choice between the Non-Subject Anaphors

The general distribution of the anaphoric expressions in non-subject functions is as shown in Table 20:

Table 20: Non-subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae



In the following sections, I discuss the non-subject anaphors with respect to the variables that are thought to influence accessibility and/or the choice of ana-phoric expression. As will become clear, full NPs are generally preferred in non-subject functions in all kinds of contexts and with all kinds of antecedents and referents.

4.3.2.1 Form of the Antecedent First, the choice of anaphoric non-subject expression correlates significantly with the form of the antecedent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). Figure 23 shows the distribution of anaphoric non-subject expressions across the various antecedent forms:


Figure 23: Distribution of anaphoric non-subject expressions across various antecedent forms

As Figure 23 shows, when the antecedent is a full NP, the anaphor itself in the majority of cases is also a full NP, full NPs being highly significantly more fre-quent than the overt pronominal forms in this case (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). An example of a full NP anaphor referring back to a full NP antecedent is the following: (115) In Bethleem autem per totos octo

in Betlehem-INDECL but throughout all-ACC.PL eight-INDECL dies cotidie is ornatus est et day-ACC.PL everyday that-NOM.SG festal.array-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG and ipsa laetitia celebratur a presbyteris ipse-NOM.SG joyfulness-NOM.SG celebrate-PRS.PASS.3SG by priest-ABL.PL et ab omni clero ipsius loci et a and by all-ABL.SG clergy-ABL.SG ipse-GEN.SG place-GEN.SG and by monazontes, qui in ipso loco monk-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL in ipse-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG

Anaphoric Uses 137

deputati sunt. appointed-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL

e entire eight days the feast is cel-ebrated with similar festal array and joyfulness daily by the priests and by all the clergy there, and by the monks who are appointed in that y y

The fact that full NPs are the preferred anaphors when the antecedent is al-so a full NP is in accordance with the assumption that full NP antecedents are less accessible than pronominal antecedents. On the other hand, it cannot al-ways be the case that a full NP antecedent is picked up by a full NP anaphor. If this were always so, once a referent is introduced in the discourse by a full NP (and referents are normally introduced by a full NP for the first time, as we saw in Section 4.2.1), it would never be picked up by a pronoun. Section 4.3.1 showed that antecedent distance is the most important predictor of the choice between the anaphoric expressions in subject function. As will become clear in Section 4.3.2.8, antecedent distance is an important predictor of the choice of anaphor in non-subject functions too, although its effect on the non-subject anaphors is weaker than its effect on the subject anaphors (see Section 4.3.2.7 below). Indeed, a full NP antecedent is more likely to show a pronominal anaphor if the antecedent and anaphor are in the same sentence than if the antecedent is further away. In fact, full NP antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor show a pronominal anaphor in 22.46 % of the cases, whereas full NP antecedents further away show a pronominal anaphor only in 2.21 % of the cases. Thus, a full NP antecedent stands a bigger chance of being picked up by a pronominal anaphor when the antecedent is in the same sentence than when it is further away.

Since pronominal antecedents are thought to be more accessible than full NP antecedents, a preference for pronominal anaphors would be expected when the antecedent is pronominal. Neither pro antecedents nor overt pronominal antecedents, however, show a significant difference in frequency between full NP anaphors and overt pronominal anaphors (p=0.5164 and p=0.06408, respec-tively, chi-squared tests). Nevertheless, a pronominal anaphor is indeed more likely to occur when the antecedent is pro or an overt pronominal form than when it is a full NP. Thus, the behaviour of the anaphoric expressions agrees partly with what we can predict from accessibility theory. Example (116) illus-trates the use of is for referring back to a pro antecedent:


(116) Tunc ergo gratias ei agere coepi et then so thank-ACC.PL that-DAT.SG perform-INF begin-PRF.1SG and rogare, ut PRO-SUB duceret nos ad locum, ask-INF that lead-IMPF.3SG we-ACC to place-ACC.SG sicut et factum est. Statim ergo cepimus as also done-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG immediately then begin-PRF.1PL ire cum eo [...] go-INF with that-ABL.SG

n. XV.2) As Chapter 5 will show, is appears to be the non-subject counterpart to pro. p

Figure 23 comprises antecedents that are neither pro-nominal nor a full NP that is, instances of discourse deixis (in Himmel

p

(1996) terms). There is no significant difference between full NP anaphors and pronominal anaphors here (p=0.8788, chi-squared test). As I have already men-tioned (in Section 4.3.1.1), Chapter 5 will explain that hic is the preferred dis-course deictic device, but a full NP may occur as well, as in (117):

(117) [...] ibi autem ad sanctam ecclesiam nichil

there but to holy-ACC.SG church-ACC.SG nothing-NOM.SG aliud est nisi monasteria sine numero other-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG unless cell-NOM.PL without number-ABL.SG uirorum ac mulierum. [51 words omitted] Sed ut redeam man-GEN.PL and woman-GEN.PL but to return-PRS.1SG ad rem [...] to matter-ACC.SG

cells of men and of women. But to return to t (Itin. XX.6 7)

4.3.2.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent We have also seen the effect the syntactic function of the antecedent can have on the choice of anaphoric expression, subjects being more accessible than objects, which in turn are more accessible than antecedents in other syntactic functions.

Anaphoric Uses 139

The choice between a full NP anaphor and a pronominal anaphor in non-subject functions correlates significantly with antecedent function (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). Consider Figure 24:

Figure 24: Distribution of anaphoric non-subject expressions across antecedents in subject function, object function and other functions

As we can see, full NP anaphors are preferred with antecedents in all syntactic functions, and the difference between full NPs and pronominal forms is highly significant for all types of antecedents (p<0.0001 in all cases, chi-squared tests). Nevertheless, the incidence of full NPs is particularly high when the antecedent is neither subject nor object (94.56 %).102 The fact that full NPs occur more fre-quently when the antecedent is neither subject nor object is in accordance with the assumption that full NP anaphors are low accessibility markers and that antecedents that are neither subjects nor objects are less accessible than subject and object antecedents.

102 The percentage of full NPs when the antecedent is a subject is 78.63, and 83.53 when it is an object.


Since pronominal forms are higher accessibility markers than full NPs, one might expect subject antecedents to show a preference for pronominal anaphors. Yet, they do not. Antecedent distance can account for this. As I point-ed out in Section 4.3.2.1, antecedent distance is an important predictor of the choice between the non-subject anaphors too: antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor induce the choice of a pronominal anaphor more frequently than do antecedents further away. Indeed, the subject antecedents are in the same sentence as the anaphor in only 12.31 % of the cases. The fact that the antecedent is rarely in the same sentence as the anaphor then, could account for at least some of the preference of the subject antecedents for full NP anaphors.

4.3.2.3 Topicality of the Antecedent and the Anaphor Topicality

y topicality of the antecedent as well as of the anaphor itself

may furthermore influence the choice of anaphoric expression. However, either we consider these variables independently of the other variables or we see all the variables in relation to each other (see Figure 30 and Figure 31 in Section 4.3.2.8 below), the choice between full NP anaphors and pronominal anaphors in non-subject functions is insensitive to both.

First, the choice between a full NP and a pronominal form does not corre-late significantly with antecedent topicality (p=0.90 -squared test). As we can see in Table 21, both topical and non-topical antecedents show a preference for full NP anaphors:103

Table 21: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used for topical, respectively non-topical ante-cedents

Full NP Full pronominal

Topical antecedent

134 89.93 % 15 10.07 %

Non-topical antecedent

966 90.62 % 100 9.38 %

103 There is no significant difference between topical antecedents in general and topical antecedents in the same/previous sentence (p=0.236, Pearson s chi-squared test). Topical antecedents in the same or previous sentence show no more pronominal forms than topical antecedents in general.

Anaphoric Uses 141

The full NPs are significantly more frequent than the pronominal anaphors in both cases (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests). Since topical anteced-ents are thought to be more accessible than non-topical ones, a preference for pronominal forms would be expected when the antecedent is topical. Yet, this is not the case. Example (118) illustrates the use of a full NP to refer back to a topi-cal antecedent: (118) Et iam ex illa hora hitur ad ciuitatem

and now from ille-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG go-PRS.PASS.3SG to city-ACC.SG pedibus cum ymnis, peruenitur ad portam foot-ABL.PL with hymn-ABL.PL reach-PRS.PASS.3SG to gate-ACC.SG ea hora, qua incipit quasi homo that-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG REL.ABL.SG begin-PRS.3SG almost man-NOM.SG hominem cognoscere; inde totum per man-ACC.SG recognise-INF thence wholly through mediam ciuitatem [...] middle-ACC.SG city-ACC.SG y

about the time when one man begins to be able to recognise another,

Here, the antecedent functions syntactically as an oblique, animacy status is non-HUMAN. These factors can perhaps account for the choice of a full NP anaphor in this example. Oblique is a lowly accessible syntactic function, and non-HUMAN referents are very rarely pronominalised in non-subject functions (see Section 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.2.8 below).

As regards the topicality of the anaphor itself, scholars have shown that pronouns are the preferred topic expressions (see Section 2.2.2). This does not hold true in non-subject functions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, however. As al-ready mentioned, the choice of anaphoric expression in non-subject functions does not correlate significantly with anaphor topicality (p=0.7884, chi-squared test), full NPs being the preferred expression in both topic and non-topic func-tion:


Table 22: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used in topic function, respectively non-topic function


Topical anaphor

86 92.47 % 7 7.53 %

Non-topical anaphor

1205 91.08 % 118 8.92 %

The full NPs are highly significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms in both cases (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests). Example (119) illus-trates a topical full NP anaphor, example (120) a non-topical one: (119) At ubi autem missa facta fuerit

and when but dismissal-NOM.SG made-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG ecclesiae iuxta consuetudinem, qua et church-GEN.SG in.accordance.with custom-ACC.SG REL.ABL.SG also ubique fit, tunc de ecclesia monazontes everywhere do-PRS.PASS.3SG then from church-ABL.SG monk-NOM.PL cum ymnis ducunt episcopum usque ad Anastasim. with hymn-ABL.PL lead-PRS.3PL bishop-ACC.SG until to Anastasis-ACC y p

customary everywhere, the monks accompany the bishop with hymns y y y

(120) Et postmodum de Anastasim usque ad Crucem cum

and afterwards from Anastasis-ACC until to cross-ACC.SG with ymnis ducitur episcopus, simul et hymn-ABL.PL lead-PRS.PASS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG simultaneously also omnis populus uadet. [17 words omitted] Et post all-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG go-PRS.3SG and after hoc denuo tam episcopus quam omnis this-ABL.SG anew both bishop-NOM.SG and whole-NOM.SG turba uadent denuo post Crucem [...] multitude-NOM.SG go-PRS.3PL anew behind cross-ACC.SG

hymns, all the people accompanying him. Thereupon both the bishop y p p p y pin.

XIV.7)

Anaphoric Uses 143

Notice that also in (119) and (120), animacy status is non-HUMAN. Moreover, in (119) the antecedent functions syntactically as an attribute, in (120) as an oblique. These factors, then, may account for the fact that a full NP is the select-ed anaphor in these examples as well.

4.3.2.4 Animacy

Figure 25: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used for HUMAN respectively non-HUMAN referents

A further variable thought to influence accessibility and hence choice of anaphoric expression is animacy, as we saw in Section 2.2.1.4. The choice be-tween a full NP and a pronominal form in non-subject functions correlates sig-p j

-squared test), and more precisely HUMAN vs. non-HUMAN animacy.

As Figure 25 above shows, full NPs are preferred both when the referent is HUMAN and when it is non-HUMAN, and are highly significantly more frequent than the overt pronominal forms in both cases (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests). (121) is an example of a HUMAN referent, (122) of a non-HUMAN referent:


(121) [...] item benedicet fideles episcopus et sic likewise bless-PRS.3SG faithful-ACC.PL bishop-NOM.SG and thus

fit missa Anastasi. Et incipient do-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG Anastasis-DAT and begin-PRS.3PL episcopo ad manum accedere singuli. bishop-DAT.SG to hand-ACC.SG draw.near-INF all-NOM.PL p

place at the Anastasis, and one by one all draw near to thItin. XXIV.6 7)

(122) Nam in primo capite ipsius uallis, ubi

for in first-ABL.SG head-ABL.SG ipse-GEN.SG valley-GEN.SG where manseramus et uideramus rubum illum, de stay-PLUPRF.1PL and see-PLUPRF.1PL bush-ACC.SG ille-ACC.SG from quo locutus est Deus sancto REL.ABL.SG spoken-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG God-NOM holy-DAT.SG Moysi in igne, uideramus etiam et illum Moses-DAT in fire-ABL.SG see-PLUPRF.1PL also and ille-ACC.SG locum, in quo steterat ante rubum place-ACC.SG in REL.ABL.SG stand-PLUPRF.3SG before bush-ACC.SG sanctus Moyses, quando ei dixit Deus: [...] holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM when that-DAT.SG say-PRF.3SG God-NOM y y

had seen the bush out of which God spake in the fire to holy Moses, we had seen also the spot on which holy Moses had stood before the bush when God p

Although full NPs are the preferred anaphors in both cases, the HUMAN ref-erents show a higher incidence of pronominal anaphors than the non-HUMAN ones (24.44 % in the former case, only 3.94 % in the latter). Non-HUMAN referents are almost never pronominalised, in accordance with the observation made for Swedish by Dahl & Fraurud (1996). Conversely, the fact that the HUMAN referents show a greater frequency of pronominal anaphors than the non-HUMAN ones is in accordance with the assumption that humans are more accessible and more likely to be pronominalised than non-humans. Nevertheless, the HUMAN refer-ents too show a high number of full NP anaphors. A reason for this is that the p

(122), and that is not central in the actions taking place. In addition, I believe that refer-ents occurring in non-subject functions are simply less central and less accessi-

Anaphoric Uses 145

ble than referents appearing in subject function. Hence, the preference for full NPs also when the referent is HUMAN (more on this in Section 4.3.2.8 below).

4.3.2.5 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs As we saw in Section 2.2.1.8, subordinate clause antecedents may be less acces-sible than main clause antecedents. The choice between a full NP and a pro-nominal anaphor in non-subject functions, however, does not significantly depend on whether the antecedent is in a main or subordinate clause, either we consider the variable independent -squared test), or we consider all the variables in relation to each other (see Fig-ure 32 and Figure 33 in Section 4.3.2.8 below).104 As Table 23 shows, both main clause antecedents and subordinate clause antecedents show a clear preference for full NP anaphors:

Table 23: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used for main clause respectively subordinate clause antecedents


Main clause antecedent

525 92.43 % 43 7.57 %

Subordinate clause antecedent

672 94.38 % 40 5.62 %

The full NPs are highly significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms in both cases (p<0.0001, chi-squared test).

Section 4.3.1.6 showed that when the subordinate clause antecedent is in the same complex sentence as the anaphor, pro is the preferred subject anaphor. In non-subject functions, on the other hand, the pronominal forms are not preferred even when the antecedent and anaphor are parts of the same complex sentence. Yet, if the antecedent is in the same complex sentence as the anaphor, a pronominal form indeed stands a greater chance of being the select-ed anaphor also in non-subject functions. Consider Figure 26:

104 Since I assume that subordinate clause antecedents are less accessible only if they are not part of the sentence containing the anaphor, I am only considering subordinate clause ante-cedents that are not part of the anaphor

ps sentence.


Figure 26: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used for subordinate clause antecedents within the same sentence as the anaphor

Full NPs are still highly significantly more frequent than the pronominal forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). But whereas subordinate clause antecedents not in the same sentence as the anaphor show a pronominal anaphor in only 5.62 % of the cases, when the antecedent is part of the same complex sentence as the anaphor, a pronominal anaphor is found in 30.88 % of the cases. (123) is an example of a pronominal anaphor referring back to a subordinate clause ante-cedent in the same sentence as the anaphor:

(123) Et licet in patria exemplaria ipsarum

and although in native.land-ABL.SG copy-ACC.PL ipse-GEN.PL [sc. epistolarum] haberem, tamen gratius mihi

letter-GEN.PL have-IMPF.1SG however more.pleasant-NOM.SG I-DAT uisum est, ut et ibi eas de ipso seen-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that also there that-ACC.PL from ipse-ABL.SG acciperem [...] receive-IMPF.1SG

Anaphoric Uses 147

t it seemed to me more pleasant

4.3.2.6 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents We have seen how the presence or absence of competitors can influence the choice of anaphoric expression (in Section 2.2.2.1). The choice of anaphoric expression in non-subject function correlates significantly with the pres-ence/absence of both same-number competitors and same-number-and-gender competitors (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher tests). Figure 27 shows the distribution of forms in the absence, respectively presence, of same-number competitors:

Figure 27: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used in the presence, respectively absence, of same-number competitors

Figure 28 shows the distribution in the presence and absence of same-number-and-gender competitors:


Figure 28: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used in the presence, respectively absence, of same-number-and-gender competitors

As can be seen, full NPs are more likely to be used than a pronominal form in the absence and presence of both types of competitors; the full NP anaphors are significantly more frequent than the pronominal ones in all cases.105

The fact that full NPs are preferred in the presence of competitors is not par-ticularly surprising. That they are the preferred anaphoric expressions also in the absence of competitors, on the other hand, is somewhat intriguing. Example (124) illustrates the use of a full NP in the absence of competitors:

(124) Et similiter ad manum episcopo acceditur

and likewise to hand-ACC.SG bishop-DAT.SG approach-PRS.PASS.3SG sicut ad Anastasim, ita et ante Crucem, ita et as to Anastasis-ACC thus also before cross-ACC.SG thus also

105 p<0.0001 in all cases, except in the presence of same-number competitors: p=0.012555, chi-squared tests.

Anaphoric Uses 149

post Crucem. behind cross-ACC.SG

hind the Cross as they did

Here again, the preference for full NPs is likely to be due to the frequent non-HUMAN animacy status of the referents, as in (124). In fact, 80.29 % of the refer-ents in the absence of competitors is non-HUMAN. In (125), on the other hand, the referent is HUMAN, and the anaphoric expression is a pronominal form: (125) Cum autem ingressi fuissemus ad eos,

when but entered-NOM.PL be-PLUPRF.1PL to that-ACC.PL facta oratione cum ipsis eulogias made-ABL.SG prayer-ABL.SG with ipse-ABL.PL eulogia-ACC.PL nobis dare dignati sunt [...] we-DAT give-INF deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL

deigned to give us eulogiae... (Itin. XI.1) Note, however, that although full NPs are preferred in both the absence and

presence of competitors, the incidence of pronominal forms is indeed higher in the absence of competitors (same-number competitors 38.46 %, same-number-and-gender competitors 25.63 %) than in contexts with competitors (same-number competitors 6.38 %, same-number-and-gender competitors 3.78 %), in accordance with the assumption that pronominal forms are higher accessibility markers than full NPs.

4.3.2.7 Distance to the Antecedent As we saw in Section 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.3, distance to the antecedent is another variable that has been shown to influence accessibility and choice of anaphoric expression. The basic assumption goes: the shorter distance to the antecedent, the more accessible the referent. So shorter antecedent distance should increase the frequency of pronominal forms, while longer distance to the antecedent should increase the chance of encountering a full NP anaphor. As in the case of the subject anaphors, the relevant distinction for the non-subject anaphors is


between antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away.106 Figure 29 shows the distribution of full NPs and overt pronominal forms for antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away, respectively:

Figure 29: Anaphoric non-subject expressions used for antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away, respectively

As we saw above (in Section 4.3.1.8 and 4.3.1.9), antecedent distance is the most important predictor of the choice of anaphor in subject function. Pronomi-nal forms (in particular pro) are preferred when the antecedent is in the same sentence, and a full NP is usually the selected anaphor when the antecedent is further away. Figure 29 shows that this does not hold for the non-subject anaphors.

Nevertheless, distance has an effect on the choice between the non-subject anaphors as well. The choice of expression correlates significantly with ante-

106 There is no significant difference between antecedents in the previous sentence and in the same section p=0.1003, Fisher test), between antecedents in the same section and the same chapter (p=0.2583, Fisher test) or between antecedents in the same chapter and antecedents across chapter (p=0.999, Fisher test).

Anaphoric Uses 151

-squared test) when we consider dis-tance independently of the other variables, and in the classification tree in Fig-ure 31 (Section 4.3.2.8 below), distance in fact comes out as the most important predictor of the choice of non-subject anaphor. As Figure 29 shows, although a full NP is the preferred anaphor both when the antecedent and anaphor are in the same sentence and when they are not (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests), the pronominal forms are indeed more frequent when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor. There is a 29.61 % rate of pronominal forms when the antecedent is in the same sentence, and only 4.73 % when the antecedent is further away.

In (126) the antecedent is in the same sentence, and the anaphor is pronom-inal; in (127) the antecedent is further away, and the anaphor is a full NP:

(126) Nam et ipsi [sc. sancti] statim post

for and ipse-NOM.PL holy-NOM.PL immediately after martyrii diem nec uisi sunt ibi, sed martyrdom-GEN.SG day-ACC.SG nor seen-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL there but mox de nocte PRO-SUB petierunt heremum et soon from night-ABL.SG seek-PRF.3PL desert-ACC.SG and unus quisque eorum monasteria sua, one-NOM.SG each-NOM.SG that-GEN.PL cell-ACC.PL POSS.REFL.ACC.PL qui ubi habebat. REL.NOM.SG there live-IMPF.3SG

y seen there after the memorial day, for they sought the de-yy y y g.

XX.7)

(127) [...] et post illos omnes episcopus praedicat [38 words and after ille-ACC.PL all-ACC.PL bishop-NOM.SG preach-PRS.3SG

omitted] At ubi autem missa facta fuerit but when but dismissal-NOM.SG made-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG

ecclesiae iuxta consuetudinem, qua et church-GEN.SG according.to custom-ACC.SG REL.ABL.SG also ubique fit, tunc de ecclesia monazontes everywhere do-PRS.PASS.3SG then from church-ABL.SG monk-NOM.PL cum ymnis ducunt episcopum usque ad Anastasim. with hymn-ABL.PL lead-PRS.3PL bishop-ACC.PL until to Anastasis-ACC y p

the church is made in the manner that is customary everywhere, the


monks accompany the bishop with hymns from the church to the Ana-. XXV.1 2)

4.3.2.8 Summary of the non-Subject Anaphors and Discussion of the Data We saw in the preceding discussion that full NPs are often preferred to the pro-nominal forms whatever the properties of the antecedent, anaphor, referent or context. The choice between a full NP and an overt pronominal form is insensi-tive to some of the variables, namely topicality (of both antecedent and anaphor) and the type of clause that contains the antecedent.

The choice of anaphoric non-subject expression is sensitive to the following variables, however: – Antecedent form: pro

antecedents – Antecedent function: antecedent subject/object vs. antecedents in other

functions – Animacy: HUMAN vs. non-HUMAN – The presence or absence of same-number-and-gender competitors – Distance: antecedent in the same sentence vs. antecedents further away

The classification tree in Figure 30 (see page 156 below) predicts the choice of anaphoric non-subject expression considering all the accessibility-determining variables in relation to each other. As the tree shows, the signifi-cant predictors are precisely those variables that came out as significant when we considered each variable independently of the others.

The tree furthermore shows that antecedent form is the most important pre-dictor. In the above discussion, we saw that a full NP is usually the preferred anaphoric expression irrespective of the properties shown by the antecedent, anaphor or context. Antecedent form, however, stands out from the other varia-bles. When the antecedent is neither a full NP nor a pronominal form, the overt pronominal forms and the full NPs are in fact equally frequent (see Figure 23 on page 136). This may explain why antecedent form comes out as the most im-portant predictor in the classification tree. As already mentioned (in Section 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2.1), these are instances of discourse deixis, that is, the anaphoric expression refers back to a proposition or event. Although propositions and events typically show few signs of high accessibility, an overt pronominal form

Anaphoric Uses 153

can readily refer back to them.107 w-ing a higher relative frequency of pronominal anaphors than any other value of the other variables. In other words, the discourse deictic use of the full pronom-inal forms is indirectly responsible for the fact that antecedent form is the most important predictor. Since pronominal forms high accessibility markers can refer back to propositions/events which are typically lowly accessible, the discourse deictic use can be considered a special use of the pronominal forms

for referential choice. Therefore, taking out antecedent form from the predictors, will produce a more precise picture of the relative contribution of the various variables.

Leaving out antecedent form from the predictors gives the classification tree in Figure 31 (page 155 below). Now, antecedent distance is the most important predictor. This is more in accordance with the findings for the subject anaphors in Section 4.3.1, where distance to the antecedent is indeed the most important predictor. As the tree in Figure 31 shows, a pronominal anaphor is most likely to appear when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, and espe-cially if animacy status = HUMAN, or the antecedent is a subject or object and there are no competing referents. When the antecedent is further away than in the same sentence, the anaphoric expression is more likely to be a full NP, espe-cially if there are one or more competitors in the context. In such cases, the selected anaphor is almost always a full NP.

Although there are some factors and combinations of factors that are more likely than others to induce the choice of a pronominal anaphor instead of a full NP, it remains a fact that full NP anaphors are by far more frequent than pro-nominal ones in non-subject functions. How can we explain this? Animacy seems to play a role. As already mentioned, humans are better candidates for pronominalisation than non-humans (Dahl & Fraurud 1996). Indeed, the non-subject anaphors include more non-HUMAN referents than HUMAN ones. More precisely, there are 1015 (79.23 %) non-humans and 266 (20.77 %) humans among the non-subject anaphors. In comparison, there are 282 (41.41 %) non-HUMAN and 399 (58.59 %) HUMAN referents among the subject anaphors.108 The high incidence of non-HUMAN referents among the non-subject anaphors plausi-bly accounts for their tendency to be picked up by a full NP. But why should the

107 There are 65 instances of discourse deixis in the Itinerarium Egeriae. A full pronominal form (most frequently hic, see Chapter 5) appears in 30 of them, a full NP in 34. pro occurs once. 108 The numbers do not add up to the total number of occurrences because not all lemmata have information about animacy.


incidence of non-humans in non-subject functions be higher? I believe it follows naturally insofar as humans are more likely to perform the actions expressed by a verb, and hence more likely to appear in subject function than in non-subject functions. Dahl & Fraurud (1996: 52

p j in di-

rect object function in Swedish. Although non-HUMAN animacy is a strong de-terminant on the choice of full NP, we have also seen that full NPs are frequent in non-subject functions when the animacy status is in fact HUMAN. Thus, non-HUMAN animacy status cannot be all there is to it, although animacy, I believe, remains an important factor.

The referent of the non-subject anaphors is often some well-known biblical person, like God and the Lord, or the sons of Israel. In fact, the referent is Deus,

Dominuss e-

Itinerarium Egeriae, hence they are lowly accessible, especially in non-subject functions, where they are not the ones performing the action expressed by the verb, as in the following examples:

(128) in eo loco, ubi Dominus resurrexit post

in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG where Lord-NOM rise-PRF.3SG after passionem, ea die et ipsa passion-ACC.SG that-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG also ipse-NOM.SG consecrata est Deo. Harum ergo ecclesiarum consecrated-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG God-DAT this-GEN.PL then church-GEN.PL sanctarum encenia cum summo honore holy-GEN.PL dedication-NOM.PL with highest-ABL.SG honour-ABL.SG celebrantur quoniam crux Domini inuenta celebrate-PRS.PASS.3PL because cross-NOM.SG Lord-GEN found-NOM.SG est ipsa die. be-PRS.3SG ipse-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG y

ter His Passion, was consecrated to God on that day. The dedication of these holy churches is therefore cele-brated with the highest honour, because the Cross of the Lord was found

(129) Nam et monstrauerunt locum, ubi fuerunt castra for also show-PRF.3PL place-ACC.SG where be-PRF.3PL camp-NOM.PL filiorum Israhel his diebus, quibus Moyses son-GEN.PL Israel-INDECL this-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL REL.ABL.PL Moses-NOM fuit in montem. [25 words omitted] uidebamus summitatem

Anaphoric Uses 155

be-PRF.3SG in mountain-ACC.SG see-IMPF.1PL top-ACC.SG montis, que inspiciebat super ipsa mountain-GEN.SG REL.NOM.SG overlook-IMPF.3SG over ipse-ABL.SG ualle tota, de quo loco sanctus valley-ABL.SG whole-ABL.SG from REL.ABL.SG place-ABL.SG holy-NOM.SG Moyses uidit filios Israhel habentes Moses-NOM see-PRF.3SG son-ACC.PL Israel-INDECL having-NOM.PL choros [...] dancing-ACC.PL

the camps of the children of Israel were in those days when Moses was in the mount. We saw the top of the mountain which overlooks the whole valley; from which place holy Mo-ses saw the children of Israel

y p4)

Moreover, referents appearing in non-subject functions, I believe, tend in

general to be less central pp

hence less accessible participants than those oc-curring in subject function, irrespective of animacy status; referents appearing in non-subject functions are typically not the agents of the actions performed. Rather, they are the ones undergoing these actions. Hence they are less central, less accessible and more likely to be realised by a full NP.

Having discussed the choice of anaphoric subject expression and of ana-phoric non-subject expression, I move on to discuss differences in the anaphor-ic expressions in the first and second part respectively of the Itinerarium Egeri-ae.


Figure 30: Classification tree for the non-subject anaphors, full set of predictors

Anaphoric Uses 157

Figure 31: Classification tree for the non-subject anaphors, antecedent form removed from the predictors


4.3.3 Differences between the First and Second Part of the Itinerarium Egeriae

With respect to the demonstratives essentially the demonstrative NPs schol-ars have found differences between the first part of the Itinerarium Egeriae, in which Egeria describes her journey and the holy places she visits, and the sec-ond part, in which she describes the liturgy in Jerusalem (Trager 1932; see also Lapesa 1961 and Nocentini 1990).109 The demonstratives are allegedly more fre-quent in part one than in part two. In considering all the occurrences of the full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro non-anaphoric and anaphoric we find no significant differences between the first and second part of the text.110 In the anaphoric use of full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro, on the other hand, there are differences between part one and part two. Consider Table 24:

Table 24: Anaphoric full NPs, pro and overt pronominal forms in part one and part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae


Part one Part two

Full NP 857 77.84 % 918 81.53 % pro 117 10.66 % 131 11.63 % Overt pronominal 127 11.53 % 77 6.84 %

The difference in the distribution of anaphoric expressions in the two parts is

-squared test). In particular, it is the full NPs and the overt pronominal forms that differ in frequency between part one and part two (p=0.03473 for the full NPs, p=0.0001646 for the overt pronomi-

-squared tests). As Table 24 shows, the full NPs are more frequent in part two, whereas the overt pronominal forms are more fre-quent in part one.

Since antecedent distance is an important predictor of the choice between a full NP and a pronominal form, an obvious explanation of the higher frequency of full NPs in part two could be a lower incidence of antecedents in the same

109 The first part comprises chapters I XXIII, the second chapters XXIV XLIX. 110 Full NPs p=0.9826, overt pronominal forms p=0.1483, pro p=0.06257, Pearson s chi-squared tests. Within the group of overt pronominal forms, however, there are differences between the two parts also in the anaphoric uses of the forms (see Chapter 5).

Anaphoric Uses 159

sentence as the anaphor in part two than in part one. This, however, does not hold. Whereas the antecedent in part one is in the same sentence in 23.98 % of the cases, in part two it is 20.52 %, an insignificant difference (p=0.604, chi-squared test). I have furthermore showed that a full NP is usually the preferred anaphor in non-subject functions. Thus, another possible explanation could be a lower incidence of subject anaphors in part two. This, however, does not hold either. The percentage of subjects in part one is 35.24 and 37.48 in part two, an insignificant difference (p=0.7928, chi-squared test).

A possible reason for the higher frequency of full NPs in part two is the fact that part two contains more expressions of time than part one (4.25 % in part p p

-squared test). Because points and periods of time are typically not the central referents, they are lowly acces-sible and not good candidates for pronominal reference. Substituting hora sexta in (130) by, say ea, would hardly be possible (?? de ea enim...):

(130) de ea hora usque ad sextam

that from that-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG until to sixth-ACC.SG sanctum lignum crucis possitis uidere holy-ACC.SG wood-ACC.SG cross-GEN.SG can-PRS.2PL see-INF ad salutem sibi unusquisque nostrum to salvation-ACC.SG REFL.DAT.SG each-NOM.SG we-GEN credens profuturum. De hora believing-NOM.SG be.profitable-PTCP.FUT.ACC.SG from hour-ABL.SG enim sexta denuo necesse habemus hic for sixth-ABL.SG anew necessary-ACC.SG have-PRS.1PL here omnes conuenire in isto all-NOM.PL assemble-INF in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG p

wood of the Cross, each one of us believing that it will be profitable to his salvation; then from the sixth hour we must all assemble again in

Moreover, and more importantly, part two is of a different nature than part

one. In part two, none of the named characters are central referents, as it were. What is central, though, is the actions they perform.111 This, I believe, is why the

111 That it is the actions (the rituals) rather than the participants performing these rituals that retain central place in part two is indicated by the high frequency of verbs in the passive voice in this part of the text (noted also by Nocentini 1990: 150).


referents are less accessible in part two and hence more likely to be referenced by a full NP than by a pronominal form. The following passage illustrates this:

(131) Et at ubi diaconus perdixerit omnia, quae

and but when deacon-NOM.SG say-PRF.3SG all-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL dicere PRO-SUB habet, dicet orationem primum say-INF have-PRS.3SG say-PRS.3SG prayer-ACC.SG first episcopus et PRO-SUB orat pro omnibus; et sic bishop-NOM.SG and pray-PRS.3SG for all-ABL.PL and thus orant omnes, tam fideles quam et pray-PRS.3PL all-NOM.PL both faithful-NOM.PL and also cathecumini simul. Item mittet uocem catechumen-NOM.PL together again raise-PRS.3SG voice-ACC.SG diaconus, ut unusquisque, quomodo stat, deacon-NOM.SG so.that each-NOM.SG as stand-PRS.3SG cathecuminus inclinet caput; et sic dicet catechumen-NOM.SG bow-PRS.3SG head-ACC.SG and thus say-PRS.3SG episcopus stans benedictionem super bishop-NOM.SG standing-NOM.SG blessing-ACC.SG over cathecuminos. Item fit oratio et denuo catechumen-ACC.PL again make-PRS.PASS.3SG prayer-NOM.SG and anew mittet diaconus uocem et PRO-SUB commonet, raise-PRS.3SG deacon-NOM.SG voice-ACC.SG and bid-PRS.3SG ut unusquisque stans fidelium inclinent that each-NOM.SG standing-NOM.SG faithful-GEN.PL bow-PRS.3PL capita sua; item benedicet fideles head-ACC.PL POSS.REFL.ACC.PL again bless-PRS.3SG faithful-ACC.PL episcopus et sic fit missa bishop-NOM.SG and thus do-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG Anastasi. Et incipient episcopo ad manum Anastasis-DAT and begin-PRS.3PL bishop-DAT.SG to hand-ACC.SG accedere singuli. Et postmodum de Anastasim draw.near-INF all-NOM.PL and afterwards from Anastasis-ACC.SG usque ad Crucem cum ymnis ducitur until to cross-ACC.SG with hymn-ABL.PL lead-PRS.PASS.3SG episcopus bishop-NOM.SG p

, first the bishop says a prayer and prays for all, then they all pray, both the faithful and

Anaphoric Uses 161

catechumens together. Again the deacon raises his voice, bidding each catechumen to bow his head where he stands, and the bishop stands and says the blessing over the catechumens. Again prayer is made, and again the deacon raises his voice and bids the faithful, each where he

Thus the dismissal takes place at the Anastasis, and one by one all draw p y

Anastasis to the Cro 7)

Central in this passage is neither the bishop nor the deacon, but the prayers and blessings that they say. Except for the pro subject in the relative clause quae dicere PRO-SUB habet, we only find pro in coordinated sentences where there is little material intervening between the two subjects, and where a full NP would

dicet et PRO-SUB orat, mittet uocem et PRO-SUB commonet). (132) is similar: (132) Vigiliae autem paschales sic fiunt,

vigil-NOM.PL but paschal-NOM.PL thus do-PRS.PASS.3PL quem ad modum ad nos; hoc solum hic amplius as at we-ACC this-NOM.SG only-NOM.SG here more-NOM.SG fit, quod infantes, cum baptidiati do-PRS.PASS.3SG that child-NOM.PL when baptised-NOM.PL fuerint et uestiti, quemadmodum exierint be-PRF.3PL and clothed-NOM.PL when issue-PRF.3PL de fonte, simul cum episcopo primum ad Anastase from font-ABL.SG together with bishop-ABL.SG first to Anastasis-ABL ducuntur. Intrat episcopus intro cancellos lead-PRS.PASS.3PL enter-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG inside rail-ACC.PL Anastasis, dicitur unus ymnus, Anastasis-GEN say-PRS.PASS.3SG one-NOM.SG hymn-NOM.SG et sic facit orationem episcopus pro eis, and thus make-PRS.3SG prayer-ACC.SG bishop-NOM.SG for that-ABL.PL et sic PRO-SUB uenit ad ecclesiam maiorem cum and thus come-PRS.3SG to church-ACC.SG greater-ACC.SG with eis, ubi iuxta consuetudinem omnis that-ABL.PL where according.to custom-ACC.SG all-NOM.SG populus uigilat. Aguntur ibi, quae people-NOM.SG keep.watch-PRS.3SG do-PRS.PASS.3PL there REL.NOM.PL


consuetudinis est etiam et aput nos, et facta custom-GEN.SG be-PRS.3SG also and with we-ACC and made-ABL.SG oblatione fit missa. oblation-ABL.SG do-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG

children when they have been baptised and clothed, and when they is-sue from the font, are led with the bishop first to the Anastasis; the bish-op enters the rails of the Anastasis, and one hymn is said, then the bish-op says a prayer for them, and then he goes with them to the greater church, where, according to custom, all the people are keeping watch. Everything is done there that is customary with us also, and after the ob-lation has been made, the dismissal

y2)

Here again, the bishop is not a central referent. What is important is the actions performed by the bishop rather than the bishop himself. The high frequency of passive verb forms (fiunt, fit, ducuntur, dicitur, aguntur, fit) indicates that the actions are more important than any of the named characters.

Because the incidence of full NPs is lower in part one than in part two, the pronominal forms are naturally more frequent in part one than in part two. However, why are the overt pronominal forms more frequent in part one, and not pro? Since pro occurs (almost) exclusively in subject function, an obvious explanation would be that there are more non-subject anaphors in part one than in part two, but this does not hold. The number of subject anaphors in part one gives a percentage of 35.24 and 34.48 in part two. And in subject function, too, the overt pronominal forms are significantly more frequent in part one than p g

-squared test). In particular, ipse occurs more frequently in part one than in part two p p

-squared test). The following are two examples of ipse in part one:112

(133) Ac sic ergo aliquo biduo ibi

and thus then some-ABL.SG period-ABL.SG there tenuit nos sanctus episcopus, sanctus et hold-PRF.3SG we-ACC holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG and uere homo Dei, notus mihi iam satis de truly man-NOM.SG God-GEN known-NOM.SG I-DAT already well from

112 There are 42 ipse in part one, 9 in part two.

Summary 163

eo tempore, a quo ad Thebaidam that-ABL.SG time-ABL.SG from REL.ABL.SG in Thebaid-ACC fueram. Ipse autem sanctus episcopus be-PLUPRF.1SG ipse-NOM.SG but holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG ex monacho est; from monk-ABL.SG be-PRS.3SG

man and truly a man of God, well known to me from the time when I had y

(Itin. IX.1 2)

(134) In eo ergo loco ecclesia est in that-ABL.SG then place-ABL.SG church-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG pisinna subter montem, non Nabau, sed little-NOM.SG under mountain-ACC.SG not Nebo-INDECL but alterum interiorem: sed nec ipse longe est other-ACC.SG inner-ACC.SG but and.not ipse-NOM.SG far be-PRS.3SG de Nabau. from Nebo-INDECL

The reason for higher frequency in part one has to do with differences

in type of text as well, but in a different way than what is the case of the full NPs. Section 5.6 expands on the difference between part one and part two with respect to ipse

p p pe

relevant for the higher frequency of ipse in that part.

4.4 Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the three main groups of referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, namely full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro. We saw that full NPs are the preferred non-anaphoric expressions, whether the referent is new, ANCHORED, inferable, generally known, generic or is present in the im-mediate situation. This is in accordance with the assumption that pronominal forms require high accessibility and that referents that have not been mentioned previously in the discourse are typically not accessible enough for pronominal reference.


In the discussions of anaphoric reference, I discussed the subject and non-subject anaphors separately since pro is practically absent in non-subject func-tions. The subject anaphors are indeed sensitive to most variables thought to influence the choice of anaphoric expression. However, distance has a particu-larly strong effect. First, this was shown by the fact that short distance cancels or neutralises the effect of factors indicating low accessibility, whereas longer distance tends to cancel or neutralise the effect of factors indicating high acces-sibility. Antecedent distance moreover came out as the most important variable when we considered all the variables simultaneously, as shown by the classifi-cation tree in Figure 21. Antecedent form = pro / overt pronominal as well, has a relatively strong effect; even when the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor, there is no preference for full NPs. Yet, importantly, pro anaphors cannot pick up referents that are too far away either, as might well be expected, since pro requires very high accessibility.

As regards the non-subject anaphors, antecedent distance did prove to have an important effect here as well. Although full NPs are preferred irrespective of the properties of the antecedent, anaphor, referent or context, if the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, a pronominal form is more likely to be used than if the antecedent is further away. In addition, if the antecedent is a subject or object, if it is realised by pro or a overt pronominal form, if the refer-ent is HUMAN and there are no same-number-and-gender competitors, this also makes a pronominal anaphor more likely to appear. Nevertheless, full NPs tend to be the preferred anaphoric expressions in non-subject functions irrespective of the properties shown by the anaphor, antecedent or context. The high pro-portion of non-HUMAN referents among the non-subject anaphors can in part account for this. Referents appearing in non-subject functions are moreover j

place. In addition, referents in non-subject functions tend not to be central ref-erents because they are typically not the ones performing the action expressed by the verb.

Finally, we saw that there are more full NPs in part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae than in part one. This was explained by the difference in type of text between part one and part two; part two has more expressions of time, which are not likely to be pronominalised. Moreover, in part two it is not really the participants that are important, but rather their actions. The overt pronominal forms are more frequent in part one than in part two, however, ipse in particu-lar. This could also be a consequence of differences in text type, but in a differ-ent way; what accounts for the higher frequency of ipse in part one is that part

Summary 165

one is more colloquial than part two, about which more will be said in Chapter 5.

Having discussed the three main groups of anaphoric expressions, namely full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro, in the next chapters I will be con-cerned with the various types of pronominal expressions and full NPs. Chapter 5 is a discussion of the pronominal forms. Chapter 6 discusses the full NPs.

5 High Accessibility Markers: Pronominal Forms

In the previous chapter, I discussed the three main groups of referring expres-sions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, namely full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro. There are several types of pronominal forms, however, and the subject of this chapter are the pronominal forms, including pro. Recall from Chapter 4 that my objects of study are the pronominal demonstratives hic, idem, ille, ipse and is.113 Table 25 shows the number of occurrences of each pronominal form in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

Table 25: Pronominal forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae114


pro 264 39.58 % Hic 78 11.69 % Idem 1 0.15 % Ille 50 7.50 % Ipse 55 8.25 % Is 221 32.83 %

Idem occurs only once. For this reason, I do not discuss idem in this chap-ter. The forms under scrutiny, then, are pro, hic, ille, ipse and is.

The chapter is organised as follows. I start by asking whether pronominal ipse is an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae, (Section 5.1), before remarking briefly on the tendency for is to be used in the expression id est (5.2) I then dis-

113 Recall also that iste has only adnominal uses. Demonstratives is used for brevity with reference to hic, ille, is, ipse and idem without implying anything as to their actual categorial status. As will become clear, I believe ipse and ille to be personal pronouns in several occur-rences. 114 The total number of overt pronominal forms does not add up to the number of overt pro-nominal forms in Table 8 in Chapter 4 because I exclude here one occurrence of ipse is and two of ipse hic. Moreover, the table comprises the occurrences without a givenness status tag. Hence, the numbers in the following tables in this chapter do not add up to the numbers in this table.

Is Pronominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae? 167

cuss the non-anaphoric uses of the pronominal forms (Section 5.4). Further, the anaphoric use of the pronominal forms is discussed with respect to the variables thought to influence accessibility and the choice of anaphoric expression (Sec-tion 5.4), before I address the question of whether ille and ipse are personal pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae (Section 5.5). Finally, I comment on the higher frequency of ipse in part one than in part two (Section 5.6).

5.1 Is Pronominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

In Section 2.4, I discussed the properties of intensifiers. We saw that intensifiers express one of the following notions: – Centrality – Remarkability/unexpectedness – Reversal of semantic roles – Inclusiveness – Exclusiveness (exclusion of the involvement by others)

In general, the occurrences of pronominal ipse are hard to interpret as hav-ing any of the intensifier meanings listed above. I find one example in which an intensifier reading is the only possible reading (example (140) below). In a few examples, ipse can be analysed as an intensifier, but it is not obvious that it must be analysed in this way.

In some occurences of pronominal ipse, we may interpret ipse as expressing remarkability/unexpectedness. These notions are claimed to be relevant for adnominal intensifiers. Thus, at first sight, they have no place in a discussion of pronominal ipse. In a pro-drop language like Latin, however, it is not obvious that an element is not adnominal even when it occurs without an overt noun; it can in fact modify a null element. In other words, it can be adnominal even if it looks like it is pronominal. So although ipse in the examples below appears to be pronominal, it can in fact be adnominal, a so-called null-head modifier (Devine & Stephens 2000; 2006). Remarkability/unexpectedness can therefore be the meaning expressed by (seemingly) pronominal ipse.

In what I find to be the most likely intensifier examples, the referent of ipse is the bishop of the place in which Egeria and her company are staying, as in (135) through (139):

(135) Qui tamen sanctus episcopus nobis

Is Pronominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae?


REL.NOM.SG however holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG we-DAT Ramessen occurrere dignatus

p nam et in

Rameses-ACC meet-INF deigned-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG for also in scripturis Dei ualde PRO-SUB eruditus est. scripture-ABL.PL God-GEN very learned-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Ipse ergo cum se dignatus fuisset ipse-NOM.SG then when REFL.ACC.SG deigned-NOM.SG be-PLUPRF.3SGuexare et ibi nobis occurrere singula ibi trouble-INF and there we-DAT meet-INF everything-ACC.PL there ostendit seu retulit de

y

show-PRF.3SG or tell-PRF.3SG about ille-ACC.PL statue-ACC.PL

the Scriptures of God. He (himself?), after deigning to give himself the trouble of meeting us showed us everything there and told us about the aff 5)

(136) Illud etiam satis mihi grato fuit, ut

ille-NOM.SG also very I-DAT pleasant-DAT.SG be-PRF.3SG that epistolas ipsas siue Aggari ad Dominum siue letter-ACC.PL ipse-ACC.PL either Abgar-GEN.SG to Lord-ACC or Domini ad Aggarum, quas nobis ibi legerat Lord.GEN to Abgar-ACC REL.ACC.PL we-DAT there read-PLUPRF.3SG sanctus episcopus, acciperem michi ab ipso holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG receive-IMPF.1SG I-DAT from ipse-ABL.SG sancto. Et licet in patria exemplaria holy-ABL.SG and although in native.land-ABL.SG copy-ACC.PL ipsarum haberem, tamen gratius mihi ipse-GEN.PL have-IMPF.1SG however more.pleasant-NOM.SG I-DAT uisum est, ut et ibi eas de seemed-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that also there that-ACC.PL from ipso ipse-ABL.SG receive-IMPF.1SG

Abgar to the Lord and of the Lord to Abgar, which the holy bishop had read to us there. For although I have copies at home, yet it seemed to me y

(137) Hoc autem referente sancto episcopo de this-ACC.SG but referring-ABL.SG holy-ABL.SG bishop-ABL.SG from


Arabia cognouimus; nam ipse nobis dixit Arabia-ABL learn-PRF.1PL for ipse-NOM.SG we-DAT say-PRF.3SG nomen ipsius arboris, quemadmodum appellant name-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG tree-GEN.SG as call-PRS.3PL eam grece, id est, quod nos that-ACC.SG in.Greek that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG REL.ACC.SG we-NOM dicimus arbor ueritatis. say-PRS.1PL tree-NOM.SG truth-GEN.SG y

for he (himself?) told us the name of the tree in Greek, or as we say, the

(138) Ecce et superuenit episcopus cum clero et behold and arrive-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG with clergy-ABL.SG and statim ingreditur intro spelunca et de intro immediately enter-PRS.3SG inside cave-ABL.SG and from inside cancellos primum PRO-SUB dicet orationem pro rail-ACC.PL first say-PRS.3SG prayer-ACC.SG for omnibus: commemorat etiam ipse nomina, all-ABL.PL mention-PRS.3SG also ipse-NOM.SG name-ACC.PL quorum uult [...] REL.GEN.PL wish-PRS.3SG

into the cave, and from within the rails he first says a prayer for all: he (himself?) mentions the names of those whom he wishes to commemo-

(139) Et sic singulariter interrogat episcopus uicinos and thus individually ask-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG neighbour-ACC.PL eius, qui intrauit, dicens: [...] Et si that-GEN.SG REL.NOM.SG enter-PRF.3SG saying-NOM.SG and if probauerit sine reprehensione esse de his prove-PRF.3SG without blame-ABL.SG be-INF from this-ABL.PL omnibus, quibus requisiuit praesentibus testibus, all-ABL.PL REL.ABL.PL inquire-PRF.3SG present-ABL.PL witness-ABL.PL annotat ipse manu sua write.down-PRS.3SG ipse-NOM.SG hand-ABL.SG POSS.REFL.ABL.SG nomen i llius.



name-ACC.SG ille-GEN.SG n-

presence of witnesses to be blameless in all these matters concerning which he has made inquiry, he (himself?) writes down his name with his

With regard to (135), the fact that the bishop himself comes and greets Egeria and

her company in person, shows them things and tells them things may strike some as remarkable or unusual. Yet there are many cases in which this happens and in which the bishop occurs without an intensifier. To Egeria, this is apparently not remarkable. Ipse can just as well be a demonstrative / personal pronoun as an intensifier. Even though it resembles an intensifier, I believe it is best analysed as a demonstrative or personal pronoun.

In (136), the remarkability/unexpectedness is perhaps more obvious than in (135). It is somewhat remarkable that Egeria receives these letters from the bishop. On the other hand, what is remarkable is the fact that she receives these letters, not from whom she receives them. Despite the fact that ipse resembles an intensifer here, too, I believe it is not, because it is the action which is unexpected/remarkable more than the referent (the bishop) of ipse.

In (137) through (139), we can analyse ipse as an adverbial exclusive intensifier in y p intensifier excluding the intervention by

others (see also Bertocchi 1996 on Classical Latin). We could read (137) y

told us personally the name of the tree (without the intervention of someone knowing Greek

p yk (138)

g

be helping him remember the names), that is, ipse can be an adverbial exclusive in-tensifier. Finally, it is possible to read also (139) as an adverbial exclusive intensifier: y p

alternative scenario where a scribe writes down the name on behalf of the bishop). An intensifier reading of ipse appears to be slightly better in these examples than in (135) and (136), although it is perfectly possible to interpret ipse as a personal pronoun or as a demonstrative also in (137), (138) and (139).

The final possible intensifier example, and the only example of pronominal ipse in which I believe that ipse must be an intensifier, is the following:115

115 The referent is first person in this example, and I am not concerned with first-person refer-ence. Nevertheless, since I believe ipse must be an intensifier here, I discuss the example in


(140) Si autem et post hoc in corpore fuero, si if but and after this-ACC.SG in body-ABL.SG be-FUT.PRF.1SG if qua praeterea loca cognoscere PRO-SUB any-ACC.PL moreover place-ACC.PL learn-INF potuero, aut ipsa praesens, si Deus can.FUT.PRF.1SG or ipse-NOM.SG present-NOM.SG if God-NOM fuerit praestare dignatus, uestrae affectioni be-PRF.3SG permit-INF deigned-NOM.SG your-DAT affection-DAT.SG referam aut certe, si aliud animo tell-FUT.1SG or surely if other-NOM.SG mind-DAT.SG sederit, scriptis nuntiabo. Settle-FUT.PRF.3SG letter-ABL.PL mention-FUT.1SG

c-es, I will either tell it to your affection in person, if God deigns to permit me this, or in anywise, if I have another project in mind, I will send you y

Ipsa refers to Egeria. Remarkability/unexpectedness is not relevant here; it is not remarkable that Egeria tells her friends at home about her experiences. Ipsa is, however, quite likely to be an adverbial exclusive intensifier used to stress y

nce, in fact, makes sense only if we interpret ipse as an intensifier, and not as a personal pronoun or demonstrative. On a personal pronoun reading ipsa would be a third person pronoun, and Ege-ria obviously cannot refer to herself by a third person pronoun. Moreover, a demonstrative would imply that reference is not to Egeria since one cannot refer to oneself by a distal demonstrative that (one) principle, ipsa could be a proximal demonstrative this p p p p

To sum up this section, there are two examples in which ipse resembles an

intensifier, ((135) and (136)), but I believe it is not. Furthermore, there are three examples in which ipse is more likely an intensifier, ((137) through (139)), but it does not have to be. Finally, there is one example where I take ipse to be an intensifier, namely (140). In this example, however, the referent is a first person. In conclusion, there is no example of third person reference in which ipse is clearly an intensifier. I therefore retain all the occurrences of pronominal ipse in

order to show that pronominal ipse is exceptionally an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae but never clearly so when the referent is third person.



the data set in the following discussions of the pronominal forms. Before I dis-cuss the various uses of the pronominal forms, however, a note on the most frequent use of is is in order.

5.2 A Note on Is

There are altogether 221 occurrences of pronominal is in the Itinerarium Egeriae, making is the most frequently occurring pronominal demonstrative.116 Since is does not survive in the Romance languages, its frequency in a text which in

-q y

surprising. Upon closer inspection, however, is turns out for the most part to be used in the fixed expression id estt is is there-fore much less significant than appears at first glance.

139 occurrences of pronominal is are found in the expression id est (see also Trager 1932: 13; Fruyt 2003: 105 106; Väänänen 1987: 50). The following exam-ples are typical and illustrate this use of is:

(141) omnia tamen de scripturis Dei uel

all-NOM.PL however from scripture-ABL.PL God-GEN or sanctis uiris gesta, id est holy-ABL.PL man-ABL.PL act-NOM.PL that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG monachis, siue qui iam recesserant, monk-ABL.PL either REL.NOM.PL already depart-PLUPRF.3PL quae mirabilia fecerint, siue etiam qui REL.ACC.PL wonderful-ACC.PL do-PRF.3PL or also REL.NOM.PL adhuc in corpore sunt, quae cotidie faciant, still in body-ABL.SG be-PRS.3PL REL.ACC.PL daily do-PRS.3PL hi tamen qui sunt ascites. this-NOM.PL yet REL.NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL ascetic-NOM.PL But all [they told us was] from the Scriptures of God or of the acts of ho-

ly men, that is of monks, either the wonderful things that those already departed had done, or what those who are still in the body do daily, at

(Itin. XX.13)

116 Given the number of occurrences of is NPs in Table 36 in Chapter 6 below, it is clear that is is indeed primarily pronominal in the Itinerarium Egeriae, as noted by Trager (1932: 12) and Fruyt (2003: 106).

Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms 173

(142) Alia ergo die, id est dominica, other-ABL.SG then day-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG of.the.Lord-ABL.SG qua i ntratur in septimana paschale, REL.ABL.SG enter-PRS.PASS.3SG in week-ABL.SG paschal-ABL.SG quam hic appellant septimana

p

REL.ACC.SG here call-PRS.3PL week-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG proceditur iuxta consuetudinem in ecclesia proceed-PRS.PASS.3SG according.to custom-ACC.SG in church-ABL.SG

greater-ABL.SG

and which they call here the Great Week, they proceed on the morning y y p (Itin.

XXX.3)

Id est is a fixed expression to Egeria. This is shown by the fact that it is in-variably the neuter form id that is used; there is no number and gender varia-tion. Given the nature of id est as a fixed expression, the occurrences of id in this expression have not been tagged with givenness status to avoid producing a lot of uninteresting and disturbing data.

5.3 Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms

Personal pronouns are high accessibility markers, and they are generally thought to require a previous mention of the referent (see Section 2.3.2). Pro-nominal demonstratives too are high accessibility markers (see Section 2.2.3). As was seen in Chapter 4 and will be here too, the pronominal forms are rarely used non-anaphorically, with the notable exception of ANCHORED referents. Re-call also from Chapter 4 that generic referents and generally known referents never show pronominal forms.

5.3.1 New Referents

When the referent is NEW, we saw in Chapter 4 that there is only one occurrence of an overt pronominal form. This is an occurrence of hic: (143) nam hoc de ipso [sc. presbytero] dicebant,

for this-ACC.SG about ipse-ABL.SG priest-ABL.SG say-IMPF.3PL


dignus qui praesit in hoc loco, worthy-NOM.SG REL.NOM.SG preside-PRS.3SG in this-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG ubi sanctus Melchisedech aduenientem sanctum where holy-NOM.SG Melchizedek-NOM coming-ACC.SG holy-ACC.SG Abraam hostias Deo puras primus Abraham-ACC sacrifice-ACC.PL God-DAT pure-ACC.PL first-NOM.SG optulit: offer-PRF.3SG

holy Melchizedek when Abraham was coming to meet him was the y

A demonstrative is accounted for here because the referent what they said about the priest is present in the immediate (following) linguistic context (recall from Section 2.3.3 the constraint on demonstratives). That is, hic refers cataphorically. As Fillmore (1982: 53) point out, it is the proximal demonstrative in English that tends to refer cataphorically. This may explain why it is hic, the proximal demonstrative, which as the only pronominal demonstrative in the Itinerarium Egeriae occurs in this function.117 Albeit few, there are certain ex-amples of hic used chain-initially, viz. in first-mentions, in Bolkestein & van de y

data too. It is not clear to me whether hic in their examples is NEW and refers cataphorically as in (143), or if the referent is ANCHORED (see below in Section 5.3.2). In any case, however, hic has non-anaphoric uses both in Classical Latin and in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

The NON_SPEC referents show the following interesting distribution of pro-nominal forms:

Table 26: Pronominal forms used for NON_SPEC referents


pro 14 93.33 % Ipse 1 6.67 %

117 Which, of course, evokes the question of why the proximal demonstrative assumes this function. I leave that for further research.


Given what has been said about pronominal forms, that they require high ac-cessibility, in particular pro, it is surprising that pro occurs at all when the refer-ent is new118 in the discourse and hence hardly accessible at all. Nor does this rhyme with Bolk

y

Latin, that pro is never used in chain-initial position.119 Let us look at an exam-ple: (144) Monachi autem plurimi commanent ibi uere

monk-NOM.PL but many-NOM.PL dwell-PRS.3PL there truly sancti et quos hic PRO-SUB ascites uocant. holy-NOM.PL and REL.ACC.PL here ascetic-ACC.PL call-PRS.3PL y

X.9) The five other examples are similar. That is, the referent is an undetermined and p

pro is an appropriate anaphoric expression. If a specific referent were intended, pro would be infelicitous. Since pro contains no information whatsoever assisting the addressee in identifying the intended referent, pro requires high accessibil-ity. When it is not important that a referent can be identified, however, as in (144), it is possible to use a form whose accessibility requirements are not met. Indeed, I believe that a form requiring higher accessibility than what is actually found is not only possible, but also necessary in this particular kind of example, as a means of signalling that no specific referent is intended.

We can account for the one occurrence of NON_SPEC ipse in the same way:

(145) Itaque ergo duxit me primum ad palatium Aggari thus then lead-PRF.3SG I-ACC first to palace-ACC.SG Abgar-GEN regis et ibi ostendit michi archiotepam ipsius king-GEN.SG and there show-PRF.3SG I-DAT statue-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG ingens simillimam, ut ipsi dicebant, great-NOM.SG very-like-ACC.SG as ipse-NOM.PL say-IMPF.3PL marmoream, tanti nitoris ac si of.marble-ACC.SG so-great-GEN.SG sheen-GEN.SG as if de margarita esset; from pearl-ABL.SG be-IMPF.3SG

118 Recall that NON_SPEC is the non-specific counterpart to NEW. 119 I.e. with referents that are not previously mentioned in the discourse.


me a great marble statue of him very much like him, as they said having a sheen as if made of pea

y

The fact that high accessibility markers can be used if no specific referent is

intended seems to go unnoticed in the literature concerned with accessibility and the choice of referring expression.


When the referent is ANCHORED, the noun phrase contains additional information that assists the addressee in identifying the intended referent.120 Hence, pro-nominal forms can appropriately be used. As we can see in Table 27, the AN-CHORED referents indeed show a number of pronominal forms:

Table 27: Pronominal forms used for ANCHORED referents


Hic 19 39.58 % Ille 15 31.25 % Ipse 1 2.08 % Is 13 27.08 %

As we saw in Section 1.1.2, ille in the Itinerarium Egeriae has been claimed to function as the head of (restrictive) relative clauses, whereas ipse is anaphoric. Given the numbers in Table 27, this claim apparently holds for pronominal ille and ipse. Upon closer inspection, however, we find that ille is the (light) head of a restrictive relative clause only in three examples. In the majority of cases, ille is not the head of a restrictive relative clause, but of an appositional comple-ment clause, as in (146):

120 As I pointed out in Section 3.1.3.1, there are several ways in which a referent can be AN-CHORED, for instance by a (definite) possessor or by a restrictive relative clause. The pronominal forms are always ANCHORED either by a restrictive relative clause or by a complement clause in apposition.


(146) Illud etiam satis mihi grato fuit, ut ille-NOM.SG also very I-DAT pleasant-DAT.SG be-PRF.3SG that epistolas ipsas siue Aggari ad Dominum siue letter-ACC.PL ipse-ACC.PL either Abgar-GEN.SG to Lord-ACC or Domini ad Aggarum, quas nobis ibi legerat Lord-GEN to Abgar-ACC REL.ACC.PL we-DAT there read-PLUPRF.3SG sanctus episcopus, acciperem michi ab ipso holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG receive-IMPF.1SG I-DAT from ipse-ABL.SG sancto. holy-ABL.SG It was very pleasant to me to receive from the holy man himself the let-

ters of Abgar to the Lord and of the Lord to Abgar, which the holy bishop (Itin. XIX.19)

Thus, pronominal non-anaphoric ille in the Itinerarium Egeriae does not

primarily function as the light head of restrictive relative clauses, but rather as the head of appositional complements clauses. Fruyt (2003: 108 109), as the only one, it seems, observes this use of ille. Nevertheless, although pronominal ille is more often the head of an appositional complement clause than of a re-strictive relative clause, it remains a fact that pronominal ipse is primarily ana-phoric (see also Section 5.4) whereas pronominal ille is also non-anaphoric. Adnominal ille and ipse, on the other hand, do not behave entirely in accord-ance with the claim that ille is non-anaphoric whereas ipse is anaphoric. This will become clear in Chapter 6.

Is is the light head of a restrictive relative clause in eight of its thirteen oc-currences. (147) is an example:

(147) Item quinta feria aguntur ea

likewise fifth-ABL.SG weekday-ABL.SG do-PRS.PASS.3PL that-NOM.PL de pullo primo, quae consuetudinis from cockcrow-ABL.SG first-ABL.SG REL.ACC.PL custom-GEN.SG est usque ad mane ad Anastase; be-PRS.3SG until to morning at Anastasis-ABL On the fifth weekday everything that is customary is done from the first y y g

(Itin. XXXV.1) Fruyt (2003: 106 107) assumes that this is one of the main functions of pronom-inal is in the Itinerarium Egeriae. This assumption, then, is partially true.


In the rest of the ANCHORED examples, is is the head of an appositional com-plement clause:

(148) Id enim nobis semper consuetudinis erat, ut

that-NOM.SG for we-DAT always custom-GEN.SG be-PRS.3SG that ubicumque ad loca desiderata accedere uolebamus, whenever to place-ACC.PL desired-ACC.PL reach-INF want-IMPF.1PL primum ibi fieret oratio [...] first there make-IMPF.PASS.3SG prayer-NOM.SG For it was always customary with us that, whenever we succeeded in

reaching the places we desired to visit, prayer should first be made (Itin. X.7)

As Väänänen (1987: 48), Christol (1994: 145) and Fruyt (2003: 112) observe,

hic too can be the light head of a restrictive relative clause in the Itinerarium Egeriae. There are nine examples, among others (149):

(149) Consuetudo est, ut fiat hic oratio

custom-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that make-PRS.PASS.3SG here prayer-NOM.SG ab his qui ueniunt, quando de eo by this-ABL.PL REL.NOM.PL arrive-PRS.3PL when from that-ABL.SG loco primitus uidetur mons Dei; place-ABL.SG first see-PRS.PASS.3SG mountain-NOM.SG God-GEN The custom is that prayer should be made by those who arrive here, p y y

(Itin. I.2)

In the remaining occurrences, hic is the head of an appositional complement clause, as here: (150) Hoc autem nobis satis gratum euenit,

this-NOM.SG but we-DAT very pleasant-NOM.SG happen-PRF.3SG ut pridie martyrium die ibi ueniremus that the.day.before of.martyr-ACC.SG day-ABL.SG there arrive-IMPF.1PL It happened very pleasantly for us that we arrived on the day before the pp y

(Itin. XX.5)

With respect to hic, Trager claims, it is frequently used as a demonstrative p g- -

q (Trager 1932: 14). As will be-

come clear in Section 5.3.4, hic seems to be a proximal demonstrative in the


Itinerarium Egeriae. In the ANCHORED examples one may argue that hic is not very clearly demonstrative at all, which is generally the case if the demonstrative refers to a referent which is present neither in

y

the (extra-)linguistic context. It is not, however, a clear distinction between e-

tween [+DEMONSTRATIVE] and [-DEMONSTRATIVE] (see Section 2.3.3). As Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 290) show, is, hic and ille are all used

chain-initially in Classical Latin, that is, non-anaphorically (is more so than hic and ille). As I mentioned above (Section 5.3.1), it is not clear whether Bolkestein

-initial occurrences of the pronominal demonstratives are really new or ANCHORED. Nevertheless, we can conclude that is, hic and ille all have non-anaphoric uses in both Classical Latin and the Itinerarium Egeriae.


When the referent is inferable,121 we find only three occurrences of a pronominal form. pro occurs twice, is once. As I pointed out in Section 4.2.3, inferable refer-ents are in general not accessible enough for pronominal reference. In one oc-currence of pro, the inferable (ACC_INF) status of the referent is due to a peculiar-ity of the PROIEL givenness status annotation: when a quantified (QUANT) noun phrase is picked up by a non-quantified noun phrase in a specific context, it gets an ACC_INF tag. In other words, the referent is in fact OLD: (151) Egredienti autem episcopo omnes ad manum

going.out-DAT.SG but bishop-DAT.SG all-NOM.PL to hand-ACC.SG accedent. [42 words omitted] Hoc autem inter omnia reach-PRS.3PL this-NOM.SG but among all-ACC.PL satis praecipuum est, quod PRO-SUB faciunt u t [...] very special-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that arrange-PRS.3PL that y p

out, each one draws near to his hand. But among (Itin. XXV.3 5)

In the two remaining inferable examples, the referent is genuinely infera-

ble, as in the following example:

121 ACC_INF in the PROIEL givenness status annotation. No pronominal forms are used when givenness status is NON_SPEC_INF.


(152) Episcopo autem cathedra ponitur ante Cruce, Bishop-DAT.SG but chair-NOM.SG place-PRS.3SG before cross-ABL.SG et de sexta usque ad nona aliud and from sixth-ABL.SG until to ninth-ACC.SG other-NOM.SG fit nichil nisi leguntur do-PRS.PASS.3SG nothing-NOM.SG unless read-PRS.PASS.3PL lectiones sic: id est ita legitur lesson-NOM.PL thus that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG thus read-PRS.PASS.3SG primum de psalmis, ubicumque de passione first from psalm-ABL.PL wherever from passion-ABL.SG PRO-SUB dixit [...]

say-PRF.3SG The chair is placed for the bishop before the Cross, and from the sixth to

the ninth hour nothing else is done but the reading of lessons, which are

(Itin. XXXVII.5)

The referent of pro is the author of the Book of Psalms. The referent is identifia-ble because of the link with psalmiss ACC_INF tag.

In sum, pronominal forms are occasionally used in indirect anaphora, but in general, the referent is not accessible enough for reference by a pronominal form.


Referents that are present in the immediate situation,122 show the following distribution of forms:

Table 28: Pronominal forms used for ACC_SIT referents


Hic 6 85.71 % Ipse 1 14.29 %

122 Givenness status ACC_SIT in the PROIEL givenness status annotation.


As we can see in Table 28, hic occurs most frequently in this function in the Itinerarium Egeriae. (153) is an example: (153) Tunc dictum est michi: Haec

then said-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG I-DAT this-NOM.SG est ciuitas regis Melchisedech, quae be-PRS.3SG city-NOM.SG king-GEN.SG Melchizedek-INDECL REL.NOM.SG dicta est ante Salem, unde nunc called-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG before Salem-INDECL whence now corrupto sermone Sedima corrupt-ABL.SG l anguage-ABL.SG Sedima-NOM.SG appellatur ipse uicus. call-PRS.PASS.3SG ipse-NOM.SG village-NOM.SG p

Salem, but now, through the corruption of the language, the village is (Itin. XIII.4)

For obvious reasons, all the examples of this use of hic are found in passag-

es of direct speech; in a narrative, it is only in direct speech that can reference be to an extra-linguistic entity. As mentioned before, hic frequently does not y

- -yItinerarium

Egeriae according to Trager (1932: 14). (153), however, shows that hic is in fact a proximal demonstrative - (153) Egeria and her company are in the city of King Melchizedek, and haec must be a proximal demonstrative referring to the city near the speaker and the addressee. Since both the speaker and the addressee are in the city referred to by haec, a

that not make sense. The one example of ipse deserves a comment:

(154) Nam monticulum istum, quem uides, for little-hill-ACC.SG that-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG see-PRS.2SG filia, super ciuitate hac, in illo daughter.VOC.SG over city-ABL.SG this-ABL.SG in ille-ABL.SG tempore ipse huic ciuitati aquam time-ABL.SG ipse-NOM.SG this-DAT.SG city-DAT.SG water-ACC.SG ministrabat. supply-IMPF.3SG Now that little hill which you see, my daughter, over the city, supplied y

(Itin. XIX.11)


As I explained in Section 3.1.3.2, the givenness status annotation is linear, but it is also always the head of the noun phrase that is tagged. In (154), ipse is syntac-tically the head of the noun phrase ipse, monticulum istum, quem uides. Accord-ingly, ipse is tagged as ACC_SIT even though monticulum istum, quem uides pre-cedes ipse. Strictly speaking, it is monticulum istum, quem uides that is ACC_SIT, with ipse referring anaphorically back to monticulum istum, quem uides. In other words, ipse does not really refer to a referent which is present in the immediate situation in this case, and only hic has this use in the Itinerarium Egeriae.123

Having surveyed the non-anaphoric uses of the pronominal forms, in the next section, I move on to their anaphoric uses.

5.4 Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms

As we have seen already, the pronominal forms are most likely to be used when the referent is previously mentioned in the discourse. Table 29 shows the num-ber of anaphoric occurrences of each pronominal form:

Table 29: Pronominal forms used anaphorically in the Itinerarium Egeriae124


Hic 48 10.71 % Ille 33 7.37 % Ipse 51 11.38 % Is 68 15.18 % pro 248 55.36 %

As Section 4.1 showed, pro is restricted to subject function in the Itinerarium Egeriae. I discuss therefore the anaphors in subject function and the anaphors

123 Among the full NPs, not only hic NPs occur with givenness status ACC_SIT, as will become clear in Chapter 6. 124 The total number of overt pronominal anaphors does not add up to 204, which was the number of overt pronominal anaphors in Chapter 4 (see Table 12 on page 104). This is because I have excluded the only occurrence of idem; it would make little sense to include idem since it occurs only once. As already mentioned, I moreover exclude one occurrence of ipse is and two of ipse hic.

Anaphoric Uses of the Pronominal Forms 183

in other syntactic functions separately. I will also make reference to and discuss the pronominal forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae with respect to the properties identified for the (anaphoric) subject expressions in Classical Latin by Bolke-stein & van de Grift (1994), Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolkestein (2000) to see if there are any differences between Classical Latin

As we can see in Table 29, pro is by far the preferred pronominal anaphor in the Itinerarium Egeriae. As will become clear, pro is the default pronominal anaphor, substituted by another form first and foremost when pro cannot be used, namely in non-subject functions.

5.4.1 The Choice between the Pronominal Subject Anaphors

Table 30 shows the number of occurrences of each pronominal form in subject function:

Table 30: Pronominal anaphors in subject function125



As we can see, pro is by far the preferred expression, and it occurs significantly more frequently than the other forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). pro is fol-lowed by hic and ipse. Ille and is, on the other hand, are slightly rarer than ipse. In the following, I discuss the pronominal subject anaphors with respect to the variables thought to influence accessibility and/or the choice of anaphoric ex-pression.

125 The numbers in this table contradicts Herman s (1991: 417) claim that the proportion of verbal forms without explicit subject is low (about 23 %) in the Itinerarium Egeriae.


5.4.1.1 Form of the Antecedent We have seen that the form of the antecedent may influence accessibility and hence the choice of referring expression. More precisely, pronominal forms, first and foremost pro, signal higher accessibility than full NPs, and full NPs, in turn, are more accessible than antecedents that are realised neither as a pronominal form nor as a full NP (i.e. propositions/events). Figure 32 shows the distribution of pronominal subject anaphors across the various antecedent forms.

Figure 32: Distribution of the pronominal subject anaphors across various antecedent forms

The choice between the pronominal subject anaphors correlates significant-ly with the form of the antecedent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). As can be seen, pro is the preferred expression for all types of antecedents, except in the

. Yet, whereas pro is used in 91.4 % of the cases in which the ante-cedent is also pro, the proportion of pro decreases to 75 % when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form, and to 75.18 % when the antecedent is a full NP. When the antecedent is neither pro, nor an overt pronominal form, nor a full NP, hic is by far the preferred expression, being the preferred anaphor in 78.57 % of the cases.


The antecedent forms to the left in Figure 32 are thought to signal higher ac-cessibility than the forms to the right. Recall also that pro is the highest accessi-bility marker; overt pronominal forms require less accessibility. That the propor-tion of pro decreases with the antecedent forms further to the right, is then in accordance with what we can expect.

Nevertheless, even though the incidence of pro falls and the number of overt pronominal forms rises the less accessible the antecedent, it remains the case that pro is by far the preferred expression with all kinds of antecedents, y

i-ties, i.e. events or propositions, are usually not accessible enough to be picked up by a pro anaphor126. The main distinction with respect to antecedent form is then between reference to entities on the one hand, and reference to events/propositions discourse deixis on the other.

There is also apparently a parallel between pro antecedents and pro anaphors, as I suggested earlier in Chapter 4. That is, once a referent is refer-enced by pro, it is likely to be picked up by pro also later, but provided that the antecedent is not too far away, a natural consequence of the fact that pro re-quires particularly high accessibility.

Regarding hic, we see that it most frequently occur when the antecedent is a y

two main uses of hic in the Itinerarium Egeriae; it is used either in identifica-tional constructions to identify a recently mentioned referent with a referent that is already known to the addressee (in which case the antecedent is a full NP) or discourse deictically. Both of these uses of hic are noted by Fruyt (2003: 112), the former also by Christol (1994: 145) and Väänänen (1987: 48). (155) is an example of the discourse deictic use. In (156) there are several occurrences of hic in an identificational construction:

(155) [...] inchoans a Genese per illos dies

beginning-NOM.SG from Genesis-ABL during ille-ACC.PL day-ACC.PL quadraginta percurret omnes scripturas, primum forty-INDECL go.through-PRS.3SG all-ACC.PL scripture-ACC.PL first exponens carnaliter et sic illud soluens explaining-NOM.SG literally and then ille-ACC.sg unfolding-NOM.SG

126 Iatridou & Embick (1994; 1997) too, in their studies of null subjects in a number of Indo-European languages, find that pro cannot have a clause as antecedent.


spiritualiter. Nec non etiam et de resurrectione, spiritually and.not not also and about resurrection-ABL.SG similiter et de fide omnia docentur similarly and about faith-ABL.SG all-NOM.PL teach-PRS.PASS.3PL per illos dies; hoc autem cathecisis during ille-ACC.PL day-ACC.PL this-NOM.SG but catechising-NOM.SG appellatur. call-PRS.PASS.3SG

forty days, explaining them, first literally, and then unfolding them spir-itually. They are also taught about the Resurrection, and likewise all things concerning the Faith during those days. And this is called the

(156) Et plorauerunt filii Israhel Moysen in and weep.for-PRF.3PL son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL Moses-ACC in Arabot Moab. Hic etiam locus est, Arabot-INDECL Moab-INDECL this-NOM.SG also place-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ubi post recessum Moysi statim Iesus where after death-ACC.SG Moses-GEN immediately Jesus-NOM filius Naue repletus est spiritu son-NOM.SG Naue-INDECL filled-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG spirit-ABL.SG scientiaa Hic etiam est locus, ubi wisdom-GEN.SG this-NOM.SG also be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where locutus est Moyses in aures totius spoken-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Moses-NOM in ear-ACC.PL whole-GEN.SG ecclesiae Israhel uerba Hic church-GEN.SG Israel-INDECL word-ACC.PL song-GEN.SG this-NOM.SG est ipse locus, ubi benedixit be-PRS.3SG ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG where bless-PRF.3SG sanctus Moyses homo Dei filios holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM man-NOM.SG God-GEN son-ACC.PL Israel-INDECL And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the Arabot Moab. This is p

straightway filled with the spirit of wisdom. This is the place where Mo-ses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song. This is the place where holy Moses, the man of God, blessed the g p

(Itin. X.4 6)


Bolkestein (2000: 114) observes a tendency for hic to be used discourse deictical-ly in Classical Latin

yhic

sort of summary, a final closure of the preceding descriptive passage (Bolke-stein 2000: 121). In other words, anaphoric hic seems to have the similar func-tions in the Itinerarium Egeriae as in Classical Latin.

The fact that hic, and not one of the other overt pronominal forms, is pre-ferred in the discourse deictic function and in the identificational constructions may partly be accounted this and that in English. Basically, she argues, this causes a focus movement where-as that does not (Sidner 1983: 320). Hic, like English this, is usually labelled a proximal demonstrative, and as such, hic should be comparable to this. Hic does express a focus movement in that a referent is introduced in the sentence pre-ceding the anaphor, when it becomes the focus127 of the sentence containing hic. In sum, hic has a function similar to that detected by Sidner (1983) for English this.

Is is rare in subject function, and it is therefore difficult to discern any clear tendencies in its use, also with respect to the form of the antecedent. Its main function is to substitute pro in accusative with infinitive constructions, as in the following example:

(157) Nam hic est locus, ubi

for this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where optulit Melchisedech hostias Deo puras, offer-PRF.3SG Melchizedek-INDECL sacrifice-ACC.PL God-DAT pure-ACC.PL id est panes et uinum, sicut that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG bread-ACC.PL and wine-ACC.SG as scriptum est eum fecisse. written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-ACC.SG do-INF.PRF

that is bread and wine to God,

In addition, is has some rare discourse deictic uses, in which case the referent is OLD_INACT, and no information about the antecedent is therefore registered.128

Ille and ipse too show no clear tendencies with respect to the form of the an-tecedent. The most important observation is that they like pro and is are

127 Which roughly corresponds to my notion of topic . 128 An example is found in Section 5.4.1.11 below.


rarely used when the referent is neither a pronominal form (pro or overt) nor a full NP, suggesting that they are relatively high accessibility markers.

5.4.1.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent As we saw in Chapter 4, the syntactic function of the antecedent influences accessibility and the choice between full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro. The choice between the pronominal forms in subject function, too, correlates significantly with the syntactic function of the antecedent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). Consider Figure 33:

Figure 33: Distribution of the pronominal subject anaphors across various antecedent func-tions

As we can see, pro is the preferred expression when the antecedent is a subject or an object. pro is used in 85.71 % of the cases in which the antecedent is a subject. If the antecedent is an object, pro is used in 76.92 % of the cases. The


choice between pro and another expression is in fact not significantly depend-ent on whether the antecedent is a subject or an object (p=0.2495, two-sided Fisher test); pro is highly significantly more frequent than the other forms in both cases (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests). If the antecedent is nei-ther a subject nor an object, however, pro is used in only 46.97 % of the cases. In this case, there is no significant difference between pro and hic (p=0.08969, chi-squared test).

The frequency of hic with antecedents that are neither subject nor object is a result of the tendency of hic to be used discourse deictically. Note that although pro relatively frequently occurs when the antecedent is neither subject nor ob-ject, it does not follow that pro is discourse deictic. Rather, the antecedent of pro, when it is neither a subject nor an object, is syntactically usually an oblique (18 occurrences) or an attribute (9 occurrences). In (158) the antecedent of pro appears in an oblique function:

(158) Ecce rex Aggarus, qui antequam

behold king-NOM.SG Abgar-NOM REL.NOM.SG before uideret Dominum, credidit ei, quia PRO-SUB see-IMPF.3SG Lord-ACC believe-PRF.3SG that-DAT.SG that esset uere filius Dei. be-IMPF.3SG truly son-NOM.SG God-GEN y

The fact that pro can appropriately refer back to antecedents in oblique func-tions and in attribute function suggests that antecedents in other syntactic func-tions than subject and object can be highly accessible as well. Although pro is not primarily discourse deictic, in one example pro is tangibly discourse deictic: (159) Egyptum autem et Palestinam et mare rubrum et

Egypt-ACC but and Palestine-ACC and sea-ACC.SG red-ACC.SG and mare illut Parthenicum, quod mittit sea-ACC.SG ille-ACC.SG Parthenian-ACC.SG REL.NOM.SG lead.to-PRS.3SG Alexandriam, nec non et fines Saracenorum Alexandria-ACC and.not not also territory-ACC.PL Saracen-GEN.PL infinitos ita subter nos inde uidebamus, boundless-ACC.PL so.much below we-ACC thence see-IMPF.1PL ut credi uix PRO-SUB possit; that believe-INF.PASS hardly can-PRS.3SG


r-thenian Sea, which leads to Alexandria and the boundless territories of

III.8) With regard to the forms other than hic and pro, it is hard to find any clear

tendencies with respect to the syntactic function of the antecedent. Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), as well as Bolkestein (2000), discuss the

Classical Latin subject expressions with respect to whether they express a sub-ject shift or subject continuity. Figure 34 shows the distribution of pronominal subject anaphors in cases of subject continuity, respectively subject shift in the Itinerarium Egeriae:129

Figure 34: Pronominal subject anaphors used for subject continuity and subject shift, respec-tively

129 Subject continuity comprises the cases in which the antecedent is the subject of the previous sentence, whereas subject shift comprises the cases in which the antecedent is not the subject of the previous sentence. Recall that the anaphor itself is a subject in all the cases discussed in this section.


The choice between the forms correlates significantly with the subject con-tinuity / subject shift parameter (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). When the subject is continued, we find pro in 87.37 % of the cases significantly more frequently than the other forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). The proportion of pro in the subject shift cases is 59.32 %, and pro is only barely significantly more frequent than the other forms (p=0.04284, chi-squared test).

The preferred subject shift device in Classical Latin, as Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000) show, is ille, whereas the preferred subject continuity device is pro. Luraghi (1998) similarily observes that subject continui-ty is mostly marked by pro in Tacitus (around 100 AD), whereas ille typically signals that the subject changes. Joffre (2009) too, who studies the use of ille in Terence (2. century BC) and Livy (died AD 17), finds that ille y y

value of ille, see also Pieroni 2010). According to Pinkster (1987: 376 377), ille is the topic shift marker in Petronius (1. century AD) as well.

In the Itinerarium Egeriae, pro behaves as in Classical Latin, being the pre-ferred subject continuity device. Subject shifts, on the other hand, are not pri-marily expressed by ille in the Itinerarium Egeriae, contrary to what we might expect given the findings in earlier Latin authors. Ille, in fact, occurs in only 6.78 % of the subject shift cases, whereas pro, as already mentioned, is the pre-ferred subject shift expression. All the same, pro is indeed less frequent if the subject is shifted than if the subject is continued. That is to say, pro is a better subject continuity device than subject shift device also in the Itinerarium Egeri-ae, although the relationship between ille and pro is very different from the situation in earlier Latin texts.130

Among the overt pronominal forms, ille, ipse and is do not show any clear tendencies. Hic, on the other hand, is more frequently a subject shift device than a subject continuity device. In the identificational constructions, the ante-cedent of hic is typically an oblique, as in the following example:

(160) Et plorauerunt filii Israhel Moysen in

And weep-PRF.3PL son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL Moses-ACC in Arabot Moab et Iordane contra Iericho Arabot-INDECL Moab-INDECL and Jordan-ABL against Jericho-INDECL

130 According to Spevak (2008: 363), sentence-initial ille is a topic shift marker in Gregory of p

ille p y

Spevak does not discuss other topic shift devices and does not state whether ille is actually the preferred topic shift device in Gregory of Tours.


quadraginta diebus. Hic etiam l ocus est, forty-INDECL day-ABL.PL this-NOM.SG also place-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

y

where

Jordan over against Jericho, forty days. This iX.4 5)

In the discourse deictic use of hic, the antecedent is a proposition or event (or series of events). Since the antecedent is a subject neither in the identificational constructions nor in the discourse deictic use of hic, hic consequently expresses a shift of subject. The antecedent of hic is a subject in ten occurrences only.

In conclusion, with respect to subject shift / subject continuity, the situa-tion in the Itinerarium Egeriae is very different from the situation in Classi-cal/earlier Latin as shown by previous scholars, since pro is the preferred ex-pression in both cases.

5.4.1.3 Antecedent Topicality Personal pronouns are thought to signal topic continuity, whereas pronominal demonstratives, as lower accessibility markers, are thought to signal a topic shift (Isard 1975; Linde 1979; Bosch 1983; Sidner 1983; Gundel et al. 1993). In other words, if the overt pronominal forms are indeed demonstratives, these should be preferred when the antecedent is non-topical, whereas pro should be preferred when the antecedent is topical.

The choice between the pronominal forms, however, does not depend sig-nificantly on antecedent topicality (p=0.1688, two-sided Fisher test). pro is by far the preferred expression irrespective of the topicality of the antecedent, being highly significantly more frequent than the overt pronominal forms both when the antecedent is topical and when it is non-topical (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared tests); there are 83.17 % pro when the antecedent is a topic, and 73.95 % when the antecedent is not a topic. Since pro is thought to be the highest accessibility marker (e.g. Givón 1983; Ariel 1990; Gundel et al. 1993), this shows that an antecedent can indeed be highly accessible without being a topic.

As we saw in Chapter 4, antecedent topicality in the same or immediately preceding sentence may be more important for the accessibility of the referent and the choice of anaphoric expression than antecedent topicality irrespective of distance. Topical antecedents mentioned further back than in the preceding


sentence are not the current topics of discourse. They are therefore not any more accessible than non-topical antecedents, and pro may be less frequent if we consider non-topical also the topical antecedents that appear more than one sentence away. However, it makes no difference to the distribution of forms if we consider non-topical only the non-topical antecedents or also those anteced-ents that are in fact topics, but not in the same sentence as the anaphor or in the p

-squared test).

5.4.1.4 Anaphor Topicality Regarding the topicality of the anaphor itself, we have seen that pronominal forms are the preferred topic expressions (see Section 2.2.1). Both pro and the overt pronominal forms should therefore be good topic candidates. As we saw in Chapter 4, however, they do not only occur in topic function; although full NPs are the preferred non-topic expressions, pronominal forms are also relatively frequently non-topical, indicating that non-topics can also be realised in pro-nominal form.

Figure 35 shows the distribution of pronominal subject anaphors in topic function and non-topic function, respectively.


Figure 35: Pronominal subject anaphors used in topic function, respectively non-topic function

The choice between the pronominal anaphors in subject function correlates significantly with the topicality of the anaphor itself, albeit barely so (p=0.03109, two-sided Fisher test). As Figure 35 shows, pro is the preferred ana-phoric expression irrespective of topicality. Nevertheless, an overt pronominal form is more likely to occur instead of pro in topic function; there are 69.13 % pro in topic function, and 81.36 % in non-topic function.

As regards the overt pronominal forms, the choice between hic and pro de-pends significantly on topicalit -squared test); Hic is more likely to be used as a topic expression than as a non-topic expression. The fact that hic is more frequently a topic than a non-topic stems from its two main uses in identificational constructions and as a discourse deictic device. In the

the referent of hic, and this generally holds in the discourse deictic use of hic as well, for instance in the following example:


(161) Dicuntur ymni, fiunt orationes [31 words say-PRS.PASS.3PL hymn-NOM.PL make-PRS.PASS.3PL prayer-NOM.PL omitted] Et posteaquam dicti fuerint psalmi

and after said-NOM.PL be-PRF.3PL psalm-NOM.PL et oratio facta fuerit, inde usque ad and prayer-NOM.SG made-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG thence until to Anastase cum ymnis descenditur hora Anastasis-ABL with hymn-ABL.PL come.down-PRS.PASS.3SG hour-ABL.SG lucernae: hoc per totos octo lucernare-GEN.SG this-NOM.SG throughout all-ACC.PL eight-INDECL dies fit. day-ACC.PL do-PRS.PASS.3SG y

said and prayer has been made, they come down thence with hymns to the Anastasis at the hour of lucernare. This is done throughout all the

(Itin. XXXIX.3 4)

Regarding the other forms, the choice between pro and ille does not signifi-p-squared test), nor does the

choice between pro and ipse q-squared test) or between

pro and is (p=0.3315, Fisher test). In other words, like pro, ille, ipse and is are more likely to occur in non-topic function than in topic function.

As I mentioned above in Section 5.4.1.2, Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000) describe ille in Classical Latin as a switch subject device, whereas pro, according to them, is the preferred device for continuing the sub-ject of the preceding sentence. However, Bolkestein (2000) apparently equates j

, speaking of ille y

topic device (Bolkestein 2000: 125).131 Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) too seem p132 Given what we have seen above, that

pro is the preferred anaphor irrespective of both antecedent topicality and anaphor topicality, it can hardly hold for the Itinerarium Egeriae that ille is the

131 Kroon (2009) shows that ille is sometimes used also in contexts of topic continuity in Clas-sical Latin. 132 The terminology of Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000) is confusing, and as mentioned, they seem to equate subject with topic . However, there is no one-to-one relationship between topic and subject, as I pointed out in Section 2.2.1. Since it is not entirely clear whether Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000) actually mean subject shift/continuity or topic shift/continuity , I discuss the pronominal anaphors in the Itinerari-um Egeriae with respect to both parameters.


preferred topic shift device. Figure 36 shows the distribution of pronominal subject anaphors in cases of topic continuity, respectively topic shift in the Itin-erarium Egeriae:133

Figure 36: Pronominal subject anaphors used for topic continuity and topic shift, respectively

As we can see, pro is the preferred anaphoric expression both in cases of topic shift and of topic continuity. The choice of expression correlates signifi-cantly with the topic continuity / topic shift parameter (p=0.001517, two-sided Fisher test). As Figure 36 shows, an overt pronominal form is more likely to be the selected anaphor if there is a topic shift than if there is topic continuity. In

133 Topic continuity is defined here as the cases in which the anaphor is a topic and the antecedent is the topic of the previous sentence. Conversely, the instances registered as topic shifts are the cases in which the anaphor is a topic, but the antecedent is not the topic of the previous sentence.


cases of topic continuity, we find 88.33 % pro, whereas in cases of topic shift there is 58.54 % pro. That notwithstanding, pro remains the preferred expres-sion in both cases. In (162) pro expresses a topic shift:

(162) Tunc ergo quia retinebam scriptum esse

then then because remember-IMPF.1SG written-NOM.SG be-INF baptizasse sanctum Iohannem in Enon iuxta baptise-INF.PRF holy-ACC.SG John-ACC in Aenon-INDECL near Salim, requisiui de eo, quam longe esset Salim-INDECL ask-PRF.1SG from that-ABL.SG how far be-IMPF.3SG ipse locus. Tunc ait ille sanctus ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG then say-PRS.3SG ille-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG presbyter: Ecce hic PRO-SUB est in priest-NOM.SG behold here be-PRS.3SG in ducentis passibus. two.hundred-ABL.PL pace-ABL.PL p

baptized in Aenon near to Salim, I asked him how far off that place was. p p

XV.1) Among the overt pronominal forms, hic is the most frequently used form to

express a topic shift. Ipse follows hic as the second most frequent topic shift device. Yet, the total number of ipse expressing a topic shift is low (there are 10 examples). Hence, we can hardly claim that ipse is a general topic shift device in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

Is is rare, and it hardly makes sense to discuss it with respect to the topic shift / topic continuity parameter. Note, however, that it never expresses topic continuity, but this may well be due to chance rather than a real tendency.

As we have seen, ille is the preferred topic shift device not only in Classical Latin, but also in other Latin texts according to several scholars. In the Itinerari-um Egeriae, ille indeed never expresses topic continuity. Yet, even if we disre-gard pro, we can hardly claim that ille is the preferred topic shift device in the Itinerarium Egeriae either; it does not express a topic shift more frequently than the other overt pronominal forms do. Among the overt pronominal forms, hic, in fact, is significantly more frequent than ille in this function (p=0.01638, chi-squared test).


5.4.1.5 Animacy Animacy may furthermore influence accessibility and the choice of anaphoric expression (see Section 2.2.1.4). As Chapter 4 showed, however, the effect of animacy on the choice between the full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro in subject function is not very clear, but I concluded that HUMAN referents are bet-ter candidates for pronominalisation than non-HUMAN ones are, in accordance p

Figure 37: Pronominal subject anaphors used for HUMAN, respectively non-HUMAN referents134

The choice between the pronominal forms in subject function indeed corre-lates significantly with animacy (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). As Figure 37 shows, an overt pronominal form is more likely to be the selected anaphor when

134 Here, non-HUMAN comprises the occurrences in which there is no information about animacy. Hence, the discourse deictic uses of hic, in which there is no information about ani-macy, are registered as non-HUMAN.


the animacy status of the referent is non-HUMAN than when it is HUMAN. Whereas pro is used in 79.74 % of the cases when the referent is HUMAN and is highly significantly more frequent than the other forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), when the referent is non-HUMAN, the proportion of pro decreases to 60.81 %, and pro is not significantly more frequent than the other forms (p=0.06289, chi-squared test). In other words, although pro refers relatively frequently to non-HUMAN referents, it is better with humans, and conversely, overt pronominal forms are more likely to be used when the referent is non-HUMAN. This is in ac-cordance with the assumption that humans are more accessible than non-humans, and that pro is a higher accessibility marker than overt pronominal forms.

Among the overt pronominal forms, it is mainly hic that is used when the referent is non-HUMAN. Hic is significantly more frequent than the second most frequent form, namely ipse (p=0.01431, chi-squared test). The fact that hic is frequent when animacy status is non-HUMAN, reflects its tendency to be used in identificational constructions, in which the referent is typically a place, as for instance in (156) above. I repeat it here as (163):

(163) Et plorauerunt filii Israhel Moysen in

and weep.for-PRF.3PL son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL Moses-ACC in Arabot Moab. Hic etiam locus est, Arabot-INDECL Moab-INDECL this-NOM.SG also place-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ubi post recessum Moysi statim Iesus where after death-ACC.SG Moses-GEN immediately Jesus-NOM filius Naue repletus est spiritu son-NOM.SG Naue-INDECL filled-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG spirit-ABL.SG

Hic etiam est locus, ubi wisdom-GEN.SG this-NOM.SG also be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where locutus est Moyses in aures totius spoken-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Moses-NOM in ear-ACC.PL whole-GEN.SG ecclesiae Israhel uerba Hic church-GEN.SG Israel-INDECL word-ACC.PL song-GEN.SG this-NOM.SG est ipse locus, ubi benedixit be-PRS.3SG ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG where bless-PRF.3SG sanctus Moyses homo Dei filios holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM man-NOM.SG God-GEN son-ACC.PL y

Israel-INDECL


And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the Arabot Moab. This is p

straightway filled with the spirit of wisdom. This is the place where Mo-ses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song. This is the place where holy Moses, the man of God, blessed the

(Itin. X.4 6)

In the identificational constructions, hic identifies a just-mentioned referent with a referent that is known to the addressee beforehand. It is primarily the places known from the Bible that occur in these constructions. Because of this, and the fact that the discourse deictic uses are included among the non-HUMAN referents, hic is more frequent with non-HUMAN referents than with HUMAN ones. The use of an overt pronominal form, rather than pro, in the identificational constructions may be due to a syntactic constraint rather than accessibility; perhaps these constructions syntactically require an overt pronominal form. At least in the Itinerarium Egeriae pro does not appear in identificational construc-tions. The occurrences in which pro refers to a non-HUMAN referent are not iden-tificational constructions: (164) Interea ambulantes peruenimus ad quendam

meanwhile walking-NOM.PL come-PRF.1PL to certain-ACC.SG locum, ubi se tamen montes illi, place-ACC.SG where REFL.ACC.PL however mountain-NOM.PL ille-NOM.PL inter quos ibamus, aperiebant et through REL.ACC.PL go-IMPF.1PL open-IMPF.3PL and PRO-SUB faciebant uallem

make-IMPF.3PL valley-ACC.SG infinite-ACC.SG yn-

tains, through which we were journeying, opened out and formed an in-j

Is, ille and ipse show no clear tendencies with respect to animacy. They are

all used both with HUMAN and non-HUMAN referents.

5.4.1.6 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs As we saw in Chapter 4, whether the antecedent is in a main or a subordinate clause, does not play an important role for the choice between a full NP, overt pronominal form and pro. Recall furthermore that a subordinate clause ante-


cedent is less accessible only if the subordinate clause is not part of the sen-tence containing the anaphor. Figure 38 shows the distribution of the pronomi-nal subject anaphors for main clause antecedents irrespective of whether or not the main clause is part

pi-p

Figure 38: Pronominal subject anaphors used for main clause, respectively subordinate clause antecedents

Whereas pro is used in 73.83 % of cases in which the antecedent is in a main clause, it is used only in 52.53 % of cases in which the antecedent is in a subor-dinate clause. pro is highly significantly more frequent than the other forms when the antecedent is in a main clause (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), whereas subordinate clause antecedents show no significant difference between pro on the one hand and the other forms on the other (p=0.7728, chi-squared test).

Hic, as already mentioned, is frequently discourse deictic, in which case the antecedent is registered as being in a subordinate clause, although it is not


really in any kind of clause. Hence its use with subordinate clause antecedents. As regards the other forms, they show no clear tendencies with respect to the type of clause in which the antecedent occurs.

5.4.1.7 Position in the Anaphoric Chain Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 290-293) detect differences in the behaviour of the Classical Latin subject expressions with respect to position in the anaphoric chain. More precisely, they frequently find hic and is in chain-second position, whereas ille and pro show a preference for chain-medial position135 (Bolkestein & van de Grift 1994: 290). Let us see how the forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae behave with respect to this parameter.

135 By chain-medial they mean every other reference after a chain second mention (Bolke-stein & van de Grift 1994: 290), including chain-final mentions.


Figure 39: Pronominal subject anaphors used in chain-second, respectively chain-medial position

The choice of anaphoric expression significantly correlates with the main/subordinate clause parameter (p=0.0002251, two-sided Fisher test). Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 290) show that pro is the preferred expression in chain-medial position in Classical Latin. As Figure 39 shows, this holds true for pro in the Itinerarium Egeriae as well; pro is by far the preferred expression in chain-medial position, being used in 81.97 % of the cases, and being significant-ly more frequent than the other forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). In addition to pro, Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) find that ille is relatively frequent in chain-medial position in Classical Latin. In the Itinerarium Egeriae, ille occurs slightly more frequently in chain-medial position than in chain-second posi-tion,136 but no more frequently than any of the other overt pronominal forms.

136 In chain-second position, there is 3.61 % ille, in chain-medial 4.72 %.


There is, in fact, no significant difference between the overt pronominal forms in chain-medial position (p=0.4298, chi-squared test).

In chain-second position, primarily hic and is are used in Bolkestein & van p p y Figure 39, the situation is different

in the Itinerarium Egeriae. pro is the preferred expression also in chain-second position, being used in 62.65 % of the cases, and being significantly more fre-quent than the other forms (p=0.02116, chi-squared test). Hic is in the Itinerari-um Egeriae, as in Classical Latin according to Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), more frequent in chain-second position (used in 21.69 % of the cases) than in chain-medial position (used in 5.58 % of the cases), but it is not the preferred expression in chain-second position, as it allegedly is in Classical Latin. Is, which is used in 50 out of the 174 occurrences of chain-second anaphors in p

-second pronominal subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

Since pro is the preferred expression in both positions, the conclusion drawn by Bolkestein & van de Grift

p hic and is have the task of firmly es-

tablishing the chain before allowing 0 [i.e. pro in my terminology] or illee (Bolkestein & van de Grift 1994: 291; see also Bolkestein 2000: 121)

y hardly

holds for the Itinerarium Egeriae. The situation in the Itinerarium Egeriae is very different from that in Classical Latin.

5.4.1.8 Tendency of the Referent to be Picked up in the Later Discourse Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) show that the Classical Latin subject expres-sions differ with respect to the tendency of their referents to be picked up in the later discourse.

Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) rank the subject anaphors in Classical Latin according to what they, following Givón

j p

presence of co-referential items in the subsequent context. Their ranking of the subject expressions with respect to the number of subsequent mentions of the referent is as follows:137

(165) Ille > pro > hic > is

(adapted from Bolkestein & van de Grift 1994: 286)

137 Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) are not concerned with ipse, naturally, since in Classical Latin it is an intensifier and not part of the system of referring expressions.


In the Itinerarium Egeriae, however, the pronominal subject anaphors bare-ly differ with respect to this parameter. Table 31 shows the mean number of references made to the referent of the pronominal subject anaphors in the fol-lowing context in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

Table 31: Mean number of mentions made to the referent of the pronominal subject anaphors in the following context

Mean

Is 0.6

Hic 1.193548 Ille 2.75 Ipse 2.863636

pro 3.295547

As we can see, pro and ipse show the longest mean forward chain length, with no significant difference between them (p=0.6368, t-test). Ipse is followed by ille, which does not differ significantly from pro either (p=0.5969, t-test). The referents of hic and is show the least tendency to be picked up in the following context. Hic differs significantly from pro, and so does is (p<0.0001 in both cas-es, t-tests). Hic and is are not significantly different from each other (p=0.2519, t-test). The fact that the referent of hic is rarely picked up in the following context results from its discourse deictic uses; events and propositions are typically not central and recurrent referents in a discourse (see also Himmelmann 1996: 225). That the referent of is is rarely picked up in the following context is a result of its discourse deictic uses and its use in indirect speech (i.e. accusative with infini-tive constructions) (see Section 5.4.1.2 above). There are no long passages of indirect speech in the Itinerarium Egeriae, hence is is rarely picked up in the following discourse in this use. A ranking of the forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae à lfollows: (166) pro/ipse/ille > hic/is

Indeed, we find that hic and is are used for referents that are less likely to be

picked up in the following discourse both in Classical Latin and in the Itinerari-um Egeriae. pro, ipse and ille, on the other hand, cannot be internally ranked, as


there is no significant difference between them. In sum then, the Itinerarium Egeriae resembles Classical Latin in its tendency for hic and is to occur when the referent is not picked up in the following discourse. Having said that, since the differences between the forms are small and not very clear, I believe the tenden-cy of the referent to be picked up in the following context does not in itself in-fluence the choice of anaphoric expression.

One other parameter discussed by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) relates to the context following the anaphor, namely the tendency (or not) of the subject expressions re topic 138

y j

entity that is introduced into the discourse by means of a special existential or y y p

word order (Bolkestein & van de Grift 1994: 287). In my data set, I have no in-formation about the type of construction or verb by means of which the referent is introduced, nor about marked word order. However, in order to ascertain which anaphoric Itinerarium Egeriae, we can count the number of each form displaying backward chain length = 1 (because the referent must have been introduced for the first time in its previous mention in order to be a future topic) and forward chain length > 0 (because in order to qualify as a future topic, the referent must be picked up later in the discourse). Figure 40 shows the distribution of pronomi-nal forms for future topics in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

138 Somewhat confusingly, Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) do not use topic here as a quali-tative notion referring to a particularly highly accessible entity, i.e. what a sentence is about . They use it here in Givón

ps (1983) sense, to whom topic is simply an entity involved in the

designated states of affair, and of which there may be more than one in a sentence. That is simply a discourse referent in my terminology.


Figure 40: Pronominal subject anaphors used for future topics

As we can see, pro is by far the preferred expression also for future topics, being used in 68.7 % of the cases and significantly more frequent than the other forms (p=0.04109, chi-squared test). This is not in accordance with the findings of Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), who give the following hierarchy of the forms in Classical Latin, where the forms to the left are more likely to be used with reference to future topics:

(167) Hic > is > pro > ille 139


Of particular note, in the Itinerarium Egeriae is is not used at all, whereas hic, ille and ipse are all rare.

139 Note that the fact that hic is the preferred form for future topics in Classical Latin at least according to Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) is in accordance with Sidner s (1983) view on the proximal demonstrative in English, this, as expressing a focus movement.


5.4.1.9 Distance to the Antecedent As we saw in Chapter 4, antecedent distance has a strong effect on the choice of a full NP or pronominal form in subject function in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and the crucial difference appears to be between antecedents in the same sentence as the anaphor and antecedents further away.

Among the pronominal subject anaphors, there is no significant difference between antecedents in the previous sentence and antecedents in the same section (p=0.7149, two-sided Fisher test), nor between antecedents in the same section and in the same chapter (p=0.8785, two-sided Fisher test) or between antecedents in the same chapter and antecedents in another chapter (p=0.999, two-sided Fisher test). Accordingly, the relevant difference between the pro-nominal subject anaphors, too, is between antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away. Figure 41 shows the distribution of the pronomi-nal subject anaphors used with antecedents in the same sentence and anteced-ents further away, respectively:

Figure 41: Pronominal subject anaphors used for antecedents in the same sentence and ante-cedents further away, respectively


The choice between the pronominal subject anaphors correlates significantly with the distance to the antecedent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test).

Bolkestein (2000: 128) observes that all the anaphoric pronouns in Classical Latin can refer to antecedents that are further away than in the preceding clause. As we can see in Figure 41, this holds true for the Itinerarium Egeriae as well.

pro is the preferred expression when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, being used in 88.78 % of the cases. It is highly significantly more frequent than the other pronominal forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). When the antecedent is further away, on the other hand, the incidence of pro drops to 57.5 %, and there is no significant difference between the frequency of pro and the overt pronominal forms considered together (p=0.1003, chi-squared test).

Of the overt pronominal forms, note that hic is particularly frequent when the antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor. It is used in 25 % of the cases, and it is significantly more frequent than the second most frequent anaphor, namely ipse (p=0.02846, chi-squared test). This is because hic is pref-erably either discourse deictic or used in identificational constructions of the y

sentence as hic.140 Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) as well as Bolkestein (2000) discuss the an-

aphoric subject expressions in Classical Latin with respect to antecedent dis-tance as well. Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 286) rank the anaphoric subject expressions in Classical Latin according to distance as follows:

(168) pro > hic > ille > is


The forms to the left show the shortest distance, the forms to the right the long-est. Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) measure the distance in number of clauses. Table 32 illustrates the mean distance to the antecedent of the pronominal sub-ject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

140 More precisely, in the discourse deicitc uses, the antecedent is not in a sentence at all, but is itself a sentence.


Table 32: Mean distance to the antecedent shown by the pronominal subject anaphors

Mean

Ille 0.1428571 pro 0.4650206 Hic 1.2580645 Ipse 1.333333 Is 1.4285714

As Table 32 shows, the differences between the forms are small. Ille shows the shortest mean distance, followed by pro. Ille differs significantly from pro (p=0.01092, t-test). Hic is significantly different both from pro and ille (p<0.0001 in both cases, t-tests). Ipse is not significantly different from hic (p=0.1605, t-test), nor is is (p=0.8131, t-test). In sum, a ranking of the forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae à la that of Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) would be as follows:

(169) Hic/ipse/is > pro > ille

This is very different from the ranking of the forms in Classical Latin given by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), as we saw in (168) above. Since the differences between the subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae are small and not very clear, I suspect that antecedent distance per se is not a variable that influences the choice between the pronominal subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

5.4.1.10 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents We also saw in Chapter 4 that the presence or absence of competing referents influences the choice between a full NP and a pronominal anaphor in subject function. Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolkestein (2000) discuss the effect of com-peting referents in Classical Latin.

Pennell Ross (1996: 515 Bellum Civile), hic and is tolerate little ambiguity, that is, they are rarely used if there are intervening referents of the same number and gender as the intended refer-ent. Ille, on the other hand, tolerates more ambiguity. In 96 % of the occurrenc-es of ille, Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 294) observe, there are competing referents, and they give the following ranking of the Classical Latin subject anaphors:


(170) Ille > pro > hic > is (adapted from Bolkestein & van de Grift 1994: 286)

The leftmost forms have more competitors for the role of antecedent, the right-most fewer competitors.

It is not clear what Bolkestein & van de Gr , whereas Pennell Ross (1996) is concerned with the intervening referents that have same number and gender as the intended referent. Whether we consider as competitors all intervening referents that agree in number with the intended referent or only those that agree in number and gender makes no significant difference for the choice between the pronominal anaphors in subject function

-squared test). Let us therefore investigate the use of the pronominal subject anaphors in the presence and absence of competitors of same number and gender since same-number-and-gender competitors are the ones that are considered competitors by Pennell Ross (1996).

The presence or absence of same-number-and-gender competitors does not significantly affect the choice of pronominal subject anaphor, however (p=0.3253, two-sided Fisher test). pro is by far the preferred expression in both cases, being used in 74.7 %, respectively 79.33 % of the cases and is highly sig-nificantly more frequent than the other forms (p<0.0001 in both cases, chi-squared test). Note finally that all the overt pronominal forms are used both in the presence and the absence of competitors, as observed also for Classical Latin by Pennell Ross (1996: 515).

5.4.1.11 Summing up the Pronominal Subject Anaphors So far, I have discussed the pronominal subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae. We have seen that pro is generally the preferred expression irrespective of the properties shown by the antecedent, context or anaphor itself. Neverthe-less, there are some exceptions and some factors that although pro is pre-ferred are more likely than others to induce the choice of an overt pronominal form instead of pro: – Antecedent neither pronominal nor a full NP – Antecedent neither subject nor object – Subject shift – Anaphor topic – Topic shift – Animacy = non-HUMAN – Antecedent not in main clause


– Anaphor in chain-second position – Antecedent further away than in the same sentence

All these factors with the exception of anaphor topicality are assumed to signal low accessibility. That the factors indicating low accessibility lead to a lower frequency of pro accords with the assumption that pro is a higher accessi-bility marker than overt pronominal forms.

As regards each of the overt pronominal forms, I have pointed out the dis-course deictic function of hic as well as its use in identificational constructions. The following examples further illustrate these uses of hic ((171) is discourse deictic, (172) and (173) are examples of identificational constructions):

(171) Illa autem aqua, quam Persae

ille-NOM.SG but water-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG Persian-NOM.PL auerterant, ita siccata est in divert-PLUPRF.3PL thus dried-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in ea hora, ut nec ipsi haberent uel that-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG so.that not ipse-NOM.PL have-IMPF.3PL even una die quod biberent, qui one-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG REL.ACC.SG drink-IMPF.3PL REL.NOM.PL obsedebant ciuitatem. Ac sic iubente Deo, besiege-IMPF.3PL city-ACC.SG and thus bidding-ABL.SG God-ABL qui hoc [18 words omitted] promiserat REL.NOM.SG this-ACC.SG promise-PLUPRF.3SG futurum [ ] be-PTCP.FUT.ACC.SG

t the water which the Persians had diverted was dried up at that hour, so that they who were besieging the city had nothing to drink for y g g y g

(172) [...] ostensus est nobis mons shown-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG we-DAT mountain-NOM.SG praecisus ualde, qui dictus est sharp.cut-NOM.SG very REL.NOM.SG called be-PRS.3SG ante agri specula. Hic est mons, in formerly this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG mountain-NOM.SG in quo posuit Balac filius Beor REL.ABL.SG place-PRF.3SG Balak-INDECL son-NOM.SG Beor-INDECL


Balaam diuinum ad maledicendos filios Balaam-INDECL prophetic-ACC.SG to curse.GERUNDIVE.ACC.PL son-ACC.PL Israhel et noluit Deus ita permittere, sicut Israel-INDECL and not.want-PRF.3SG God-NOM thus allow-INF as scriptum est. written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

-cut mountain was shown to us, which was formerly called Agri specula. This is the mountain on which Balak the son of Beor placed Balaam the sooth-sayer to curse the children of Israel, and God p y

(173) Ac sic ergo singula, quecumque scripta and thus then everything-NOM.PL whatever-NOM.PL written-NOM.PL sunt in libris sanctis Moysi facta be-PRS.3PL in book-ABL.PL holy-ABL.PL Moses-GEN done-NOM.PL fuisse in eo loco, id est in be-INF.PRF in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in ea ualle, quam dixi subiacere that-ABL.SG valley-ABL.SG REL.ACC.SG say-PRF.1SG lie.under-INF monti Dei, id est sancto mountain-DAT.SG God-GEN that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG holy-DAT.SG Syna, ostensa sunt nobis. [27 words omitted] Sinai-INDECL shown-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL we-DAT Haec est ergo uallis, ubi this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG then valley-NOM.SG where celebrata est pascha completo celebrated-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG passover-NOM.SG fulfilled-ABL.SG anno profectionis filiorum Israhel de year-ABL.SG departure-GEN.SG son-GEN.PL Israel-INDECL from terra Egypti. land-ABL.SG Egypt-GEN yp

books of Moses are recorded to have occurred there, viz., in the valley which, as I have said, lies under the mount of God, holy Sinai. Moreover this is the valley where the Passover was celebrated when one year had been fulfilled after that the children of Israel were come out of the land

9)


According to Bolkestein (2000: 114 115), the discourse deictic use of hic is the common use of hic also in Classical Latin narrative. In other languages as well there seems to be a connection between the proximal demonstrative and dis-course deixis (cf. Sidner 1983: 324 on English (adnominal) this). The obvious question arises why it is the proximal demonstrative that appears to be most appropriate in discourse deictic uses, a question which I leave for further re-search.

An important function of is in subject function is as the subject in those ac-cusative with infinitive constructions that would show pro in subject function if

, finite clauses. (174) is an example:

(174) sepulturam illius [sc. Moysi] nullus burial-ACC.SG ille-GEN.SG Moses-GEN none-NOM.SG hominum scit; quoniam certum est man-GEN.PL know-PRS.3SG since certain-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG eum ab angelis fuisse sepultum. that-ACC.SG by angel-ABL.PL be-INF.PRF buried-ACC.SG No man knoweth of his burial, since it is certain that he was buried by

the angels. (Itin. XII.2)

(175) Nam hic est locus, ubi for this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where optulit Melchisedech hostias Deo puras, offer-PRF.3SG Melchizedek-INDECL sacrifice-ACC.PL God-DAT pure-ACC.PL id est panes et uinum, sicut that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG bread-ACC.PL and wine-ACC.SG as scriptum est eum fecisse. written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-ACC.SG do-INF.PRF

that is bread and wine Itin. XIII.4, = (157) above)

Moreover, is has some rare discourse deictic uses. In these occurrences the ref-erent is tagged as OLD_INACT, and information about the antecedent is therefore not registered: (176) uigilatur in Anastase, ut legat

be.awake-PRS.PASS.3SG in Anastasis-ABL so.that read-PRS.3SG


episcopus locum illum euangelii, qui bishop-NOM.SG place-ACC.SG ille-ACC.SG gospel-GEN.SG REL.NOM.SG semper dominica die legitur, id always of.the.lord-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG read-PRS.PASS.3SG that-NOM.SG est resurrectionem Domini ; et postmodum sic be-PRS.3SG resurrection-ACC.SG Lord-GEN and afterwards thus ea aguntur in Anastase, quae that-NOM.PL do-PRS.PASS.3PL in Anastasis-ABL REL.NOM.PL consuetudinaria sunt, sicut toto anno. customary-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL as whole-ABL.SG year-ABL.SG y y

Gospel that is always p y

(177) dicuntur ymni, dicuntur antiphonae say-PRS.3PL hymn-NOM.PL say-PRS.3PL antiphon-NOM.PL aptae diei et loco, fiunt suitable-NOM.PL day-DAT.SG and place-DAT.SG make-PRS.PASS.3PL orationes similiter aptae diei et loco. prayer-NOM.PL similarily suitable-NOM.PL day-DAT.SG and place-DAT.SG Denuo inde cum ymnis itur in anew thence with hymn-ABL.PL go-PRS.PASS.3SG in Imbomon susu, similiter et ibi ea Imbomon-INDECL upwards similarily and there that-NOM.PL aguntur, quae et illic. do-PRS.PASS.3PL REL.NOM.PL also there

prayers suitable to the day and to the place are likewise made. Then they go up to the Imbomon with hymns, and the same things are done there g p y

XL.1)

The difference between is and hic in their discourse deictic uses is that hic oc-curs alone, whereas is is used when givenness status is OLD_INACT, and it is mod-ified by a restrictive relative clause, as in the above examples.

In sum, in subject function, hic and is have certain well-defined functions in the Itinerarium EgeriaeeLatin or Egerian innovations. With the exception of discourse deixis, identifica-tional constructions and accusative with infinitive constructions, pro is the


default subject anaphor in the Itinerarium Egeriae irrespective of the accessibil-ity of the referent and irrespective of the other variables thought to influence the choice of anaphoric expression. Given the findings for Classical Latin by Bolke-stein & van de Grift (1994), Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolkestein (2000), the con-clusion that follows is that the subject anaphors are very different in the Itin-erarium Egeriae and in Classical Latin. Whereas in Classical Latin there is according to the above-mentioned scholars a rather complex division of la-bour between the subject expressions, with each of the forms having certain well-defined functions, in the Itinerarium Egeriae, the system is simplified, with pro as the default pronominal anaphor. Especially interesting is the fact that ille is not the preferred topic/subject shift device anymore, a possible indication of ille being a personal pronoun rather than a demonstrative in the Itinerarium Egeriae, since demonstratives are better topic shift devices than personal pro-nouns (see Section 5.4.1.3 above).

The possible reason for this difference between Classical Latin and the Itin-erarium Egeriae is that the system of demonstratives is changing. Is and hic do not survive in Romance, ille and ipse continue in Romance as personal pro-nouns. We have seen that is and hic have some clearly defined uses apparent-ly derived from Classical Latin. They are not freely used,141 and may exist pri-marily in these clearly defined functions also

y y p

Ille and ipse are changing, and have apparently lost their more clearly defined Classical Latin functions. pro, which is in a sense the most unmarked and flexi-ble form by having no semantic content in itself has been extended and serves as the default pronominal subject anaphor. When ambiguity is conceivable, when there is possible uncertainty as to the identity of the intended referent and when the referent is not accessible for anaphoric reference by pro, a full NP is preferred, not an overt pronominal form.

I have not made much mention of ille and ipse in the preceding discussion. This is because ille and ipse, as mentioned above, have less clearly defined functions than pro, hic and is. This is interesting in itself. The lack of clear func-tions of ille and ipse reflects the period of transition in which they find them-selves. Due to their ongoing development into personal pronouns, they are not yet established with their clearly defined functions. In Section 5.5, I ask whether ille and ipse are personal pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and show that they most likely are in most of their anaphoric occurrences.

141 But is is used much more freely in non-subject functions, as the non-subject counterpart to pro (see Section 5.4.2 below).


5.4.2 The Choice between the Pronominal non-Subject Anaphors

As we have seen, pro is practically absent in non-subject functions, with one exception. Thus, in this section I discuss hic, ille, ipse and is, examining their behaviour with respect to the variables influencing accessibility and/or the choice of anaphoric expression. Table 33 shows the number of occurrences of each pronominal anaphor in non-include pro here:

Table 33: Pronominal anaphors used in non-subject functions



We see that is is most frequent, followed by ipse; hic and ille are more rare. There is, however, no significant difference between the respective frequencies of hic, ille and ipse (p=0.1017, chi-squared test). As will become clear, is appears to be the non-subject counterpart to pro.

5.4.2.1 Form of the Antecedent As was done in the case of the pronominal subject anaphors, I start by examin-ing the pronominal non-subject anaphors with respect to the form of the ante-cedent. This is because in non-subject functions, too, it is what clearly distin-guishes one of the forms from the others, namely hic. Figure 42 illustrates the distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors across the various ante-cedent forms.


Figure 42: Distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors across various antecedent forms

The choice of expression is significantly dependent on the form of the anteced-ent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). As Figure 42 shows, is is the preferred expression in all cases, except when the antecedent is neither a pronominal nor a nominal form.

The choice between the forms does not depend significantly on whether the antecedent is pro, an overt pronominal form or a full NP (p=0.1356, two-sided Fisher test). When the antecedent is pro, is is used in 87.5 % of the cases, and it is highly significantly more frequent than the other forms (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). We have seen that there seems to be a parallel between pro ante-cedents and pro anaphors in subject function. As we can see here, in non-subject functions there is apparently a corresponding parallel between pro an-


tecedents and is anaphors. (178) shows the use of is to refer back to a pro ante-cedent:

(178) Nam hic est locus Choreb, ubi

for this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG Horeb-INDECL where fuit sanctus Helias propheta, qua PRO-SUB be-PRF.3SG holy-NOM.SG Elijah-NOM prophet-NOM.SG when fugit a facie Achab regis, flee-PRF.3SG from face-ABL.SG Ahab-INDECL king-GEN.SG ubi ei locutus est Deus where that-DAT.SG spoken-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG God-NOM dicens: Quid tu hic, Helias?, sicut saying-NOM.SG what-ACC.SG you-NOM.SG here Elijah-NOM as scriptum est in libris regnorum. written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in book-ABL.PL king-GEN.PL

from the face of Ahab the king, and where God spake to him and said: What doest thou here, Elijah? as it is written in the books of th(Itin. IV.2)

Is occurs in 73.33 % of the cases in which the antecedent is an overt pronominal form. When the antecedent is a full NP, is is used in 52.46 % of the cases. In sum, is in non-subject functions behaves like pro in subject function by being the preferred expression with all kinds of antecedents except those that are neither pronominal nor nominal. This suggests that is is the non-subject coun-terpart to pro.

Hic is clearly distinct from the other forms. It is used exclusively with ante-cedents that are neither pronominal (either pro or overt) nor a full NP. As I pointed out in the discussion of the subject anaphors in Section 5.4.1 above, one of the primary functions of hic is to refer discourse deictically to events/propositions. In non-subject functions, this is in fact the only function of hic. Obviously, events and propositions are neither pronominal nor full NPs, hence the connection between hic antecedents displayed in Figure 42. (179) and (180) are examples of the discourse deictic use of hic in non-subject functions:

(179) Nam cuicumque incommoditas fuerit, uadent ibi

for whoever-DAT.SG indisposition-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG go-PRS.3PL there


et PRO-SUB tollent surculos, et prode and pluck-PRS.3PL twig-ACC.PL and benefit-NOM.SG illis est. Hoc autem referente ille-DAT.PL be-PRS.3SG this-NOM.SG but telling-ABL.SG sancto episcopo de Arabia cognouimus [...] holy-ABL.SG bishop-ABL.SG from Arabia-ABL.SG learn-PRF.1PL y p

benefits them. This we learned from information given by the holy bish-4)

(180) Harum ergo ecclesiarum sanctarum encenia

this-GEN.PL then church-GEN.PL holy-GEN.PL dedication-NOM.PL cum summo honore celebrantur quoniam with highest-ABL.SG honour-ABL.SG celebrate-PRS.PASS.3PL because crux Domini inuenta est ipsa cross-NOM.SG Lord-GEN found-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ipse-ABL.SG die. Et ideo propter hoc ita day-ABL.SG and therefore because.of this-ACC.SG thus ordinatum est, ut [...] ordained-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that

highest honour, because the Cross of the Lord was found on this same

5.4.2.2 Syntactic Function of the Antecedent We have seen that the syntactic function of the antecedent influences the choice between the pronominal anaphors in subject function. Also in non-subject func-tions, the choice between the pronominal anaphors correlates significantly with this variable (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). Figure 43 shows the distribution of the pronominal forms across the various antecedent functions:


Figure 43: Distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors across various antecedent functions

Antecedents in subject function strongly prefer is; is occurs in 72.55 % of the cases when the antecedent is a subject, and is significantly more frequent than the other forms (p=0.002282, chi-squared test). Again, this suggests that is is the non-subject counterpart to pro, since in subject function, pro is by far the pre-ferred anaphor when the antecedent is also a subject, as we saw in Section 5.4.1.2. Moreover, subject antecedents are assumed to be more accessible than antecedents in other syntactic functions. The fact that is is more likely to occur when the antecedent is a subject, suggests it is a higher accessibility marker than the other pronominal forms, that is, like pro in subject function.

There are few instances in which the antecedent is an object. Accordingly, it makes little sense to draw any conclusions based on them. The difference be-tween subject antecedents and object antecedents with respect to the choice


between the non-subject anaphors is in fact not significant (p=0.1318, two-sided Fisher test). Suffice it to note that hic is not used at all with object antecedents.

Hic, in fact, is used exclusively when the antecedent is neither subject nor object. This is a result of the fact that hic is the primary discourse deictic device in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and exclusively discourse deictic in non-subject func-tions; events and propositions are neither subjects nor objects.

Ipse and is too, like hic, are relatively frequent when the antecedent is not a subject or an object. There is no significant difference between the frequency of hic, is and ipse in this case (p=0.7659, chi-squared test). Unlike hic, however, ipse and is are not primarily discourse deictic; is and ipse refer back to a referent mentioned either in an oblique function or in an adnominal function, as in the following examples:

(181) Itaque ergo duxit me primum ad palatium Aggari

therefore then lead-PRF.3SG I-ACC first to palace-ACC.SG Abgar-GEN regis et ibi ostendit michi archiotepam king-GEN.SG and there show-PRF.3SG I-DAT marble.statue-ACC.SG ipsius ingens simillimam [...] ipse-GEN.SG great-NOM.SG very.like-ACC.SG p y

me a great marble statue of him

(182) iuxta quod ei [sc. sancto monacho] near REL.NOM.SG that-DAT holy-DAT.SG monk-DAT.SG

fuerat reuelatum, ut foderent in eo be.PLUPRF.3SG revealed-NOM.SG that dig-IMPF.3SG in that-ABL.SG loco, qui ei fuerat ostensus, place-ABL.SG REL.NOM.SG that-DAT.SG be-PLUPRF.3SG shown-NOM.SG sicut et factum est. as also done-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

tha

Note in (181) that ipse can hardly be claimed to be contrastive. There is no referent present in the context that King Abgar, the referent of ipsius, is con-trasted with. Moreover, there is no topic shift. This example, then, contests the view of Vincent (1997; 1998) that ipse is contrastive and marks a change of topic.


5.4.2.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor The syntactic function of the anaphor itself, too, influences the choice between the pronominal anaphors in non-subject functions. Figure 44 shows the distri-bution of forms across the various syntactic functions:

Figure 44: Distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors across various syntactic func-tions

As we can see, is is the preferred expression in object as well as in oblique function. It is used in 51.35 % of the cases in which the anaphor is an object, and in 48.39 % of the cases in which the anaphor is an oblique. The choice between the forms is not significantly dependent on whether the anaphor is an object or an oblique (p=0.0845, two-sided Fisher test).


Notably, ipse occurs only once in object function; it is more likely to appear in an oblique or adnominal function. (181) above illustrates this; ipse is a nomi-nal argument in that example. Other examples of ipse are the following:

(183) Ostendit etiam nobis sanctus episcopus

show-PRF.3SG also we-DAT holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG memoriam Aggari uel totius familiae memorial-ACC.SG Abgar-GEN or whole-GEN.SG family-GEN.SG ipsius ualde pulchra, sed facta more ipse-GEN.SG very beautiful-NOM.SG but made-NOM.SG custom-ABL.SG antiquo. ancient-ABL.SG

orial of Abgar and of his whole

(184) [...], in quo sunt duae statuae

in REL.ABL.SG be-PRS.3PL two-NOM.PL statue-NOM.PL exclusae ingentes, quas dicunt esse carved-NOM.PL great-NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL say-PRS.3PL be-INF sanctorum hominum, id est Moysi et holy-GEN.PL man-GEN.PL that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Moses-GEN and Aaron; nam dicent, eo quod filii Aaron-INDECL for say-PRS.3PL therefore that son-NOM.PL Israhel in honore ipsorum eas posuerint. Israel-INDECL in honour-ABL.SG ipse-GEN.PL that-ACC.PL raise-PRF.3PL p

those of the holy men, Moses and Aaron, raised in their honour by the y

Moreover, ille never occurs in syntactic functions other than object and

oblique. Is and ipse are reserved for this function. We have already seen exam-ples of this use of ipse in (183) and (184). The following are examples of is:

(185) PRO-SUB Ostenderunt etiam, quemadmodum per

show-PRF.3PL also how through ipsam uallem unusquisque eorum abitationes ipse-ACC.SG valley-ACC.SG each-NOM.SG that-GEN.PL dwelling-ACC.PL habuerant [...] have-PLUPRF.3PL


the foundations of which dwelling places appear to th

(186) Disputante autem episcopo singula et discussing-ABL.SG but bishop-ABL.SG everything-ACC.PL and narrante tante uoces sunt telling-ABL.SG so.great-NOM.PL voice-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL collaudantium, ut porro foras ecclesia audiantur applauding-GEN.PL that far outside church-ABL.SG hear-PRS.PASS.3PL uoces eorum. voice-NOM.PL that-GEN.PL

those who applaud are so loud that they can be heard outside the pp

Furthermore, hic occurs only in object and oblique functions. This has to do

with its discourse deictic use. Events and propositions hardly occur in adnomi-y com-

prises. Finally, as Vincent (1998; 1997) points out, ipse did not develop into a clitic

object pronoun in Romance because of its original value of contrast and topichood, which made it inappropriate for use as a weak pronoun. As already mentioned, there is only one occurrence of ipse in object function in the Itinerar-ium Egeriae:

(187) Qui autem nec hoc potest,

REL.NOM.SG but not.even this-ACC.SG can-PRS.3SG biduanas facit per totas of.two.days-ACC.PL do-PRS.3SG through all-ACC.PL quadragesimas; qui autem nec ip sud, de Quadragesima-ACC.PL REL.NOM.SG but not.even ipse-ACC.SG from sera ad seram manducant. evening-ABL.SG to evening-ACC.SG eat-PRS.3PL Quadragesima, and they who cannot do even this, take a meal every y

As the particle necc ipsud is stressed, expressing a contrast ipsud) and taking supper on the


fifth day. Yet, although ipse seems to be contrastive in this example, the general impression is that ipse is not contrastive in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Intensifiers are contrastive, but I have argued that ipse is generally not an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae. As in (181) above, also in (183) and (184), ipse can hardly be claimed to be contrastive. As will become clear in Section 5.5, ipse is a personal pronoun in several occurrences, and it has no contrastive value in these occur-rences either.

5.4.2.4 Antecedent Topicality The topicality of the antecedent, too, influences the choice between the pro-nominal anaphors in non-subject functions (p=0.01338, two-sided Fisher test).142 Figure 45 shows the distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors for topical, respectively non-topical antecedents.

142 It makes no significant difference whether we consider topics all topical antecedents or only the antecedents that are topics in the same sentence as the anaphor or in the sentence immediately preceding (p=0.999, two-sided Fisher test).


Figure 45: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used for topical, respectively non-topical ante-cedents

As we can see, only ille and is refer back to a topical antecedent. As men-tioned at several points above, hic is discourse deictic. Events and propositions are never topics, probably in general, but at least not in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Hence the absence of hic with topical antecedents. In non-subject functions ipse in a number of cases refers back to an antecedent that is syntactically neither a subject nor an object (see Section 5.4.2.2 above). The fact that referents that are neither subjects nor objects are rarely topics, then, in part explains why ipse never picks up a topical antecedent.

Is is the preferred anaphor both when the antecedent is topical (used in 71.43 % of the cases, highly significantly more frequent than ille, p<0.0001, chi-squared test) and when it is non-topical (used in 49.48 % of the cases, and sig-nificantly more frequently than the second most frequent form, ipse, p=0.003008, chi-squared test). In a sense, then, by virtue of being the preferred expression in both cases, is in non-subject functions resembles pro in subject function also with respect to this variable.


5.4.2.5 Anaphor Topicality143 The choice between the pronominal anaphors in non-subject functions does not significantly depend on the topicality of the anaphor itself (p=0.2064, two-sided Fisher test). The behaviour of the forms with respect to this variable neverthe-less deserves a comment.

Figure 46: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used in topic and non-topic function, respectively

First, as Figure 46 shows, there are few topics, a result of the fact that sub-jects are better topic candidates than referents in other syntactic functions (see Section 2.2.1.5 above and Lambrecht 1994: 131 132).

143 I do not disucss the pronominal non-subject anaphors with respect to topic continuity vs. topic shift since there are only three instances of topic continuity as well as three instances of topic shift among the pronominal non-subject anaphors.


In topic function only ille and is are used, with two occurrences of ille and four of is. The fact that hic and ipse never occur in topic function has to do with their specific uses. As already noted, non-subject ipse often occurs in an oblique or adnominal function. In general, referents in oblique or adnominal functions are rarely topics, probably more rarely so than referents in object function. Hic is discourse deictic. We saw above (Section 5.4.1.4) that hic can be a topic in

a proposition or event. In non-subject functions, on the other hand, the examples are often of the type j

and hic expresses background information rather than topical information. (188) is an example:

(188) Aperiuntur hostia omnia et intrat omnis

open-PRS.PASS.3PL door-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL and enter-PRS.3SG all-NOM.SG multitude ad Anastasim, ubi iam luminaria multitude-NOM.SG to Anastasis-ACC where already light-NOM.PL infinita lucent, et quemadmodum ingressus countless-NOM.PL burn-PRS.3PL and when entered-NOM.SG fuerit populus, dicet psalmum quicumque be-PRF.3SG people-NOM.SG say-PRS.3SG psalm-ACC.SG whoever-NOM.SG de presbyteris et respondent omnes; post hoc from priest-ABL.PL and answer-PRS.3PL all-NOM.PL after this-ACC.SG fit oratio. make-PRS.PASS.3SG prayer-NOM.SG y

where countless lights are already burning. And when the people have entered, one of the priests says a psalm to which all respond, and after y

5.4.2.6 Animacy The choice between the pronominal non-subject anaphors depends significant-ly on whether the animacy status of the referent is HUMAN or non-HUMAN (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test).


Figure 47: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used for HUMAN, respectively non-HUMAN refer-ents144

As Figure 47 shows, is is the preferred non-subject anaphor when the referent is HUMAN, in the same way as pro in subject function. It is used in 61.54 % of the cases, being significantly more frequent than the second most frequent form, ipse (p=0.002316, chi-squared test). Hic never occurs with HUMAN referents, a result of its discourse deictic use events and propositions, obviously, are nev-er HUMAN.

When the referent is non-HUMAN, the situation is different. There is actually no significant difference between the pronominal forms here (p=0.5171, chi-squared test). In (189) ille refers to a non-HUMAN referent, in (190) ipse refers to a

144 As in Figure 37, here too, non-HUMAN comprises the cases in which there is no animacy tag. Hence the discourse deictic uses of hic, in which there is no information about animacy, are registered as non-HUMAN.


non-HUMAN referent, and (191) is an example of is used to refer to a non-HUMAN referent.

(189) Et ibi cum uentum fuerit, legitur

and there when come-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG read-PRS.PASS.3SG ille locus de euangelio, ubi petit ille-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG from gospel-ABL.SG where beg-PRS.3SG corpus Domini Ioseph a Pilato, body-ACC.SG Lord-GEN Joseph-INDECL from Pilate-ABL ponet illud in sepulcro nouo. lay-PRS.3SG ille-ACC.SG in sepulchre-ABL.SG new-ABL.SG y

(Itin. XXXVII.8)

(190) Septima autem septimana cum uenerit, id seventh-ABL.SG but week-ABL.SG when come-PRF.3SG that-NOM.SG est quando iam due superant be-PRS.3SG when already two-NOM.PL remain-PRS.3PL cum ipsa with ipse-ABL.SG p

d-

(191) nisi quod adhuc maior est Eufrates.

unless that still greater-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Euphrates-NOM Itaque ergo quoniam necesse erat eum therefore then because necessary-NOM.SG be-IMPF.3SG that-ACC.SG nauibus ship-ABL.PL cross-INF p

(Itin. XVIII.2 3)

Note that ipsa in (190) is not contrastive. Ipsa refers to the seventh week, and there are two other weeks present in the context, but no contrast exists between the seventh week and the two other weeks. Hence, this example con-tests the view that ipse is contrastive and indicates a topic shift (Vincent 1997; 1998).


5.4.2.7 The Type of Clause in which the Antecedent Occurs Figure 48 shows the distribution of pronominal non-subject anaphors for main clause, respectively subordinate clause antecedents. Since I am assuming that subordinate clause antecedents are less accessible only if they are not in the same complex sentence as the anaphor, Figure 48 illustrates only cases in which the subordinate clause is not part

Figure 48: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used for main clause and subordinate clause antecedents, respectively

The choice between the expressions significantly correlates with the clause type of the antecedent (p=0.0003595, two-sided Fisher test). When the anteced-ent is in a main clause, there is no significant difference between ille, ipse and is (p=0.0912, chi-squared test). Hic, on the other hand, is rare.


As we can see, hic occurs primarily when the antecedent is in a subordinate clause. Subordinate clause antecedents show no significant difference between hic, ipse, and is (p=0.4066, chi- consists of everything that is not main clause antecedents, including the cases in which the antecedent is not properly in a clause at all, but is itself a clause, i.e. instances of discourse deixis. As already mentioned, hic is discourse deictic in non-subject functions. This accounts for the preference of hic for subordinate clause antecedents.145 The other forms do not show very clear tendencies with respect to this variable.

5.4.2.8 Position in the Anaphoric Chain Following Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), I discussed above (in Section 5.4.1.7) the position of the pronominal subject anaphors in the anaphoric chain. Figure 49 shows the distribution of the pronominal non-subject anaphors in chain-second, respectively chain-medial position.

145 As I have pointed out, in the discourse deicitc examples, the antecedent is not properly in a clause at all, but is itself a clause. Therefore, the antecedents of the discourse deictic anaphors are not main clause antecedents. Since, as Figure 48 shows, hic occasionally occurs when the antecedent is in a main clause, one may get the impression that non-subject hic is not only discourse deictic. However, when the anaphoric link goes back to a nominal verb form occupying an adnominal function, the antecedent is registered as a main clause antecedent (provided, of course, the antecedent is in a main clause). This accounts for the occurrences of non-subject hic with a main clause antecedent. The following is an example: [ ] iam propositi erat in nomine Christi Dei nostri ad Asiam accedendi, [ ] Si autem et post hoc in corpore fuero [ ] (Itin. XIII.10).


Figure 49: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used in chain-second, respectively chain-medial position

The choice between the pronominal non-subject anaphors depends significant-ly on position in the anaphoric chain (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). We saw above (Section 5.4.1.7) that among the subject anaphors, pro is the preferred expression in both cases, but less so in chain-second position. Among the non-subject anaphors, we see that is is preferred in chain-medial position, being used in 68.49 % of the cases, significantly more frequently than the other forms (p=0.003892, chi-squared test). Is, then, behaves partly in accordance with pro in subject function by being more likely to occur in chain-medial than in chain-second position.

Hic is never used in chain-medial position. In chain-second position, on the other hand, hic is used in 44.74 % of the cases. There is no significant difference between hic, ipse and is in chain-second position (p=0.0859, chi-squared test).


Ille is slightly more rare, but not significantly more rare than ipse and is (p=0.6514, chi-squared test). The fact that hic never occurs later in the anaphor-ic chain than in second mentions is an effect of its discourse deictic use, be-cause, as I have already mentioned, events and propositions are typically non-recurring referents in a discourse (see also Himmelmann 1996: 225).

In sum, non-subject is behaves to some extent like pro does in subject func-tion, occurring preferably in chain-medial position. Ille and ipse show no clear tendencies with respect to position in the anaphoric chain.

5.4.2.9 Tendency of the Referent to be Picked up in the Later Discourse As we saw in Section 5.4.1.8, Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) discuss the Classi-cal Latin subject anaphors with respect to the tendency of their referents to be picked up in the following discourse. We also saw that the subject anaphors in the Itinerarium Egeriae barely differ in this respect. Table 34 shows the mean number of references made to the referent of the pronominal non-subject anaphors in the following discourse.

Table 34: Mean number of mentions made to the referent of the pronominal non-subject anaphors in the following context

Mean

Hic 0 Ille 0.8823529 Ipse 1.206897 Is 2.327586

First, we see that the referent of hic is in fact never picked up in the follow-ing discourse. This too is a result of the fact that hic is exclusively discourse deictic in non-subject functions.

Ille and ipse are not significantly different (p=0.5689, t-test). Nor are ipse and is (p=0.0976, t-test). Is differs significantly from ille, however (p=0.01883, t-test). A hierarchy of the non-subject anaphors à la that of Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994: 286) would be as follows:146

146 The leftmost forms show the highest number of mentions made to the referent in the following context.


(192) Is > ipse/ille > hic

Although I believe the tendency of the referent to be picked up in the fol-

lowing discourse is not in itself a variable influencing the choice of expression because the differences between the forms are relatively small, note that non-subject is shows the highest number of subsequent mentions, like pro (together with ille and ipse) in subject function. Again, non-subject is shows properties similar to pro in subject function.

Following Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), I discussed in Section 5.4.1.8 the pronominal subtopics . Among the non-subect anaphors, only ten occurrences qualify as future topics.

Figure 50: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used for future topics

As Figure 50 shows, only ipse and is are used; hic and ille are altogether absent. Since the occurrences are particularly few, however, this tells us little.


5.4.2.10 Distance to the Antecedent Regarding distance to the antecedent, the pronominal non-subject anaphors, like the pronominal subject anaphors, show no significant difference depending on whether the antecedent is in the previous sentence, same section, same chapter or across chapter (p=0.9569, two-sided Fisher test). The relevant dis-tinction is between antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). Figure 51 shows the pronominal non-subject anaphors used for antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away, respectively.

Figure 51: Pronominal non-subject anaphors used for antecedents in the same sentence and for antecedents further away, respectively

As we can see, is is the preferred anaphor when the antecedent is in the same sentence, being used in 65.67 % of the cases, and it is significantly more frequent than all the other forms considered together (p=0.01529, chi-squared test). When the antecedent is further away, on the other hand, the proportion of


is falls to 25.93 %, and there is no significant difference between the forms (p=0.343, chi-squared test). That is to say, distance has a rather strong effect on the choice of is or another form. Also, is shows indications of being a higher accessibility marker than the other pronominal non-subject anaphors since it is more likely to be the selected anaphor when the antecedent is in the same sen-tence than when it is further away. Its distribution is similar to that of pro in subject function (which is strongly preferred when the antecedent is in the same sentence, but not when the antecedent is further away). Note that is indeed occurs also when the antecedent is further away than in the same sentence. This y

is does not refer across sentences in the Itinerarium Egeriae. An example is the following:

(193) [...] simul cum episcopo primum ad Anastase

at.the.same.time with bishop-ABL.SG first to Anastasis-ACC PRO-SUB [sc. infantes] ducuntur. Intrat episcopus

child-NOM.PL lead-PRS.3PL enter-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG intro cancellos Anastasis, dicitur unus inside rail-ACC.PL Anastasis-GEN say-PRS.PASS.3SG one-NOM.SG ymnus, et sic facit orationem episcopus hymn-NOM.SG and thus make-PRS.3SG prayer-ACC.SG bishop-NOM.SG pro eis [...] for that-ABL.PL

bishop first to the Anastasis; the bishop enters the rails of the Anastasis, and one hymn is said, then the bishop says a

(Itin. XXXVIII.1 2) Hic is rare when the antecedent is in the same sentence. Again, this is a re-

sult of its discourse deictic use since the events and propositions to which hic refers are not in the same sentence as the anaphor. Ille and ipse show no clear tendencies.

5.4.2.11 The Presence or Absence of Competing Referents We have seen that the presence or absence of competing referents does not significantly influence the choice of pronominal subject anaphor (Section 5.4.1.10). This holds for the pronominal non-subject anaphors as well. Neither the presence/absence of same-number competitors (p=0.1955, two-sided Fisher test) nor the presence/absence of same-number-and-gender competitors (p=0.9882, two-sided Fisher test) significantly influences the choice between


the pronominal anaphors in non-subject function. As Table 35 shows, in all cases in the presence and absence of same-number competitors as well as in the presence and absence of same-number-and-gender competitors is is the preferred anaphor.

Table 35: pronominal non-subject anaphors used in the presence, respectively absence of competitors147

Hic Ille Ipse Is

Same- number

+ comp. 11 16.42 % 7 10.45 % 18 26.87 % 31 46.27 %

- comp. 6 13.64 % 6 13.64 % 5 11.36 % 27 61.36 % Same- number- and- gender

+ comp. 5 15.63 % 4 12.50 % 7 21.88 % 16 50.00 %

- comp. 12 15.19 % 9 11.39 % 16 20.25 % 42 53.16 %

5.4.2.12 Summing Up the Pronominal non-Subject Anaphors In non-subject functions, is is the most frequent anaphor. As such, is resembles pro in subject function. Is, however, is apparently more sensitive to the accessi-bility determining factors than pro is. Whereas pro is generally preferred in sub-ject function even when there are indications of low accessibility, non-subject is is not the preferred anaphor when: – The antecedent is neither a pronominal form nor a full NP – The antecedent is neither a subject nor an object – The anaphor itself is neither an object nor an oblique – The referent is non-HUMAN – The antecedent is in a subordinate clause – The anaphor is in chain-second position – The antecedent is not in the same sentence as the anaphor

i-cations of low accessibility. That the factors thought to signal low accessibility

147 The numbers do not add up to the numbers in Table 33 on page 228 because not all noun phrases have information about the antecedent (see Chapter 3).


lead to a lower frequency of is, indicates that is is a higher accessibility marker than the other forms. pro as well is assumed to be a marker of particularly high accessibility; as we have seen, although pro is generally the preferred pronomi-nal anaphor in subject function, it is indeed less likely to occur when there are indications of low accessibility. The fact that is in non-subject functions, like pro in subject function, seems to mark higher accessibility than the other forms, indicates that is is the non-subject counterpart to pro, as suggested in the pre-ceding discussion. The fact that is constitutes 47.54 % of the pronominal anaphors in non-subject functions, but only 3.07 % of those in subject function, strengthens this hypothesis (see Table 30 on page 183 and Table 33 on page 217).148 As I pointed out in Section 1.1.2, Fruyt (2003: 106) indeed observes that a principal function of pronominal is in the Itinerarium Egeriae is that of comple-ment of a verb (as in dedit eii ). The view on is as the non-subject counterpart to pro moreover 14) claim that is does not have a very demonstrative character in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

Neither Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) nor Bolkestein (2000) discuss non-subject expressions in Classical Latin. Pieroni (2010: 446), on the other hand, finds that is shows a preference for non-subject functions from the time of Plau-tus onwards, and according to Pinkster (2005: 59), is is rare in subject function

Controversiae.149 My own quick look at is j

War also revealed a clear tendency for is to occur in the non-nominative cases, in other words in non-subject functions or as the subject in accusative with infinitive constructions. This may indicate that the primary function of is is that of a weak personal pronoun in non-subject functions. In her study of referent tracking in Tacitus, Luraghi (1998: 483) indeed concludes that whereas the nominative form of is has a demonstrative value, the accusative form functions as the weak form of the third person pronoun. With respect to syntactic func-tion, then, there is apparently the same division of functions between pro and is in Classical Latin as in the Itinerarium Egeriae. That is, pro is the preferred ex-pression in subject function, whereas is is the preferred expression in non-subject functions. In sum, is is used in a way that is similar to its use in Classical Latin.

148 Likewise, Spevak (2008: 366) finds that is appears especially in cases other than the nom-inative (i.e. in non-subject functions) in Gregory of Tours (6th century). 149 But ille, he notes, is much more frequent than is in all syntactic functions, except in the genitive. He therefore concludes that ille has widened its range of uses in Seneca Rhetor as compared to how it is used in Cicero. This widening of uses made ille a successful candidate for the Romance definite article (Pinkster 2005: 63).

Are Ille and Ipse Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae? 241

As regards the other forms, we have seen how hic is used discourse deicti-cally in non-subject functions. Ipse, which is the second most frequent form after is, shows few clear tendencies, the exception being the syntactic function of the anaphor. More precisely, ipse tends to occur in oblique or adnominal functions. All the same, ipse lacks a well-defined function. Ille has no clearly defined function either.

The fact that ille and ipse, contrary to is and hic, hardly show any well-defined uses, is a likely result of the fact that they are in a transitional period between a demonstrative stage and a personal pronoun stage. That is, ille and ipse are not yet established with their clearly defined functions as parts of the general system of referring expressions. In the following section, I discuss the categorial status of ille and ipse in the Itinerarium Egeriae, showing that their correct categorial status can be determined based on the accessibility of the

.

5.5 Are Ille and Ipse Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

As I said in Section 2.3.4, I make the crucial assumption that a linguistic item can be a personal pronoun in some occurrences without being a personal pro-noun in all its occurrences. If ille and ipse are personal pronouns in some occur-rences, they are personal pronouns in these occurrences irrespective of whether they are personal pronouns in other occurrences. I further assume that an item can be a personal pronoun without showing all of the syntactic, morphological and phonological properties of a personal pronoun. I discuss anaphoric and non-anaphoric ille and ipse separately because different variables are relevant to the analysis of the anaphoric and non-anaphoric occurrences respectively.

5.5.1 Anaphoric Ille and Ipse

As we have seen, distance is the most important variable for the choice between pro, which undoubtedly is a personal pronoun,150 and other forms, whether we consider the relation between pro and full NPs (as I did in Chapter 4) or between pro and overt pronominal forms (as in the present chapter). I therefore take

150 Provided, of course, one accepts that pro does in fact exist (see Section 2.3.2.1 above).

Are Ille and Ipse Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae?


distance to the antecedent as the point of departure for my discussion of the correct categorial labels for ille and ipse.

5.5.1.1 Antecedent in the Same Sentence When the antecedent is in the same sentence, ille and ipse are best analysed as personal pronouns, especially when there are other indications of high accessi-bility. Consider the following examples: (194) Nam cuicumque incommoditas fuerit, uadent ibi

for whoever-DAT.SG indisposition-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG go-PRS.3PL there et PRO-SUB tollent surculos, et prode and pluck-PRS.3PL twig-ACC.PL and benefit-NOM.SG illis est. ille-DAT.PL be-PRS.3SG And all who have any indisposition go there and pluck off twigs, and it

benefits them.y p

(195) Lecto ergo euangelio exit episcopus et read-ABL.SG then gospel-ABL.SG go.out-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG and PRO-SUB ducitur cum ymnis ad Crucem, et lead-PRS.3SG with hymn-ABL.PL to cross-ACC.SG and omnis populus cum illo. all-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG with ille-ABL.SG p p

(Itin. XXIV.11)

(196) Cum autem ingressi fuissemus ad eos, when but entered-NOM.PL be-PLUPRF.1PL to that-ACC.PL facta oratione cum ipsis made-ABL.SG prayer-ABL.sg with ipse-ABL.PL eulogias nobis dare dignati sunt, eulogia-ACC.pl we-DAT give-INF deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL sicut habent consuetudinem dandi his, as have-PRS.3pl custom-ACC.SG give-GERUNDIVE.GEN.SG this-DAT.PL quos humane suscipiunt. REL.ACC.PL kindly receive-PRS.3PL y

to go in to greet them. When we had entered and prayer had been made


with them, they deigned to give us eulogiae, which they are wont to give y

The referent is HUMAN in all of these examples. In (194) and (195) the ante-

cedent is also a topic, a subject and realised as pro. The referent is not only highly accessible; it is the most highly accessible one. A demonstrative in these y y

do not make your contribution more informative than is required

y a demon-

strative would imply that the referent is not the most highly accessible one (the p(196) the antecedent is neither a topic nor a subject, but real-

ised as a pronominal form. The referent is highly accessible here too, and a demonstrative would not be appropriate. Note finally that ipse has no contras-tive value, contrary to the claim made for ipse in the Itinerarium Egeriae / Late Latin by Vincent (1997; 1998).

Antecedent in the same sentence as the anaphor seems to be a strong indi-cator of a personal pronoun status of ille and ipse. We have seen that pro is by far the preferred expression when the antecedent and anaphor are in the same sentence. Since pro requires even higher accessibility than overt pronominal forms, this indicates that antecedents in the same sentence are typically very highly accessible. When the antecedent is in the same sentence, ille and ipse are best analysed as personal pronouns even when there are other indications of low accessibility. Consider the following example of ille, for instance:

(197) id est quando tunc unus ex discipulis

that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG when then one-NOM.SG of disciple-ABL.PL ibi non erat, id est Thomas, qua there not be-IMPF.3SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Thomas-NOM when reuersus est et dicentibus returned-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG and saying-ABL.PL ei aliis apostolis, quia Dominum uidissent, that-DAT.SG other-ABL.PL apostle-ABL.PL that Lord-ACC see-PLUPRF.3PL ille dixit: ille-NOM.SG say-PRF.3SG y

returned and the other Apostles told him that they had seen the Lord, he (Itin. XXXIX.5)

In (197) the antecedent is in an oblique function, and it is not a topic. On the

other hand, the referent is HUMAN. There is a same-number-and-gender-



competitor (Dominum), but as we have seen (in Section 5.4.1.10), the presence of competitors does not disfavour pro; the choice between pro and another form does not in fact rely on the presence or absence of competitors. In other words, personal pronouns

y even null pronouns tolerate ambiguity, and the presence

of competitors is not in itself an argument against ille (or ipse) having personal pronoun status. Even though the antecedent is in a relatively lowly accessible syntactic function and the antecedent is non-topical, there is no need for a demonstrative in order to make the intended referent identifiable. As the trans-lation illustrates, reference is perfectly clear also without a demonstrative. A p y

do not make your contribution more informative than is required

There are some not-so-obvious examples, however. Consider the following example of ille:

(198) Ac sic ergo euntes aliquandiu per uallem

and thus then going-NOM.PL a.while through valley-ACC.SG Iordanis super ripam fluminis ipsius, Jordan-GEN over bank-ACC.SG river-GEN.SG ipse-GEN.SG quia ibi nobis iter erat aliquandiu, because there we-DAT route-NOM.SG be-IMPF.3SG a.while ad subito uidimus ciuitatem sancti to suddenly see-PRF.1PL city-ACC.SG holy-GEN.SG prophetae Heliae, id est Thesbe, prophet-GEN.SG Elijah-GEN that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Tishbite-INDECL unde ille habuit nomen Helias whence ille-NOM.SG have-PRF.3SG name-ACC.SG Elijah-NOM Thesbites. Tishbite-NOM.SG

of the Jordan on the bank of the river, because our route lay that way for a while, we suddenly saw the city of the holy prophet Elijah, that is Thesbe, whence he had the y y p p

(Itin. XVI.1)

The reference would be ambiguous if pro were the selected anaphor; both the prophet Helias and the city Thesbe would be possible referents. However, pro requires even higher accessibility than full personal pronouns, and the fact that pro is not appropriate does not necessarily make ille a demonstrative here. The referent is HUMAN, and it is relatively highly accessible by virtue of recent men-


tion in addition to being HUMAN. Reference by means of a demonstrative does y

In (199) and (200) it is not obvious whether ipse is a personal pronoun:

(199) Itaque ergo profecta sum de Ierusolima therefore then set.out-NOM.SG be-PRS.1SG from Jerusalem-ABL cum sanctis, qui tamen dignati with holy-ABL.PL REL.NOM.PL however deigned-NOM.PL sunt itineri meo comitatum praestare, be-PRS.3PL journey-DAT.SG my-DAT.SG company-ACC.SG give-INF et ipsi tamen gratia orationis. and ipse-NOM.PL however sake-ABL.SG prayer-GEN.SG p p y

their company on my journey they (those?) too going for the sake of (Itin. XIII.2)

(200) ibi ostendit michi archiotepam ipsius

there show-PRF.3SG I-DAT statue-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG ingens simillimam, ut ipsi dicebant, great-NOM.SG very.like-ACC.SG as ipse-NOM.PL say-IMPF.3PL marmoream, tanti nitoris ac si de margarita of.marble-ACC.SG so.great-GEN.SG sheen-GEN.SG as if from pearl-ABL.SG esset; in cuius Aggari uultu parebat de be-IMPF.3SG in REL.GEN.SG Abgar-GEN face-ABL.SG seem-IMPF.3SG from contra uere fuisse hunc uirum satis sapientem opposite truly be-INF.PRF this-ACC.SG man-ACC.SG very wise-ACC.SG et honoratum. Tunc ait mihi sanctus and honourable-ACC.SG then say-PRS.3SG I-DAT holy-NOM.SG episcopus: Ecce rex Aggarus, qui antequam bishop-NOM.SG behold king-NOM.SG Abgar-NOM REL.NOM.SG before uideret Dominum, credidit ei, quia esset see-IMPF.3SG Lord-ACC believe-PRF.3SG that-DAT.SG that be-IMPF.3SG uere filius Dei. Nam erat et iuxta archiotipa truly son-NOM.SG God-GEN for be-IMPF.3SG and near statue-NOM.SG similiter de tali marmore facta, quam likewise from such-ABL.SG marble-ABL.SG made-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG dixit filii ipsius esse Magni, similiter say-PRF.3SG son-GEN.SG ipse-GEN.SG be-INF Magnus-GEN similarily



et ipsa habens aliquid also ipse-NOM.SG having-NOM.SG something-ACC.SG gratiae in uultu. grace-GEN.SG in face-ABL.SG very much like him, as they said having a sheen as if made of pearl. From the face of Abgar it seemed that he was a very wise and honourable man. Then the holy bishop s

y ye-

statue near, made of the same marble, which he said was that of his son Magnus; it (that one?) too had something gracious in tXIX.6 7)

These examples contain other referents in the context with which the refer-ent of ipse is contrasted. In (199) (200), it is the other statue shown to Egeria. The contrast is made explicit by the presence of the focus particle et in both cases. Demonstratives have a contrastive value (see Section 2.3.3 above). Thus, the fact that there is a contrast here may be an argu-ment in favour of analysing ipse as a demonstrative. On the other hand, the contrast may come from et rather than from ipse itself.151 In that case, ipse may be a personal pronoun. At least in (199) the reference is clear also if we interpret ipse

p p(200), where the alternative referent

is of same number and gender as the intended referent, the situation is differ-ent. As I have already mentioned, however, even pro can occur in the presence of same-number-and-gender referents. In this case, moreover, a demonstrative does not disambiguate the reference to any greater extent than a personal pro-noun since the other possible referent is of the same gender and number. Ra-ther, a demonstrative seems to imply reference is to the first-mentioned and hence less accessible statue, rather than the most recently mentioned one. The most highly accessible referent at the current point of discourse is the intended referent

g y y py

. (1993). The first-mentioned marble statue, which is not the referent of ipsa, is not the most high-ly accessible one at this point. A demonstrative, then, would imply that refer-ence is to the first-mentioned marble statue. I therefore analyse ipse as a per-sonal pronoun also in (200).

151 In which case neither (199) nor (200) supports the assumption that ipse is contrastive, as claimed by Vincent (1997; 1998).


In sum, I take ille and ipse to be personal pronouns when the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, and ipse, I believe, is in general not con-trastive. In addition to the examples in which the antecedent is in the same sentence as the anaphor, there are some in which the antecedent is in the sen-p

examples in which the referent is presumably less accessible. I discuss these in the following section.

5.5.1.2 Antecedent in the Previous Sentence In general, the referent is accessible enough for a personal pronoun to be the selected anaphor also when the antecedent is in the previous sentence. (201) through (203) are examples of ipse: (201) Et quem ad modum prandiderint dominica

and when eat.breakfast-PRF.3PL of.the.Lord-ABL.SG die, iam non manducant nisi sabbato day-ABL.SG already not eat-PRS.3PL unless sabbath-ABL.SG mane, mox PRO-SUB communicauerint in Anastase. in.the.morning soon communicate-PRF.3PL in Anastasis-ABL Propter ipsos ergo, ut citius absoluant, ante because.of ipse-ACC.PL then so.that faster finish-PRS.3PL before sole fit missa in sun-ABL.SG make-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG in Anastase sabbato. Anastasis-ABL Sabbath-ABL.SG

until the Sabbath morning after they have communicated in the Anasta-sis. For their sake, then, that they may finish their fast the sooner, the y y

XXVII.9)

In (201) the referent is HUMAN, a subject and realised as a null pronoun. There are no competitors. In addition, although reference crosses a sentence bounda-ry, the antecedent is still close. The referent is highly accessible, and a demon-strative would be inappropriat

g yr-

ther example of antecedent in the previous sentence is the following: (202) Fecimus ergo et ibi biduum propter

make-PRF.1PL then and there of.two.days-ACC.SG because.of



diem martyrii et propter uisionem day-ACC.SG martyrdom-GEN.SG and because-of seeing-ACC.SG sanctorum illorum, qui deign sunt ad holy-GEN.PL ille-GEN.PL REL.NOM.PL deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3pl to salutandum libenti satis animo me greet.GERUND.ACC.SG willing-ABL.SG very mind-ABL.SG I-ACC suscipere et alloqui, in quo ego non merebar. receive-INF and address-INF in REL.ABL.SG I-NOM not be.worth-IMPF.1SG Nam et ipsi statim post martyrii for and ipse-NOM.PL immediately after martyrdom-GEN.SG diem nec uisi sunt

y

day-ACC.SG and.not seen-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL there ye-

ing those holy men, who deigned to receive me very willingly for the sake of salutation, and to speak with me, of which I was not worthy. Nor p

Here the antecedent is not a subject, but a nominal argument, and it is realised as a full NP. On the other hand, the referent is HUMAN, and there are no compet-ing referents. The referent is in fact highly accessible and in the focus of atten-tion. A demonstrative reading of ipse seems to be ruled out as it would imply referenc

p p y

(201) nor (202) contains a contrast, thus again contra-dicting the claim that ipse is contrastive. Even when the referent is non-HUMAN, it seems accessible enough for a personal pronoun if the antecedent is in the previous sentence:

(203) Quod cum dixisset, nos satis auidi

REL.ACC.SG when say-PLUPRF.3SG we-NOM very eager-NOM.PL optati sumus ire, et statim wished-NOM.PL be-PRS.1PL go-INF and immediately diuertentes a uia secuti turning-NOM.PL from way-ABL.SG followed-NOM.PL sumus presbyterum, qui nos ducebat. In be-PRS.1PL priest-ACC.SG REL.NOM.SG we-ACC lead-IMPF.3SG in eo ergo loco ecclesia est pisinna that-ABL.SG then place-ABL.SG church-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG little-NOM.SG subter montem, non Nabau, sed alterum under mountain-ACC.SG not Nebo-INDECL but other-ACC.SG


interiorem: sed nec ipse longe est de Nabau. inner-ACC.SG but not ipse-NOM.SG far be-PRS.3SG from Nebo-INDECL

once out of our way, we followed the priest who led us. In that place there is a little church under a mountain, not Nebo, but another height

Here, the referent is non-HUMAN, the antecedent is syntactically an oblique and its realisation is a full NP. Nevertheless, the antecedent seems close enough to be picked up by a personal pronoun. In fact, a demonstrative reading of ipse would imply reference to a less accessible referent, namely the first-mentioned mountain, Nebo, which is less accessible by virtue of being mentioned further y

(203) ipse may be claimed to assume a contrastive value; one might argue that there is a contrast with mount Nebo. Nonetheless, there is in my opinion no pronounced contrast here either,152 and ipse, I believe, is not primarily contrastive in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

(204) through (206) are examples of ille:

(204) Propter ipsos [sc. ebdomadarios] ergo, ut citius because.of ipse-ACC.PL hebdomadarii-ACC.PL then so.that sooner PRO-SUB absoluant, ante sole fit

finish-PRS.3PL before sun-ABL.SG do-PRS.PASS.3SG missa in Anastase sabbato. Quod autem dismissal-NOM.SG in Anastasis-ABL sabbath-ABL.SG REL.ACC.SG but dixi, propter illos fit missa say-PRS.3SG because.of ille-ACC.PL do-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG y

in.the.morning It is for their sake, then, that they may finish their fast the sooner, that

the dismissal on the Sabbath at the Anastasis is before sunrise. For their (Itin. XXVII.9)

(205) qui uolunt audire de plebe omnes

REL.NOM.PL want-PRS.3PL hear-INF from people-ABL.SG all-NOM.PL intrant et sedent, sed fideles. enter-PRS.3PL and sit.down-PRS.3PL but faithful-NOM.PL

152 Note that the potential focus particle nec is equivalent to non here, as it frequently is to Egeria. Nec does not belong syntactically to ipse, but negates the verb.



Cathecuminus autem ibi non intrat tunc, qua catechumen-NOM.SG but there not enter-PRS.3SG then when episcopus docet illos legem [...] bishop-NOM.SG teach-PRS.3SG ille-ACC.PL law-ACC.SG

p the faithful

however only, for no catechumen enters there when the bishop teaches y (Itin. XLVI.2)

(206) Et quoniam episcopus illius ciuitatis ualde

and since bishop-NOM.SG ille-GEN.SG city-GEN.SG very instructus est de scripturis, requisiui ab learned-NOM.SG be-prs.3sg about scripture-ABL.PL ask-PRF.1SG from eo dicens: Rogo te, domine, ut that-ABL.SG saying-NOM.SG beg-PRS.1SG you-ACC.SG Lord.VOC that PRO-SUB dicas michi, quod desidero audire.

say-PRS.2SG I-DAT REL.ACC.SG wish-PRS.1SG hear-INF Et ille ait: and ille-NOM.SG say-PRS.3SG And since the bishop of that city is very learned in the Scriptures, I p y y p

e (Itin. XX.9)

In (204) the antecedent is a topic. There are no competing referents, and no other possible referents in the preceding context altogether. In addition, the antecedent is a subject, it is HUMAN and realised as pro. In other words, it is high-ly accessible. A demonstrative is not necessary for the addressee to identify the y y y

not b (205) the antecedent is a full NP, but it is a topic, a subject, HUMAN, and there are no competing referents. A personal pronoun suffices to make the referent identifiable here too. In (206) the ante-cedent is in a subordinate clause and not in the same sentence as the anaphor. In addition, the antecedent is non-topical. On the other hand, the referent is HUMAN, and the antecedent is a null subject, both indications of high accessibil-ity. Finally, there are no competing referents. In sum, the referent is highly ac-cessible and at the focus of attention. A demonstrative would hardly be appro-


5.5.1.3 Antecedent Further Away There are a few occurrences of ille and ipse in which the antecedent is further back than in the previous sentence. More precisely, there is one occurrence of ille, and eight of ipse. The one occurrence of ille is shown in (207): (207) Verum autem in ipsa summitate montis

however but in ipse-ABL.SG summit-ABL.SG mountain-GEN.SG illius mediani nullus commanet; nichil ille-GEN.SG middle-GEN.SG none-NOM.SG dwell-PRS.3SG nothing-NOM.SG enim est ibi aliud nisi sola for be-PRS.3SG there other-NOM.SG unless alone-NOM.SG ecclesia et spelunca, ubi fuit sanctus church-NOM.SG and cave-NOM.SG where be-PRF.3SG holy-NOM.SG Moyses. Lecto ergo ipso loco omni Moses-NOM read-ABL.SG then ipse-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG whole-ABL.SG de libro Moysi et facta oblatione from book-ABL.SG Moses-GEN and made-ABL.SG oblation-ABL.SG ordine suo, hac sic communicantibus order-ABL.SG POSS.REFL.ABL.SG and thus communicating-ABL.PL nobis, iam ut exiremus de aecclesia, dederunt we-ABL already as go-out-IMPF.1PL from church-ABL.SG give-PRF.3PL nobis presbyteri loci ipsius eulogias, we-DAT priest-NOM.PL place-GEN.SG ipse-GEN.SG eulogia-ACC.PL id est de pomis, quae in that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG from fruit-ABL.PL REL.NOM.PL in ipso monte nascuntur. Nam cum ipse-ABL.SG mountain-ABL.SG spring.forth-PRS.3PL for although ipse mons sanctus Syna totus ipse-NOM.SG mountain-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG Sinai-NOM all-NOM.SG petrinus sit, ita ut nec fruticem rocky-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG such that not.even shrub-ACC.SG habeat, tamen deorsum prope radicem montium have-PRS.3SG however b elow near root-ACC.SG mountain-GEN.PL ipsorum, id est seu circa illius ipse-GEN.PL that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG either around ille-GEN.SG qui medianus est seu circa illorum REL.NOM.SG middle-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG or around ille-GEN.PL qui per giro sunt modica REL.NOM.PL through circle-ABL.SG be-PRS.3PL little-NOM.SG



terrola est; little.ground-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG

on the summit of the central mountain; there is nothing there excepting only the church and the cave where holy Mo-ses was. When the whole passage from the book of Moses had been read in that place, and when the oblation had been duly made, at which we communicated, and as we were coming out of the church, the priests of the place gave us eulogiae, that is, of fruits which grow on the mountain. For although the holy mountain Sinai is rocky throughout, so that it has not even a shrub on it, yet down below, near the foot of the mountains, around either that/it?153 which is the middle one or those which encircle

(Itin. III.5 6)

Ille is modified by a restrictive relative clause. This is probably because the dis-tance to the antecedent is so far that the referent would not be identifiable if a simple pronominal form (either demonstrative or personal pronoun) without any kind of modification were used. Since the distance to the antecedent is relatively long, and since the antecedent is non-topical, non-HUMAN and realised as a full NP, and since, moreover, there are competing referents, the referent is lowly accessible, a fact which points towards a demonstrative analysis. A demonstrative may be necessary in order to signal that the referent is not the most highly accessible one the one in focus but a less accessible one. On the other hand, the extra information contained in the restrictive relative clause makes the referent identifiable without a demonstrative, suggesting a personal pronoun analysis of ille. It is difficult to decide upon the correct categorial label of ille in this example (see also the discussion of non-anaphoric ille and ipse as heads of restrictive relative clauses in Section 5.5.2 below).

As regards ipse, the distance to the antecedent is still relatively short (less than 50 words) in six examples, and in these examples ipse is generally best analysed as a personal pronoun, as in the following example:

(208) Et statim leuat se episcopus et

and immediately rise-PRS.3SG REFL.ACC.SG bishop-NOM.SG and omnis populus; porro inde de summo all-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG hereafter thence from highest-ABL.SG

153 It in this case is not good English, but that is not to say that ille cannot be a personal pronoun in Latin.


monte Oliueti totum pedibus mountain-ABL.SG olive.grove-GEN.SG entirely foot-ABL.PL itur. Nam totus populus ante ipsum go-PRS.PASS.3SG for whole-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG before ipse-ACC.SG cum ymnis uel antiphonis respondentes semper: with hymn-ABL.PL or antiphon-ABL.PL answering-NOM.PL always And the bishop immediately rises, and all the people with him. They all

go on foot from the top of the Mount of Olives, all the people going be-

XXXI.2)

Distance to the antecedent is 2 sentences, but only 17 words, hence relatively short. In addition, the referent is HUMAN, and the antecedent a subject. The ref-erent is accessible enough for a personal pronoun to be felicitous, and a demon-strative would be inappropriate ayour contribution more informative than is required ipse can hardly be claimed to be contrastive here there is no referent present that the bishop is contrasted with hence contradicting the claim that ipse is contras-tive. In the following example, ipse resembles a proximal demonstrative: (209) Hic etiam locus est, ubi post recessum

this-NOM.SG also place-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG where after death-ACC.SG Moysi statim Iesus filius Naue Moses-GEN immediately Jesus-NOM son-NOM.SG Nun-INDECL repletus est spiritu scientiae: filled-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG spirit-ABL.SG wisdom-GEN.SG imposuerat enim Moyses manus suas super lay-PLUPRF.3SG for Moses hand-ACC.PL POSS.REFL.ACC.PL over eum, sicut scriptum est. Nam ipse that-ACC.SG as written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG for ipse-NOM.SG est locus, ubi scripsit Moyses be-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG where write-PRF.3SG Moses-NOM librum Deuteronomii. book-ACC.SG Deuteronomy-GEN y

straightway filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, as it is written. For it (this?) is the place where Moses wrote the book of Deu 6)



At first sight, one might interpret ipse this is the place gipse is similar to a proximal demonstrative here is appar-

ently due to the parallel hic in the first sentence. On the other hand, that Egeria uses hic in the first sentence, but then switches to ipse, may indicate that ipse has another intended meaning than hic. Having used hic in the first sentence, why would Egeria switch to another word for expressing exactly the same mean-ing as hic in the parallel, subsequent sentence? The antecedent is a topic, a subject and a pronominal form. In addition, the referent is what the entire pas-sage is about, so it is indeed in the focus of attention and highly accessible. Thus, the conditions for the use of a personal pronoun are met. It is perfectly possible to interpret ipse as a personal pronoun, as the translation shows. Note finally that ipse cannot be contrastive here either; there is no referent in the context with which the referent of ipse is contrasted, thus challenging the view of Vincent (1997; 1998) that ipse is contrastive / a marker of topic shift in Late Latin.

Finally, there are two examples of ipse in which the antecedent distance is long (> 50 words). Interestingly, in these too ipse seems best analysed as a per-sonal pronoun. One of them is (210):

(210) In eo ergo loco cum uenitur, ut tamen

in that-ABL.SG then place-ABL.SG when come-PRS.PASS.3SG as however commonuerunt deductores sancti illi, qui tell-PRF.3PL guide-NOM.PL holy-NOM.PL ille-NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL nobis-cum erant, dicentes: Consuetudo est, we-ABL-with be-IMPF.3PL saying-NOM.PL custom-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG ut fiat hic oratio ab his that make-PRS.PASS.3SG here prayer-NOM.SG from this-ABL.PL qui ueniunt, quando de eo loco REL.NOM.PL come-PRS.3PL when from that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG primitus uidetur mons Dei: sicut et first see-PRS.PASS.3SG mountain-NOM.SG God-GEN as also nos fecimus. Habebat autem de eo loco we-NOM do-PRF.1PL have-IMPF.3SG but from that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG ad montem Dei forsitan quattuor milia to mountain-ACC.SG God-GEN perhaps four-INDECL thousand-ACC.PL totum per ualle illa, quam dixi entirely through valley-ABL.SG ille-ABL.SG REL.ACC.SG say-PRF.1SG ingens. Vallis autem ipsa ingens great-NOM.SG valley-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG


est ualde, iacens subter latus montis be-PRS.3SG very lying-NOM.SG under slope-ACC.SG mountain-GEN.SG Dei, quae habet forsitan, quantum potuimus God-GEN REL.NOM.SG have-PRS.3SG perhaps as.far.as can-PRF.1PL uidentes estimare aut ipsi dicebant [...] seeing-NOM.PL judge-INF or ipse-NOM.PL say-IMPF.3PL j p y

saying: "The custom is that prayer should be made by those who arrive here, when from this place the mount of God is first seen." And this we did. The whole distance from that place to the mount of God was about four miles across the aforesaid great valley. For that valley is indeed very great, lying under the slope of the mount of God, and measuring, as far y p

(Itin. I.2II.1)

Distance to the antecedent is 68 words,154 4 sentences. The referent is HUMAN and the antecedent is a subject, both of which are indications of high accessibility. The long distance admittedly points towards a demonstrative analysis. Yet, as the translation indicates, the referent is indeed identifiable also with ipse inter-preted as a personal pronoun, and a demonstrative analysis does not seem en-

do not make your contribution more

To sum up, ille and ipse are in general best analysed as personal pronouns in their anaphoric occurrences. As will become clear in the following section, the correct categorial label of ille and ipse is harder to determine in their non-anaphoric uses.

5.5.2 Non-Anaphoric Ille and Ipse

Ille and ipse, although they are mainly anaphoric, have certain non-anaphoric uses too (as we saw in Section 5.3 above). Whereas in the anaphoric occurrences it is possible to determine the correct categorial label of ille and ipse based on the accessibility of the referent, in the non-anaphoric occurrences, it is much more difficult to decide upon the correct analysis of ille and ipse. This holds true in particular for the ANCHORED examples in which ille or ipse is the light head of a

154 The distance in words is 68 because PRO-SUBs are also counted.



restrictive relative clause. As we saw in Section 5.3.2, ille occurs 15 times with givenness status ANCHORED, ipse once. In the following ANCHORED examples ille or ipse is the light head of a restrictive relative clause: (211) [...] nec ille laudatur, qui satis

neither ille-NOM.SG praise-PRS.PASS.3SG REL.NOM.SG much-ACC.SG fecerit, nec ille uituperatur, qui minus. do-PRF.3SG nor ille-NOM.SG blame-PRS.3SG REL.NOM.SG less-ACC.SG

(Itin. XXVIII.4)

(212) A pascha autem usque ad quinquagesima, id from Easter-ABL.SG but until to fiftieth-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG est Pentecosten, hic penitus nemo be-PRS.3SG Pentecost-ACC.SG here completely none-NOM.SG ieiunat, nec ipsi aputactitae qui fast-PRS.3SG not.even ipse-NOM.PL aputactita-NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL sunt. be-PRS.3PL Now, from Easter to the fiftieth day, that is, to Pentecost, no one fasts

here, not even those/they who are apotactitaee (Itin. XLI.1)

As we saw in Section 2.3.2, personal pronouns are primarily anaphoric, but they may have non-anaphoric uses, especially if the noun phrase contains additional information assisting the addressee in identifying the referent. In other words, ille/ipse may be personal pronouns in examples like (211) and (212). On the other hand, pronominal demonstratives too are possible when the noun phrase con-tains a modifying restrictive relative clause.155 A demonstrative is not, however, necessary for the identification of the referent, and we may expect a personal y

do not make your contribution more informative than is required . Nevertheless, both definite articles and demon-stratives are indeed possible in examples like (211) and (212), and it is difficult to decide upon the correct analysis of ille and ipse in such examples.

155 I proposed that if the referent is not present in the addressee s memory, the demonstra-tives are not true demonstratives, but demonstratives without a [+DEMONSTRATIVE] feature. As such, they are not very different from definite articles or personal pronouns, as pointed out in Section 2.3.3. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that demonstratives are possible in examples like (211) and (212).


When givenness status is ANCHORED, ille is usually modified by a clausal ap-position in the Itinerarium Egeriae (see Section 5.3.2) above. We saw one exam-ple in (146) above. Further examples are the following:

(213) Et illud etiam scribere debui, quemadmodum

and ille-ACC.SG also write-INF must-PRF.1SG how docentur hi, qui baptidiantur teach-PRS.PASS.3PL this-NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL baptise-PRS.PASS.3PL per pascha. at Easter-ABL.SG Moreover, I must write it/this, how they are taught who are baptised at

(Itin. XLV.1)

(214) Illud autem uos uolo scire, dominae ille-ACC.SG but you-ACC.PL want-PRS.1SG know-INF lady.VOC.PL uenerabiles sorores, quia de eo loco reverend.VOC.PL sister.VOC.PL that from that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG ubi stabamus where stand-IMPF.1PL

We have seen that personal pronouns can have non-anaphoric uses. Neverthe-less, in (213) and (214), a personal pronoun analysis of ille does not seem entire-ly appropriate. The reason for this, I believe, is that illud in both cases is fronted and separated from its apposition. Because of this fronting, illud is stressed, a fact which may point towards a demonstrative analysis. Also, a personal pro-noun analysis of ille seems to imply that reference is to a previously mentioned and highly accessible referent. Thus, in these examples, a demonstrative may be necessary to signal that the intended referent is not a previously mentioned one.

As Section 5.3.1 showed, there is also one occurrence in which ipse refers to a NON_SPEC referent:156

(215) Itaque ergo duxit me primum ad palatium Aggari

therefore then lead-PRF.3SG I-ACC first to palace-ACC.SG Abgar-GEN

156 In addition, ipse is tagged as ACC_SIT in one ocurrence. As I explained in Section 5.3.4, however, ipse is more properly anaphoric in this example.



regis et ibi ostendit michi archiotepam ipsius king-GEN.SG and there show-PRF.3SG I-DAT statue-ACC.SG ipse-GEN.SG ingens simillimam, ut ipsi dicebant, great-NOM.SG very.like-ACC.SG as ipse-NOM.PL say-IMPF.3PL marmoream, tanti nitoris ac si de of.marble-ACC.SG so.great-GEN.SG sheen-GEN.SG as if from margarita esset; pearl-ABL.SG be-IMPF.3SG

me a great marble statue of him, very much like him, as they said, hav-y

Pronominal demonstratives are not possible with NON_SPEC referents. As we saw in Section 2.3.3, a demonstrative presupposes the presence of the referent in the linguistic or extra-linguistic context, but this is not the case when the referent is non-specific. Therefore, I analyse ipse as a personal pronoun in (215). Normally, personal pronouns cannot refer to new referents, but when the exact identity of the referent is not important as here, where reference is to a vague and not ppp

personal pronouns are possible (see Section 5.3.1 above). In sum, with the exception of one occurrence of NON_SPEC ipse, the categori-

al status of ille and ipse in their non-anaphoric uses is notoriously hard to de-termine, especially in the ANCHORED examples where ille/ipse is the light head of a restrictive relative clause. In these cases, a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent, but it is nevertheless possible. The fact that it is difficult to determine the correct label of ille and ipse is interesting in itself, because ambiguous contexts are the contexts in which linguistic change takes place. Crucial for the development of ille and ipse into personal pronouns is the fact that a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. Because the demonstrative is not necessary, the addressee may easily perceive it as superfluous and reanalyse it as a personal pronoun.

5.5.3 On the Context of Origin of the Personal Pronouns

As Section 1.1.4 showed, Vincent (1997; 1998) argues that object dislocation was the context in which the personal pronouns originated. In the Itinerarium Egeri-ae, however, I find no such constructions. Further research on other texts is needed in order to determine th n-structions of this type seem to be quite rare. I therefore find it unlikely that the

Differences between Part One and Part Two of the Text 259

personal pronouns originated in such contexts. A certain frequency of the con-struction type in question, I believe, is necessary for an item to become estab-lished as a personal pronoun (or something else for that matter).

The contexts of origin of the personal pronouns, as I argued above, are not contexts in which a personal pronoun is necessary for indicating a dislocation of the object, as Vincent (1997; 1998) claims. Rather, the personal pronoun finds its origin in those contexts in which a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. Such contexts are especially the cases in which givenness status is ANCHORED and ille/ipse is the light head of a restrictive rela-tive clause.

5.6 Differences between Part One and Part Two of the Text

Before concluding this chapter, let us look at the frequency differences of the pronominal forms between part one and part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae. In Chapter 4, we saw that there are differences between the first and second part of the Itinerarium Egeriae as far as the anaphoric overt pronominal forms and the anaphoric full NPs are concerned. As also mentioned in Chapter 4, of the ana-phoric overt pronominal forms, ipse occurs more frequently in part one than in part two. In fact, ipse is not only more frequent in part one in its anaphoric uses, y

-squared test). Ipse (irrespective of givenness status) occurs 44 times in part one and only 11 in part two. 157

I have argued that ipse is a personal pronoun in most anaphoric occurrenc-es. With respect to the variables thought to influence the choice of anaphoric expression, ipse shows few clear tendencies. Thus, the higher frequency of ipse in part one is difficult to account for in terms of differences between the two parts with respect to the frequency of, say, topical antecedents, antecedents in subject function or the like.

Nocentini (1990) explains the difference in frequency of the demonstratives between part one and part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae as a result of diglossia. Egeria, he claims, had in fact two grammars, the one of her spoken language and the one of the Classical Latin learnt at school (Nocentini 1990: 148).158 In

157 Note also that is is no more frequent in part two than in part one, contrary to the claim by Fruyt (2003: 106): there are 110 occurrences in part one, 111 in part two, an insignificant differ-ence (p=0.9464, chi-squared test). 158

p q

nouvelles See also Renzi (1976: 30).


part one, it is the spoken language that appears, whereas in part two Egeria makes the conscious choice of keeping more to the Classical norms, insofar as the second part is an impersonal account of the rituals in Jerusalem. The con-tent is important and sublime, and to obtain a more important and sublime language Egeria uses the Classical Latin norms, as also the frequent use of the passive voice in this part of the text illustrates (Nocentini 1990: 150-151). An explanation along these lines seems reasonable.

In Chapter 6 it will become clear that the adnominal anaphoric demonstra-tives, and in particular ipse, are more frequent in part one than in part two as well. As we will see, I believe this too can partially be explained in a similar way.

5.7 Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the pronominal forms in the Itinerarium Egeriae. First, we saw that there are few, if any, instances in which ipse is an intensifier, with the exception of one example in which the referent is first person. We also saw that is occurs frequently in the fixed expression id est, in which case it is not tagged with givenness status.

The pronominal forms are primarily anaphoric, which we may expect inso-far as they are high accessibility markers. Yet, they have some non-anaphoric uses as well. When the referent is new (NEW or NON_SPEC), we find one occur-rence of hic, one of ipse and 14 of pro. In the occurrences of pro, reference is to a non-specific c-counting for the appropriateness of pro in this context a context in which pro, as an extremely high accessibility marker, would not be possible if a specific referent were intended. ANCHORED referents, because of the extra information contained in the noun phrase that assists the addressee in identifying the in-tended referent, more easily allow for pronominal forms. All the pronominal forms, with the exception of pro, occur when the referent is ANCHORED. Ille is usually not the head of a restrictive relative clause, as generally assumed in the literature, but rather of an appositional complement clause. The observation found in the literature that ipse is primarily anaphoric holds for pronominal ipse; pronominal ipse is indeed only exceptionally non-anaphoric.

The system of pronominal anaphors was shown to differ from the Classical Latin system as shown in particular by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000). Notably, whereas the subject anaphors in Classical Latin appear to have certain well-defined functions, the rule in the Itinerarium Egeriae

Summary 261

use pro, otherwise, use iss . The notable exception is hic, which has two clearly defined functions; i) discourse deixis; and ii) identificational constructions where the referent of hic is identified with a referent that is already known to the addressee (the type hic est locus ubi

yi

general picture in the Itinerarium Egeriae differs from that in Classical Latin, the specific uses of hic and is . We find the discourse deic-tic use of hic in Classical Latin (Bolkestein 2000: 114). Moreover, is seems to be preferred in non-subject functions also in Classical Latin and is often described

demonstrative, acting in a personal-pronoun-like way, a func-tion which continues in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

I further asked whether ille and ipse are personal pronouns or not in the Itinerarium Egeriae, arguing that they are in most of their anaphoric occurrenc-es. Their correct categorial label is harder to determine in the non-anaphoric uses. The context of origin of the personal pronouns are probably the non-anaphoric uses of ille and ipse, especially the cases in which givenness status is ANCHORED and ille/ipse is the head of a restrictive relative clause. Importantly, both demonstratives and personal pronouns are possible in such cases. Yet, a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent, and it may y

by the addressee and become reanalysed as a personal pronoun.

Regarding the assumed contrastive value of ipse (Vincent 1997; 1998), in-tensifiers and demonstratives are contrastive (see Chapter 2). Insofar as ipse is generally neither an intensifier nor a demonstrative, it is not contrastive. More-over, a contrastive value is hard to discern in its uses as a personal pronoun. In sum, ipse is not very clearly contrastive in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

Finally, the difference between part one and part two of the Itinerarium Ege-riae with respect to the frequency of ipse was accounted for as a result of diglos-sia, following Nocentini (1990)

y in the first part of the text Egeria follows the

norms of the spoken language, whereas in the second part she seeks to write in

Based on the discussion in this chapter, we can establish an accessibility hierarchy of the pronominal expressions. I argued that pro and is are the default subject and non-subject anaphors, respectively, and the highest accessibility markers. Hic has some clearly defined uses, and frequently refers to antecedents that are neither subjects nor objects, neither full NPs nor pronominal. In other words, hic requires relatively low accessibility. Somewhere in between hic and pro/is are ille and ipse. We have seen that both function as personal pronouns, and as such they are higher accessibility markers than hic. Ipse is primarily anaphoric, whereas ille is used in a number of instances in which the referent is


ANCHORED. Thus, since previously mentioned referents are more accessible than referents that have not been previously mentioned, it seems reasonable to re-gard ipse as a higher accessibility marker than ille. Thus, a tentative accessibil-ity hierarchy of the pronominal forms can be established as in (216). The forms to the left are higher accessibility markers than the forms to the right.

(216) pro/is > ipse > ille > hic

6 Low Accessibility Markers: Full NPs I have so far discussed the three main groups of expressions full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro as well as the various types of pronominal forms. There are several types of full NPs too, and they are the subject of this chapter. The expressions under scrutiny in this chapter are hic NPs, idem NPs, ille NPs, ipse NPs, iste NPs and bare NPs.159 Table 36 gives the number of occurrences of the various kinds of full NPs:

Table 36: Full NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae160


Bare NP 3131 87.41 % Hic NP 45 1.27 % Idem NP 29 0.81 % Ille NP 91 2.54 % Ipse NP 178 4.97 % Is NP 92 2.57 % Iste NP 16 0.45 %

The chapter is organised as follows. First, I address the question as to wheth-er adnominal ipse is an intensifier (Section 6.1) before discussing non-anaphoric reference (Section 6.2), and anaphoric reference (Section 6.3). In Section 6.4 I comment on the use of ille and ipse NPs as heads of restrictive relative clauses. Section 6.5 is a note on the contexts of origin of the definite article proposed in the current literature.

159 Bare NP = NP without a determiner . The NP may contain, however, modifiers in the shape of one or more adjectives or a relative clause, for instance. With the exception of three occurrences of ipse + proper name, the proper names are always bare, and are left out here. A single occurrence of hic idem NP is also left out. 160 As occurrences without any givenness status tag (see Section 3.1.3) are included in this table, the numbers in the subsequent tables do not add up to the numbers in this table. Also, since the proper names are excluded, the total number of full NPs does not add up to the num-ber of full NPs in Table 8 in Chapter 4.

264 Low Accessibility Markers: Full NPs

6.1 Is Adnominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

As we saw in Section 1.1.2, Fruyt (2003) states that ipse is not anaphoric in the Itinerarium Egeriae

y p pe r-

gued in Section 5.1, pronominal ipse is generally not an intensifier, with only one clear (first person) exception. In my opinion, this holds for adnominal ipse as well.

Yet, there are some occurrences of adnominal ipse where it must be an in-tensifier. This holds true for the instances in which ipse occurs together with a determiner as well as the three occurrences of ipse with a proper name. In (217) ipse co-occurs with a proper name:

(217) Sed postmodum quam hii fontes in eo

but after that this-NOM.PL fountain-NOM.PL in that-ABL.SG loco eruperunt, tunc ipse Aggarus place-ABL.SG burst.forth-PRF.3PL then ipse-NOM.SG Abgar-NOM filio suo Magno [...] son-DAT.SG POSS.REFL.DAT.SG Magnus-DAT But after that these fountains had burst forth here, then Abgar himself

built this palace for his son Ma (Itin. XIX.15)

Cross-linguistically, proper names can indeed occur with a definite article161 or a(n emotional) demonstrative. Nevertheless, with the exception of the three instances of proper name + ipse, proper names in the Itinerarium Egeriae are always bare. They never occur with ille, for instance, suggesting that proper names cannot appropriately occur with a demonstrative in the Itinerarium Ege-riae. Nor does the definite article usually occur with proper names in its early stages of development (Leiss 2007: 88; Napoli; 2009: 570).

As I said in Chapter 5 (footnote 114 on page 166), there are two occurrences of ipse hic and one of ipse is in the Itinerarium Egeriae,162 and we also find an occurrence of an ipse ille NP. (218) and (219) are two of these examples:

161 Frequently in New Testament Greek, for instance. 162 Ipse is and ipse hic are registered as pronominal in the discussions of the referring expres-sions because the head of the noun phrase, is and hic respectively, is in fact pronominal. Ipse, on the other hand, is more properly considered adnominal in these occurrences since ipse does not occur alone, although the element with which it is juxtaposed is a pronominal form and not a noun.

Is Adnominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae? 265

(218) Septima autem die, id est seventh-ABL.SG but day-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG dominica die, ante pullorum cantum of.the.Lord-ABL.SG day.ABL.SG before cock-GEN.PL song-ACC.SG colliget se omnis multitudo, assemble-PRS.3SG REFL.ACC.SG whole-NOM.SG multitude-NOM.SG quaecumque esse potest in eo l oco, ac si all.that-NOM.SG be-INF can-PRS.3SG in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG as if per pascha in basilica, quae est through Easter-ABL.SG in church-ABL.SG REL.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG loco iuxta Anastasim, foras tamen, ubi luminaria place-ABL.SG near Anastasis-ACC outside yet where light-NOM.PL pro hoc ipsud pendent. for this-ACC.SG ipse-ACC.SG hang-PRS.3PL

assembles before cockcrow, in as great a number as the place can hold, as at Easter, in the basilica which is near the Anastasis, but outside the

(Itin. XXIV.8)

(219) Et cum hi omnes, qui per girum and although this-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL around circle-ACC.SG sunt, tam excelsi sint quam nunquam me be-PRS.3PL so high-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL as never I-ACC puto uidisse, tamen ipse ille think-PRS.1SG see-INF.PRF yet ipse-NOM.SG ille-NOM.SG medianus, in quo descendit maiestas Dei [...] middle-NOM.SG in REL.ABL.SG descend-PRF.3SG glory-NOM.SG God-GEN g y

never saw before, yet the very central one, on which the Glory of God y y

When ipse occurs together with a demonstrative or other determiner, it must be an intensifier because there cannot be more than one determiner in a noun phrase (see Fruyt 2003: 103).

Apart from the examples in which there is a proper name or determiner, there are few, if any, clear examples of adnominal ipse as an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae. (220) and (221) are perhaps the instances in which ipse re-sembles mostly an intensifier:

Is Adnominal Ipse an Intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae?


(220) Locus etiam, ubi fuit titulus uxoris place-NOM.SG also where be-PRF.3SG inscription-NOM.SG wife-GEN.SG Loth, ostensus est nobis, qui locus Loth-INDECL shown-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG we-DAT REL.NOM.SG place-NOM.SG etiam in scripturis legitur. Sed mihi credite, also in scripture-ABL.PL read-PRS.PASS.3SG but I-DAT believe.IMP.2PL domine uenerabiles, quia columna ipsa iam lady.VOC.PL reverend.VOC.PL that pillar-NOM.SG ipse-NOM.SG now non paret, locus autem ipse tantum not appear-PRS.3SG place-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG only ostenditur: columna autem ipsa dicitur show-PRS.PASS.3SG pillar-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG say-PRS.PASS.3SG mari mortuo fuisse quooperta. sea-ABL.SG dead-ABL.SG be-INF.PRF covered-NOM.SG

us, which place is read of in the Scriptures. But believe me, reverend la-dies, the pillar cannot be seen, only the place is shown, the pillar (it-self?) is said to have been covered

y7)

(221) In Lazario autem cum uentum fuerit, ita

in Lazarium-ABL but when come-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG so se omnis multitudo colligit, ut REFL.ACC.SG whole-NOM.SG multitude-NOM.SG assemble-PRS.3SG so.that non solum ipse locus sed et campi omnes not only ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG but also field-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL in giro pleni sint hominibus. in circle-ABL.SG full-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL people-ABL.PL p p

not only the place (itself?), but also the fields around, are full of p(XXIX.5)

An intensifier analysis of ipse seems possible in these examples. However, it is by no means obvious that this is the correct interpretation of ipse in these ex-amples either. On the assumption that intensifiers imply a contrast with a dif-ferent, but related referent (see Section 2.4 above), it is possible to analyse ipse as an intensifier. In (220), the pillar is contrasted with the place, and, as the translation shows, an intensifier reading of ipse indeed seems possible. Like-wise, ipse locus in (221) contrasts the place, Lazarium, with the entire surround-ing field. On the other hand, remarkability or unexpectedness, notions associat-

Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Full NPs 267

ed with the adnominal intensifier also in (Classical) Latin (Bertocchi 1996), is hardly discernible here. Centrality, as assumed by Siemund (2000), may be relevant; the pillar could be regarded as more central than the place in (220), and the place may be more central than the surrounding fields in (221). Never-theless, ipse need not be an intensifier in these examples.

In sum, the general interpretation of adnominal ipse in the Itinerarium Ege-riae is in my opinion not that of an intensifier. I therefore retain the ipse NPs in my data set in the discussion of the full NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

6.2 Non-Anaphoric Uses of the Full NPs

In this section, I discuss the non-anaphoric uses of the full NPs. We will see that the bare NPs are the most flexible of the full NPs, and are used with all kinds of referents. The demonstrative NPs,163 on the other hand, are more restricted.

6.2.1 New Referents

As we can see in Table 37, only bare NPs introduce NEW and NON_SPEC referents164 in the Itinerarium Egeriae:

Table 37: Full NPs used for NEW and NON_SPEC referents165

Bare NP

NEW 302 100 % NON_SPEC 414 100 %

The fact that only bare NPs are used to introduce new referents is in accordance with the assumption that demonstratives require that the referent be either

163 For brevity s sake, demonstrative NP is used with reference to hic NPs, idem NPs, ille NPs ipse NPs, is NPs and iste NPs, without any a priori commitment about the actual categorial status of ille and ipse. 164 Recall that NON_SPEC is the non-specific counterpart to NEW. 165 The numbers of full NPs in Table 9 in Chapter 4 are higher than the numbers in this table not because some new referents are realised by a proper name, but because NPs with tantus and talis are not included in the data used in this chapter.


present in memory or in the immediate linguistic or extra-linguistic context, as pointed out in Section 2.3.3.

Since ille and ipse NPs are never used to introduce new referents, it might be argued that ille and ipse are demonstratives and not definite articles in the Itinerarium Egeriae. However, neither demonstrative NPs nor definite NPs can refer to a new referent.166 As I argued in Section 2.1.5, definite noun phrases require the referent to be identifiable, and if the referent is NEW or NON_SPEC, there is no identifiable referent. Therefore, even if we analyse ille and ipse as definite articles, they would not be appropriate with new referents. Thus, the fact that ille NPs and ipse NPs are never used when the referent is new is not in itself an argument against attributing to ille and ipse the status of definite arti-cles (but other factors are, as we will see).


If the referent is ANCHORED, on the other hand, the distribution of forms is differ-ent, as Table 38 shows:167

Table 38: Full NPs used for ANCHORED referents


Bare NP 262 74.01 % Hic NP 4 1.13 % Idem NP 3 0.85 % Ille NP 33 9.32 % Ipse NP 20 5.65 % Is NP 28 7.91 % Iste NP 4 1.13 %

166 Both can indeed refer to ANCHORED referents, which are, strictly speaking, new in the discourse, but because of the additional information contained in the noun phrase, the referent is identifiable. Hence, a definite or demonstrative NP is appropriate (see Section 6.2.2 below). 167 As pointed out in Section 3.1.3, there are several ways in which a referent can be AN-CHORED. The demonstrative NPs are ANCHORED mostly by a restrictive relative clause, but also by a complement clause in apposition.


When a demonstrative NP is used, the referent is usually present in the address- of Gundel et al. (1993), as

in examples (222) through (226) below. As we saw in Section 2.3.3, a demonstra-ps-

in most of these examples, then, accounts for the demonstrative NPs.

As Section 1.1.2 showed, ille has been claimed to function as the head of (re-strictive) relative clauses in the Itinerarium Egeriae, whereas ipse is anaphoric.168 We saw in Section 5.3.2 that pronominal ANCHORED ille can be the head not only of a restrictive relative clause, but also of an appositional complement clause. More importantly, as example (222) shows, ipse NPs too occur as the the heads of restrictive relative clauses. That is, the ipse NPs are not only anaphoric.

(222) Ostenderunt etiam petram ingentem in ipso

show-PRF.3PL also rock-ACC.SG great-ACC.SG in ipse-ABL.SG loco, ubi descendebat sanctus Moyses cum place-ABL.SG where descend-IMPF.3SG holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM with Iesu filio Naue ad quem petram Joshua-ABL son-ABL.SG Nun-INDECL to REL.ACC.SG rock-ACC.SG iratus fregit tabulas, quas afferebat. angry-NOM.SG break-PRF.3SG table-ACC.PL REL.ACC.PL carry-IMPF.3SG They showed us a great rock in the place where holy Moses, as he was

descending with Joshua the son of Nun, in his anger brake the tables that he was carry

Is NPs too are used as heads of restrictive relative clauses, as the following ex-ample illustrates (see also Fruyt 2003: 106 107):

(223) loca etiam ea de euangelio

place-NOM.PL also that-NOM.PL from gospel-ABL.SG leguntur, in quibus Dominus allocutus est read-PRS.PASS.3PL in REL.ABL.PL Lord-NOM addressed-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG discipulos eadem die sedens in eadem disciple-ACC.PL same-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG sitting-NOM.SG in same-ABL.SG spelunca, quae in ipsa ecclesia est. cave-ABL.SG REL.NOM.SG in ipse-ABL.SG church-ABL.SG be-PRS.3SG

168 Fruyt (2003: 103) finds that ipse has non-anaphoric uses too.


disciples on that same day as He sat in the same cave which is in that (Itin. XXXV.3)

In fact, there is no significant difference between the frequency of ille NPs, ipse NPs and is NPs when the referent is ANCHORED (p=0.2034, chi-squared test). In sum, the claim that ipse is only anaphoric, needs some modification.

Iste NPs occur only in direct speech, as also Adams (1967: 26), Nocentini (1990: 146), Christol (1994: 146), and Fruyt (2003: 117) observe. The ANCHORED examples too are all found in passages of direct speech. (224) is an example:

(224) Cui Iob ad tunc in eo loco

REL.DAT.SG Job-INDECL to then in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG facta est ista ecclesia, quam made-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-NOM.SG church-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG uidetis see-PRS.2PL

(Itin. XVI.6)

As will become clear in Section 6.3, anaphoric idem NPs occur in expressions of the type preposition + idem + PLACE/TIME noun. This holds true for the ANCHORED examples too:

(225) Tunc dictum est nobis, quia in isdem diebus,

then said-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG we-DAT that in that-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL qua sanctus Moyses uel filii Israhel contra when holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM or son-NOM.PL Israhel-INDECL against illas ciuitates pugnauerant, castra ibi fixa that-ACC.PL city-ACC.PL fight-PRF.3PL camp-ACC.PL there set.up-ACC.PL habuissent: have-PLUPRF.3PL

Israel had fought against those XII.9)

(226) illustrates the use of a hic NP with an ANCHORED referent:


(226) Haec est autem uallis ingens et this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG but valley-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG and planissima, in qua filii Israhel commorati very.flat-NOM.SG in REL.ABL.SG son-NOM.PL Israhel-INDECL waited-NOM.PL sunt his diebus, quod sanctus Moyses be-PRS.3PL this-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL when holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM ascendit in montem Domini et fuit ibi ascend-PRF.3SG in mountain-ACC.SG Lord-GEN and be-PRF.3SG there quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus. forty-INDECL day-ABL.PL and forty-INDECL night-ABL.PL y y y

of Israel wait-ed during these days when holy Moses went up into the mount of the y y p

(Itin. II.2) In all the examples cited so far in this section, we may assume that the ref-

erent is known to the addressee (i.e. familiar in the Givenness hierarchy of Gun-del et al. 1993). Yet, in a few cases, this is not so. The following is an example:

(227) Multi autem et ex ipsis monachis sanctis,

many-NOM.PL but also of ipse-ABL.PL monk-ABL.PL holy-ABL.PL qui ibi commanebant iuxta aqua ipsa, REL.NOM.PL there dwell-IMPF.3PL near water-ABL.SG ipse-ABL.SG qui tamen potuerunt imponere sibi REL.NOM.PL however can-PRF.3PL undertake-INF REFL.DAT.SG laborem, dignati sunt nobis-cum ascendere labour-ACC.SG deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL we-ABL-with ascend-INF montem Nabau. mountain-ACC.SG Nebo-INDECL Many of the holy monks also who dwelt by that water, and who could y y y

(Itin. XI.3)

It is not obvious that ipse is in fact a demonstrative in this example. It could also be a definite article (see Section 6.2.7 below). Nevertheless, it remains a fact that demonstratives can be used in such cases, though it is not captured by the con-str

y

immediate (extra-)linguistic context. As I pointed out in Section 2.3.3, in this use the demonstratives are perhaps not [+DEMONSTRATIVE], and it is not obvious that


it obvious that the demonstratives in these uses are exactly the same as the demonstratives that are used when the referent is

y

memory or in the immediate (extra-)linguistic context. I leave this question open for further research.


When the referent is inferable,169 bare NPs are the preferred expressions, though we also find some occurrences of ipse NPs and is NPs, as Table 39 shows:

Table 39: Full NPs used for ACC_INF and NON_SPEC_INF referents170

Bare NP Ipse NP Is NP

ACC_INF 220 92,44 % 16 6,72 % 2 0,84 % NON_SPEC_INF 35 94,59 % 2 5,41 % 0

The fact that bare NPs are by far the preferred expressions supports the claim made for instance by Himmelmann (1996: 210-211), that demonstratives are not appropriate in indirect anaphora. Yet there are exceptions, showing that demonstratives can sometimes be used:

(228) Nos ergo sabbato sera ingressi

we-NOM thus Sabbath-ABL evening-ABL.SG entered-NOM.PL sumus montem, [25 words omitted] Ibi ergo mansimus be-PRS.1PL mountain-ACC.SG there then remain-PRF.1PL in ea nocte [...] in that-ABL.SG night-ABL.SG

(Itin. III.1)

As Gundel et al. (1993: 282; 2000) argue, whether a demonstrative is possible in indirect anaphora depends on whether the referent from which the inferable

169 Givenness status ACC_INF or NON_SPEC_INF in the PROIEL annotation. 170 Here too, the numbers do not add up to the numbers of full NPs in Table 11 in Chapter 4 because tantus NPs and talis NPs are excluded in the present chapter.


referent is inferred creates a representation of the intended referent in the ad-(228), then, the mention of sabbato sera apparently cre-y

b-bath Egeria assumes, at least, that the mention of sabbato sera creates such a representation in the memory of the addressee, permitting the use of a demon-strative NP to refer to the night. Note also that the referent is a period of time. We will see (in Section 6.3.3) that time expressions like the one in (228) require a demonstrative to make reference clear.

6.2.4 Generally Known Referents

If the referent is generally known,171 demonstratives are generally possible be-y y p2.3.3). Yet,

bare NPs are the preferred expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, as we can see in Table 40:

Table 40: Full NPs used for ACC_GEN referents


Bare NP 317 99.06 % Ille NP 2 0.63 % Ipse NP 1 0.31 %

do not make your contribution more in-

formative than is required ensures that the less informative form, a definite NP, is used. This principle, then, can account for the fact that the ACC_GEN refer-ents practically always show a bare NP. In addition, many of the generally known referents are uniques, and unique referents are not appropriately refer-enced by demonstrative NPs (nor by a definite article in its early stages, Leiss 2007: 88; Napoli 2009).172 The following is an example of an ille NP:

171 Givenness status ACC_GEN in the PROIEL annotation. 172 Emotional demonstratives are theoretically possible with uniques (see Section 2.3.3), but apparently not to Egeria. The emotional use is colloquial and creates a sense of camaraderie (Lakoff 1974: 347), which does not seem appropriate for the types of unique referents found in the Itinerarium Egeriae, namely the Scriptures, God, the Lord, Moses and other solemn refer-ents. In fact, emotional demonstratives with these kinds of referents this/that Lord,


(229) Cum autem iam transierint septem septimanae, when but now pass-by-PRF.3PL seven-INDECL week-NOM.PL superat illa una septimana paschalis, remain-PRS.3SG ille-NOM.SG one-NOM.SG week-NOM.SG paschal-NOM.SG quam hic appellant septimana maior REL.ACC.SG here call-PRS.3PL week-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG

nd] the Paschal week is left,

As will become clear in Section 6.2.7, however, it is not clear whether ille is a definite article or a demonstrative in this and similar examples.

6.2.5 Generic Referents

Like new referents, generic referents always show a bare NP. There are 45 noun phrases tagged with givenness status KIND173 in the Itinerarium Egeriae. As I pointed out in Section 2.3.3, demonstratives are not appropriate with generic referents.174 Definite articles, on the other hand, are. As we saw in Section 2.3.4, it has been argued that a demonstrative has not become a definite article until it has generic uses (Krámský, 1972). In other words, ille and ipse, one may argue, are not definite articles in the Itinerarium Egeriae. I take the view, however, that a linguistic item must not show all the uses of a definite article to be a definite article in some of its occurrences (see Section 2.3.4 above). Therefore, the fact that generic referents never show an ille/ipse NP is not in itself an argument against attributing to ille and ipse a definite article status in some occurrences. There are, however, other arguments against labelling ille and ipse definite articles, as will become clear in Section 6.3.3.

these/those Scriptures seem to have negative connotations, implying that the speaker har-bours some negative feelings about the referent. Egeria certainly has no negative feelings about any aspects of Christianity. Another possible reason for (previously mentioned) unique refer-ents not showing emotional demonstratives in the Itinerarium Egeriae is that the tracking function of the demonstratives is still visible (see Section 6.3.6.1 below). 173 Recall from Chapter 3.1.3 that KIND is the givenness status tag used for generic referents. 174 Again, emotional demonstratives are exceptions (these Germans are really organised!). Yet demonstratives with generics are obviously not possible to Egeria (with rare anaphoric excep-tions, see Section 6.3.6.1 below).



Referents that are present in the immediate situation175 show the following dis-tribution of full NPs:

Table 41: Full NPs used for ACC_SIT referents


Bare NP 3 15.8 % Hic NP 8 42.11 % Ipse NP 2 10.53 % Is NP 1 5.26 % Iste NP 5 26.32 %

The use of bare NPs with reference to referents that are present in the im-mediate situation may seem odd at first sight since it is normally demonstratives that refer to referents that are present in the immediate situation. However, in (230), for instance, the referent is indeed identifiable through presence in the immediate situation:

(230) [...] et sic cepimus egredere de ecclesia. Tunc

and thus begin-PRF.1PL go.out-INF from church-ABL.SG then autem qui erant loci notores, but REL.NOM.PL be-IMPF.3PL place-GEN.SG knowing-NOM.PL id est presbyteri uel monachi sancti, that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG priest-NOM.PL and monk-NOM.PL holy-NOM.PL dixerunt nobis: Si uultis uidere loca, quae say-PRF.3PL we-DAT if want-PRS.2PL see-INF place-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL scripta sunt in libris Moysi, accedite written-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL in book-ABL.PL Moses-GEN approach.IMP.2PL foras hostium ecclesiae [...] outside door-ACC.SG church-GEN.SG

the priests and holy monks

175 Givenness status ACC_SIT in the PROIEL annotation.


are mentioned in the books of Moses, come out of the door of the church

In this passage, Egeria and her company are in the process of leaving the church. The church is present in the immediate situation. It has been mentioned

her journey (sic cepimus egredere de ecclesia), but it has not been previously mentioned in the direct speech, in the conversation between Egeria, the priests and the monks. The church is therefore identifiable to Egeria and her company, not by previous mention, but by virtue of presence in the immediate situation.

Moreover, Table 41 shows that iste NPs occur five times. As I said in Section 6.2.2, the examples in which the iste NP has the givenness status ANCHORED are all found in direct speech, and the same holds true for the anaphoric occurrenc-es (see also Section 6.3 below). In other words, iste NPs occur exclusively in direct speech in the Itinerarium Egeriae (as observed by Nocentini 1990: 146; Christol 1994: 146; Fruyt 2003: 117). In Classical Latin, iste c-y

the Romance languages, on the other hand, iste176 has developed into a proximal / first person demonstrative. In the Itinerarium Egeriae, too, iste appears to be a proximal demonstrative, as Trager (1932: 16), Väänänen (1987: 48), Christol (1994: 146) and Fruyt (2003: 117) observe. In (231), for instance, it is clear that only a proxi-mal reading of iste makes sense:

(231) perueni ad id est

reach-PRF.1SG to city-ACC.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Et tunc retulit michi de ipsa

Batanis-NOM and then tell-PRF.3SG I-DAT from ipse-ABL.SG aqua sic sanctus episcopus

p

water-ABL.SG thus holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG saying-NOM.SG Quodam tempore, posteaquam scripserat Aggarus certain-ABL.SG time-ABL.SG after write-PLUPRF.3SG Abgar-NOM rex ad Dominum et Dominus rescripserat king-NOM.SG to Lord-ACC and Lord-NOM write.back-PLUPRF.3SG Aggaro per Ananiam cursorem, sicut scriptum Abgar-DAT through Ananias-ACC courier-ACC.SG as written-NOM.SG

176 More precisely, istu(m) reinforced by ecce/-u(m).


est in ipsa epistola: transacto ergo aliquanto be-PRS.3SG in ipse-ABL.SG letter-ABL.SG passed-ABL.SG then some-ABL.SG tempore superueniunt Persae et girant time-ABL.SG come-PRS.3PL Persian-NOM.PL and surround-PRS.3PL ciuitatem istam. city-ACC.SG that-ACC.SG Then, I came to a city whose name is Batanis. Then the holy bishop told y y p

to the Lord, and the Lord had answered King Abgar by Ananias the cou-rier, as it is written in the letter, when some time had passed, the Per-sians came agains (Itin. XIX.1 8)

The bishop and Egeria are both in Batanis at this point, and it makes no sense to interpret ciuitatem istam

p

city. Rather, istam proximal demonstrative.

Proximal demonstratives are apparently more flexible than medial ones in that they can act as tracking devices in narrative texts outside of direct speech, as shown e.g. for the proximal (pronominal) demonstrative hic in Classical Latin by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994) and Bolkestein (2000). Thus, since iste in the Itinerarium Egeriae is a proximal demonstrative, it should in principle be ap-propriate in certain tracking uses outside direct speech too, but it is not. Is this a property of iste in the Itinerarium Egeriae only, or does it hold in general for the period in which the Itinerarium Egeriae was written?

The situation appears to be the same in JeromeBible.177 Here too, iste functions as a proximal demonstrative, but only in direct speech. Evidence that iste is a proximal demonstrative in the Vulgate can be found in the following example, for instance:

(232) Qui respondens ait illis: Generatio

REL.NOM.SG answering-NOM.SG say-PRS.3sg ille-DAT.PL generation-NOM.SG mala et adultera signum quaerit: et evil-NOM.SG and adulterous-NOM.SG sign-ACC.SG seek-PRS.3SG and signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum sign-NOM.SG not give-PRS.PASS.3SG that-DAT.SG unless sign-NOM.SG

177 Provided that the dating of the Itinerarium Egeriae to the late fourth or early fifth century is correct, the Vulgate is coeval with the Itinerarium Egeriae. Jerome was born around 347 and died in 420 AD.


Ionae prophetae. Sicut enim fuit Ionas in Jonas-GEN prophet-GEN.SG as for be-PRF.3SG Jonas-NOM in ventre ceti tribus diebus, et tribus belly-ABL.SG whale-GEN.SG three-ABL day-ABL.PL and three-ABL noctibus, sic erit Filius hominis in corde night-ABL.PL thus be-FUT.3SG son-NOM.SG man-GEN.SG in heart-ABL.SG terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus. earth-GEN.SG three-ABL day-ABL.PL and three-ABL.PL night-ABL.PL Viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio cum man-NOM.PL Nineveh-GEN rise-FUT.3PL in judgement-ABL.SG with generatione ista generation-ABL.SG that-ABL.SG

seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the p p y

the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with (Matthew 12:39 41)

Generatione ista refers to this generation, which is that of Jesus also, and it makes no sense to take ista is, iste is a proximal demonstrative not only to Egeria, but also to Jerome. Alt-hough it has lost its medial feature, it is still apparently restricted to direct speech. Further investigation is needed, however, to determine whether these properties of iste hold in general for the Latin of around 400 AD.

Hic NPs too can refer to a referent that is present in the immediate situation. I have argued that iste functions as a proximal demonstrative in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Adnominal hic too must be a proximal demonstrative.178 Consider (233):

(233) Tunc dixit nobis ipse sanctus presbyter:

then say-PRF.3SG we-DAT ipse-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG priest-NOM.SG In hodie hic hortus aliter non appellatur in today this-NOM.SG garden-NOM.SG otherwise not call-PRS.PASS.3SG greco sermone nisi copos tu agiu Iohanni, Greek-ABL.SG language-ABL.SG unless

178 In Section 5.3.4 I argued that pronominal hic is a proximal demonstrative in the Itinerari-um Egeriae.


id est quod uos dicitis Latine that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG REL.ACC.SG you-NOM.PL say-PRS.2PL in.Latin hortus sancti Iohannis. garden-NOM.SG holy-GEN.SG John-GEN y

this day than copos tu agiu Iohanni in the Greek language, or as you say in Latin, hortus sancti Iohanniss (Itin. XV.3)

so a proximal interpretation of hic not only makes sense, it is the only possible one. A distal reading would imply that the garden is not close to the speaker and the addressee, and a medial reading would imply that the garden is close to the addressee, but not the speaker, which is clearly not the case. In sum, hic is a proximal demonstrative, contrary to the assumption of Trager (1932: 14), that hic often does not show a clear dis

y-p

- Itinerar-ium Egeriae.

In sum, then, there are two demonstratives expressing proximity in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. Is there any difference between hic and iste? Iste occurs only in direct speech, a restriction to which hic is not subject. In other words, whereas only hic is found in narrative passages, both hic and iste appear in direct speech, sometimes even in the same sentence without a clear difference in meaning, as in (234):

(234) Tunc ait ille sanctus presbyter: Ecce hic

then say-PRS.3SG ille-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG priest-NOM.SG behold here est in ducentis passibus. Nam si uis, be-PRS.3.SG in two.hundred-ABL.PL pace-ABL.PL for if want-PRS.2SG ecce modo pedibus duco uos ibi. Nam behold now foot-ABL.PL lead-PRS.1SG you-ACC.PL there for haec aqua tam grandis et tam pura, this-NOM.SG water-NOM.SG so big-NOM.SG and so pure-NOM.SG quam uidetis in isto uico, de REL.ACC.SG see-PRS.2PL in that-ABL.SG village-ABL.SG from ipso fonte uenit. ipse-ABL.SG spring-ABL.SG come-PRS.3SG pp pp

if you wish, I will now lead you there on foot. This large and pure stream of


(Itin. XV.1)

The water and the village are proximal both to the bishop and to Egeria, so haec and isto both expre

p p

semantic difference between hic and iste, as they are both proximal. The differ-ence between them lies in their different functions that iste is reserved for direct speech, whereas hic appears outside direct speech as well.

6.2.7 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles in their Non-Anaphoric Uses?

Having seen the distribution of the full NPs with referents that are not men-tioned previously in the discourse, in this section, we address the question as to whether ille and ipse are definite articles in their non-anaphoric uses.

As we saw in Table 41 above, ipse NPs are used twice to refer to a referent that is present in the immediate situation. One example is the following:

(235) accedite foras hostium ecclesiae

come.out-IMP.2PL outside door-ACC.SG church-GEN.SG et de summitate ipsa attendite et and from summit-ABL.SG ipse-ABL.SG look.IMP.2PL and see.IMP.2PL Come out of the door of the church, and from that/the summit, from the

side on which they are (Itin. XII.3)

A common use of demonstratives is to refer extra-linguistically to referents that are present in the immediate situation. Ipse, then, may be a demonstrative here. On the other hand, there is only one church present in the immediate situation, y p

second part of do not make your contribution more informative

than is required ipsa seems best analysed as a definite article, although a demonstrative analysis is also possible.

In addition to the two occurrences in which an ipse NP refers to a referent that is present in the immediate situation, ipse NPs and ille NPs occur when the referent is ANCHORED, generally known or inferable. In these cases too, the cor-rect categorial label of ille and ipse is hard to determine.

As Section 6.2.2 showed, the ANCHORED referents are of two types: they may y y y


(236) and (237):

(236) Lecto ergo ipso loco omni read-ABL.SG then ipse-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG whole-ABL.SG de libro Moysi from book-ABL.SG Moses-GEN When the/that whole passage from the book of Moses had been rea

(Itin. III.5 6)

(237) [...] uadent in Syon orare ad columnam illam, go-PRS.3PL in Sion-INDECL pray-INF at column-ACC.SG ille-ACC.SG ad quem flagellatus est Dominus. at REL.ACC.SG scourged-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG Lord-NOM

When the referent is generally known, it is by definition present in the address-(229) above, repeated here as (238), and in (239):

(238) [...] superat illa una septimana paschalis,

begin-PRS.3SG ille-NOM.SG one-NOM week-NOM.SG paschal-NOM.SG quam hic appellant septimana maior

p

REL.ACC.SG here call-PRS.3PL week-NOM.SG greater-NOM.SG That/the one Paschal week is le

(Itin. XLVI.5)

(239) legitur ille locus de euangelio, read-PRS.PASS.3SG ille-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG from gospel-ABL.SG ubi eadem die Dominus in eodem loco, where same-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG Lord-NOM in same-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG ubi ipsa ecclesia nunc in Syon est, where ipse-NOM.SG church-NOM.SG now in Sion-INDECL be-PRS.3SG clausis ostiis ingressus est discipulis [...] shut-ABL.PL door-ABL.PL entered-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG disciple-DAT.PL

el is read where the Lord, on the same day, and in the same place where that/the church now stands in Sion, came p


In examples like the ones in (236) through (239), definite articles and demon-stratives are both possible, but the intended referent is identifiable without a

do not make your con-tribution more informative than is required suggests a definite article reading in these examples. On the other hand, since the requirements for the use of a demonstrative n-strative reading is possible as well. When the referent is already present in the p y p

in Himmel-Ille and ipse seem to be inherently ambiguous between a

definite article reading and a demonstrative reading in the non-anaphoric oc-pn-

strative by virtue of not being necessary for the identification of the referent can easily be perceived as redundant and become reanalysed as a definite arti-cle in this context.

In example (227) above, the ANCHORED referent is not present in the address-ps (240):

(240) Multi autem et ex ipsis monachis sanctis,

many-NOM.PL but also of ipse-ABL.PL monk-ABL.PL holy-ABL.PL qui ibi commanebant iuxta aqua ipsa, REL.NOM.PL there dwell-IMPF.3PL near water-ABL.SG ipse-ABL.SG qui tamen potuerunt imponere sibi REL.NOM.PL however can-PRF.3PL undertake-INF REFL.DAT.SG laborem, dignati sunt nobis-cum ascendere labour-ACC.SG deigned-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL we-ABL-with ascend-INF montem Nabau. mountain-ACC.SG Nebo-INDECL Many of the holy monks also who dwelt by that water, and who could y y y

(Itin. XI.3)

As I pointed out in Section 2.3.3, in this and similar examples in which there is a restrictive relative clause, demonstratives can be used although the referent is

179 On the other hand, here too, the refer-

179 But they are perhaps not properly l


quantity do not make your contribution more informative than is requiredwould suggest a definite article reading. Nonetheless, a demonstrative is possi-ble as well, and we can analyse ipse either as a demonstrative or as a definite article.

In the following example an ipse NP refers to an inferable referent:

(241) At ubi autem sexta hora se fecerit, but when but sixth-NOM.SG hour-NOM.SG REFL.ACC.SG make-PRF.3SG sic itur ante Crucem, siue pluuia siue thus go-PRS.PASS.3SG before cross-ACC.SG whether rain-NOM.PL or estus sit, quia ipse locus heat-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG because ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG subdiuanus est, id est quasi open.to.the.air-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG almost atrium ualde grandem et pulchrum satis, court-NOM.SG very big-ACC.SG and beautiful-NOM.SG very quod est inter Cruce et Anastase. REL.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG between cross-ABL.SG and Anastasis-ABL And when the sixth hour has come, they go before the Cross, whether it

be in rain or in heat, that/the place being open to the air, as it were, a court of great size and of some beauty between the Cross and the Ana-

(Itin. XXXVII.4)

s-sary for the addressee to identify the referent. Demonstratives are often as-sumed not to be possible in indirect anaphora. It has been argued, however, that demonstratives are in fact possible (see Section 2.3.3), and we saw an infer-able is NP in (228) above. Whether or not a demonstrative is possible in indirect anaphora depends on whether the referent from which the referent is inferred

Section 6.2.3 above). In (241), I believe, ante Crucem creates a representation in pn-

strative is therefore possible. Then again, the reference seems clear without a p do not make your contribu-


suggests a definite article reading of ipse.180

In sum, ille and ipse are commonly ambiguous in their non-anaphoric oc-currences, suggesting that the non-anaphoric uses of ille and ipse NPs are pos-sible contexts in which the definite articles originated. What allows for the rea-nalysis181 of ille and ipse as definite articles in these contexts is the fact that a demonstrative is possible, but crucially not necessary for the identification of the referent. Since the demonstrative is not necessary, the addressee may readily perceive it as superfluous and reanalyse it as a definite article.

6.3 Anaphoric Use of the Full NPs

So far, we have seen that the full NPs have certain non-anaphoric uses. Never-theless, with the exception of the bare NPs, they are most frequently anaphoric. In this section, I discuss the anaphoric use of the full NPs. Table 42 shows the numbers of occurrences of each full NP in the Itinerarium Egeriae:182

Table 42: Full NPs used for anaphoric reference in the Itinerarium Egeriae183


Bare NP 1074 78.34 % Hic NP 31 2.26 % Idem NP 26 1.90 % Ille NP 55 4.01 % Ipse NP 133 9.70 % Is NP 52 3.79 %

180 In Section6.3.2.5 I will argue that locus often requires a demonstrative in order to make reference clear. This, however, seems mostly to hold for locus in non-subject functions, that is, the cases in which the place in question constitutes background information. 181 Reanalysis is a mechanism of syntactic change which changes the underlying structure of a syntactic pattern and which does not involve any modification of its surface manifestation (Harris & Campbell 1995: 50). 182 Iste NPs occurs only four times, and they are restricted to direct speech. I therefore leave the iste NPs out of the following discussion. 183 As some full NPs are excluded from the discussion in this chapter (see the introduction to the present chapter), the numbers in this table do not add up to the number of full NPs in Table 12 in Chapter 4.

Anaphoric Use of the Full NPs 285

It is hard to find any clear tendencies with respect to the variables influenc-ing accessibility and/or the choice of anaphoric expression. Nevertheless, espe-cially one factor favours the choice of a demonstrative NP, namely animacy status non-HUMAN. The classification tree in Figure 52 sees all the variables in relation to each other. It shows that animacy = HUMAN or non-HUMAN is the most important predictor for the choice between the full NP anaphors. As we can see, the selected anaphor is almost always a bare NP if the animacy status is HUMAN, whereas a demonstrative NP is more likely to appear if the animacy status is non-HUMAN.


Figure 52: Classification tree for the full NP anaphors


In particular, especially animacy = PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE favours the pres-ence of a demonstrative in the noun phrase. Consider Figure 53:

Figure 53: Distribution of the full NPs across the animacy categories in the Itinerarium Egeri-ae184

184 The numbers do not add upp to the numbers in Table 42 on page 298 because not all noun phrases contain information about animacy.


The CONCRETE group admittedly shows fewer demonstrative NPs than PLACE and TIME.185 The reason for discussing CONCRETE together with PLACE and TIME is that in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae, the CONCRETE referents are often similar to the PLACE referents in that they refer to the sights and attractions Egeria visits during her journey, as in (242) and (243): (242) Nam ipsa ciuitas aliam aquam penitus non

for ipse-NOM.SG city-NOM.SG other-ACC.SG water-ACC.SG at.all not habet nunc nisi eam, quae de palatio have-PRS.3SG now unless that-ACC.SG REL.NOM.SG from palace-ABL.SG exit, quae est ac si fluuius ingens go.out-PRS.3SG REL.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG as if river-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG argenteus. Et tunc retulit michi de ipsa of.silver-NOM.SG and then tell-PRF.3SG I-DAT about ipse-ABL.SG aqua sic sanctus episcopus dicens: water-ABL.SG thus holy-NOM.SG bishop-NOM.SG saying-NOM.SG y p y

l-ace, which is like a great silver river. Then the holy bishop told me about

(243) [...] et trans uallem apparebat mons and across valley-ACC.SG appear-IMPF.3SG mountain-NOM.SG

sanctus Dei Syna. [...] Vallis autem ipsa holy-NOM.SG God-GEN Sinai-INDECL valley-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG ingens est ualde [...] great-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG very y

that valley is II.1)

Ipsa aquaa (242) is tagged as CONCRETE, and uallis ipsaain (243) as PLACE. Nevertheless, they are both in a sense places Egeria visits and describes in her journal.

Moreover, not only PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE, but, more precisely, PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae favour the choice of a

185 PLACE shows 45.28 % demonstrative NPs , TIME 39.08 % and CONCRETE 24.18 %. In compari-son HUMAN shows 3.83 % demonstrative NPs, NONCONC 9.7 %, and ORG 8.97 %. VEH and ANIMAL are so few it hardly makes sense to discuss them. In part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae, CON-CRETE shows no demonstrative NPs, as shown in Figure 54 below.


demonstrative NP (see Trager 1932; Lapesa 1961; Nocentini 1990 on the differ-ences between part one and part two). Consider Figure 54:

Figure 54: Distribution of the full NPs across the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one, respectively part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae


As we can see, PLACE and CONCRETE show highly significantly more demonstrative NPs in part one than in part two (p<0.0001 in both cases, two-sided Fisher test). TIME as well shows a significantly higher number of demonstrative NPs in part one than in part two, albeit less so than PLACE and CONCRETE (p=0.02148, two-sided Fisher test). Since we find the demonstrative NPs mainly in part one, I will be concerned primarily with the use of the full NPs with animacy status PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one.

6.3.1 Animacy Status PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in Part One

In part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae, the animacy category CONCRETE shows 59.95 % bare NPs, PLACE 48.52 % and TIME only 33.33 %. Among the demonstra-tive NPs, the ipse NPs are particularly frequent, but ille NPs and is NPs are rela-tively frequent too, as we can see in Table 43:

Table 43: Full NPs in the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one of the Itinerar-ium Egeriae



Although the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one often show a demonstrative NP, this is not always the case. The noun phrases marked as PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE show few clear tendencies with respect to the varia-bles influencing accessibility and/or the choice of anaphoric expression. Some variables, however, do have an effect on the choice between the full NPs,186

186 The same variables hardly have any effect within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part two of the Itinerarium Egeriae, as will become clear in Section 6.3.4.


namely topicality of the antecedent and the anaphor, syntactic function and antecedent form. Hence, I discuss these variables here.

6.3.1.1 Antecedent Topicality187 The choice between the full NPs correlates with antecedent topicality

-squared test). Figure 55 shows the distribution of forms used for topical and non-topical antecedents, respectively.

187 It makes no difference whether we consider as topics only the topics of the same or im-mediately preceding sentence; Topic antecedents in the same or previous sentence do not differ from topical antecedents in general (p=0.882, two-sided Fisher test) with respect to the distribution of the full NPs.


Figure 55: Full NPs used for topical, respectively non-topical, antecedents within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae


When the antecedent is a topic, the percentage of bare NPs is 32.35. When the antecedent is non-topical, on the other hand, the percentage of bare NPs in-creases to 50.18. In other words, a demonstrative NP is more likely to occur when the antecedent is a topic.

In particular, ipse NPs are more frequent when the antecedent is a topic. The choice between an ipse NP and a bare NP correlates significantly with ante-p

-squared test). The choice between an ipse NP and another demonstrative NP does not significantly correlate with

-squared test). That is to say, ipse NPs are preferred to the other demonstrative NPs both when the antecedent is a topic and when the antecedent is not a topic, but the relative frequency of ipse NPs and the other demonstrative NPs is constant, meaning that all the demon-strative NPs are more likely to occur when the antecedent is a topic.

In sum, the demonstrative NPs are more frequent when the antecedent is a topic than when it is not. Ipse NPs are most frequent among the demonstrative NPs, and the demonstrative NPs show no internal differences with respect to antecedent topicality.

6.3.1.2 Anaphor Topicality The topicality of the anaphor itself, too, influences the choice between the full NPs (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). Consider Figure 56:


Figure 56: Full NPs used in topic, respectively non-topic function, within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae


The choice between an ipse NP and a bare NP correlates significantly with the p-squared test). As we can

see, the preferred topic expressions are the ipse NPs; in topic function ipse NPs are significantly more frequent than bare NPs, albeit barely so (p=0.04109).

Regarding the other demonstrative NPs, we see that idem NPs and is NPs are altogether absent in topic function. The reason why the is NPs are never topics is that they occur mostly in expressions of the type preposition + is + PLACE (see Section 6.3.2.5 below). Idem NPs are never topics either, and occur in the same kinds of expressions as the is NPs: preposition + idem + TIME/PLACE. Is NPs and idem NPs are bad topic candidates because they are typically low in the hierar-chy of syntactic functions and because animacy status is not HUMAN. Although there is no one-to-one-relationship between subjects and topics (as I pointed out in Section 2.2.1.5), non-subjects are not as good topic candidates as subjects, especially when the animacy status is not HUMAN.

Hic NPs show the same tendency as ipse NPs to occur in topic functions. In fact, the choice between hic NPs and ipse NPs does not differ significantly de-pending on topicality (p=0.3771, Fisher test). That is to say, hic NPs too are cho-sen more frequently in topic functions than in non-topic functions. The same holds for the relation between ipse NPs and ille NPs. The choice between an ipse NP and an ille NP does not depend significantly on topicality (p=0.3024, Pear-

-squared test). In sum, if the anaphor itself is a topic, there is a better chance of encounter-

ing a demonstrative NP than if the anaphor is a non-topic. The exceptions are the is NPs and the idem NPs.

6.3.1.3 Syntactic Function of the Anaphor Albeit barely so, the syntactic function of the anaphor correlates significantly with the choice of anaphoric expression (p=0.04928, two-sided Fisher test). Consider Figure 57:


Figure 57: Full NPs used in subject, respectively non-subject functions, within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae


The choice between a bare NP and an ipse NP correlates significantly with the syntactic function of the anaphor itself (p=0.000403, two-sided Fisher test). Whereas bare NPs are preferred to the ipse NPs in non-subject functions (p<0.0001, chi-squared test), there is no significant difference between bare NPs and ipse NPs in subject function (p=0.6473, chi-squared test).

Of the other demonstrative NPs, hic NPs, like ipse NPs, are preferred in sub-ject function. The choice between an ipse NP and a hic NP does not correlate significantly with syntactic function (p=0.1347, two-sided Fisher test). That is, the relative frequency of hic NPs and ipse NPs is constant. Both hic NPs and ipse NPs are more likely to occur in subject function than in other syntactic func-tions. Ille NPs, too, are more frequent in subject function. There is no significant difference between ille NPs and ipse NPs depending on the syntactic function of the anaphor (p=0.7998, two-sided Fisher test).

Is NPs, on the other hand, are less frequent in subject function than in non-subject functions. The choice between an ipse NP and an is NP depends signifi-cantly on syntactic function (p=0.00657, two-sided Fisher test). In other words, compared to the ipse NPs, the is NPs are significantly less frequent in subject function than in non-subject functions. Idem NPs are altogether absent in sub-ject function, as we can see.

6.3.1.4 Form of the Antecedent Finally, the form of the antecedent is of some importance for the choice between the full NPs; the choice between the full NPs correlates significantly with the form of the antecedent (p=0.01162, two-sided Fisher test). Figure 58 shows the distribution of the full NPs for full NP antecedents and overt pronominal ante-cedents. pro antecedents and antecedents that are neither pronominal nor nom-inal are so few in number that it makes no sense to discuss them.188 The fact that pro antecedents are rare is expected since pro antecedents are very highly ac-cessible and hence more likely to be picked up by a high accessibility marker, that is, a pronoun, and not by full NPs, which are low accessibility markers.

188 There are four pro antecedents and six antecedents that are neither pronominal nor nomi-nal.


Figure 58: Full NPs used for overt pronominal, respectively full NP, antecedents within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae


The choice between a bare NP and an ipse NP is significantly dependent on p-squared test). As we can

see, when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form, ipse NPs are apparently preferred, but the difference between ipse NPs and bare NPs / ille NPs, the sec-ond most frequent forms, is not significant (p=0.1655, chi-squared test). When the antecedent is a full NP, on the other hand, the bare NPs are significantly more frequent than the ipse NPs (p<0.0001, chi-squared test). Ille NPs too are more frequently used when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form, as shown by the fact that the choice between an ipse NP and an ille NP shows no significant correlation with antecedent form (p=0.7389, two-sided Fisher test).

The choice between an is NP and a bare NP shows no significant correlation with the form of the antecedent (p=0.5868, Fisher test). The idem NPs show no clear tendencies with respect to antecedent form either, as shown by the fact that the choice between a bare NP and an idem NP does not significantly de-pend on the form of the antecedent (p=0.2288, two-sided Fisher test). Finally, hic NPs are altogether absent when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form.

In sum, whereas ille and ipse are more likely to occur when the antecedent is a pronominal form, idem NPs and is NPs show no clear preference, whereas hic NPs only occur if the antecedent is a full NP.

6.3.2 Interim Summary

In the preceding discussion, we saw that some factors are more likely than oth-ers to induce the choice of a demonstrative NP over a bare NP when animacy status is PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae. This sec-tion summarises the factors favouring each of the demonstrative NPs.

6.3.2.1 Ipse NPs The factors that are more likely than others to induce the choice of an ipse NP are the following: – Antecedent topic – Anaphor topic – Anaphor subject – Overt pronominal antecedent

In sum, an ipse NP is more likely to be the selected anaphor when the anteced-ent is relatively highly accessible (i.e. a topical overt pronoun), and when the


referent continues to be relatively highly accessible, i.e. when the anaphor itself is a topic in subject function.

6.3.2.2 Ille NPs Ille NPs show the same tendencies as the ipse NPs in being more likely to occur in the following contexts: – Antecedent topic – Anaphor topic – Anaphor subject – Overt pronominal antecedent

6.3.2.3 Hic NPs Hic NPs are rarer than ipse NPs and ille NPs, but share with them the property of being more likely to occur when: – The antecedent is a topic – The anaphor is a topic – The anaphor is a subject

Contrary to the ipse NPs, however, hic NPs never occur when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form; the antecedent is a full NP in all the occurrences of hic NPs.

In sum, ipse NPs, ille NPs and hic NPs are all more likely to occur when the referent is relatively highly accessible, and when the anaphor continues this relatively highly accessibility, that is when there is topic continuity.

6.3.2.4 Idem NPs The idem NPs and is NPs differ from the ipse NPs, ille NPs and hic NPs in certain respects. Idem NPs are more likely to occur in the following contexts: – Antecedent topic – Anaphor non-topic – Anaphor non-subject

The idem NPs are insensitive to antecedent form. Whereas ipse NPs, ille NPs and hic NPs are more likely to occur in subject and topic functions, the idem NPs are never subjects and never topics. The idem NPs, in fact, mostly occur in ex-


pressions of the type preposition + idem + PLACE/TIME noun in the entire Itinerar-ium Egeriae, not just in part one. The following are examples:

(244) Multos enim sanctos monachos uidebam inde

many-ACC.PL for holy-ACC.PL monk-ACC.PL see-IMPF.1SG thence uenientes in Ierusolimam ad uisenda coming-ACC.PL in Jerusalem-ACC to see-GERUNDIVE.ACC.PL loca sancta gratia orationis, qui place-ACC.PL holy-ACC.PL sake-ABL.SG prayer-GEN.SG REL.NOM.PL singula referentes de eisdem locis [...] everything-ACC.SG referring-NOM.PL about same-ABL.PL place-ABL.PLFor I used to see many holy monks coming thence to Jerusalem to visit

the holy places for the sake of prayer, who, giving information of every-y p p (Itin. XIII.1)

(245) Ac tertia die perueni ad ciuitatem,

and third-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG arrive-PRF.1SG to city-ACC.SG quae appellatur Seleucia Hisauriae. Ubi cum REL.NOM.SG call-PRS.PASS.3SG Seleucia-NOM Hisauria-GEN where when peruenissem, fui ad episcopum uere sanctum ex arrive-PLUPRF.1SG be-PRF.1SG to bishop-ACC.SG truly holy-ACC.SG from monacho, uidi etiam ibi ecclesiam ualde monk-ABL.SG see-PRF.1SG also there church-ACC.SG very pulchram in eadem ciuitate. beautiful-ACC.SG in same-ABL.SG city-ABL.SG On the third day I arrived at a city which is called Seleucia in Hisauria;

on my arrival I went to the bishop, a truly holy man, formerly a monk, y p y y y

6.3.2.5 Is NPs Like the idem NPs, is NPs are more likely to occur in the following contexts: – Antecedent topic – Anaphor non-topic – Anaphor non-subject – The is NPs too are insensitive to the form of the antecedent.


The fact that the is NPs are better in non-topic and non-subject functions is a reflex of their special use in the Itinerarium Egeriae: Trager (1932: 13) observes that adnominal is locus in the phrase eo loco. Väänänen (1987: 25 26) goes as far as to say that this type of expression is equivalent to an adverb (see also Fruyt 2003: 106; Nocentini 1990: 144). Of the anaphoric is NPs in part one, 26 are occurrences of eo loco. Since there are 33 anaphoric is NPs in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one, as Table 43 above shows, is NPs actually show a strong preference for the phrase eo loco. A typical example of eo loco is the following:

(246) Locus etiam ostenditur ibi iuxta, ubi

place-NOM.SG also show-PRS.PASS.3SG there near where stetit sanctus Moyses, quando ei stand-PRF.3SG holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM when that-DAT.SG dixit Deus: Solue corrigiam calciamenti tui say-PRF.3SG God-NOM l oose.IMP latchet-ACC.SG shoe-GEN.SG your-GEN.SG et cetera. Et in eo ergo l oco cum and rest-NOM.PL and in that-ABL.SG then place-ABL.SG when peruenissemus, [...] arrive-PLUPRF.1PL The spot is also shown there where holy Moses stood when God said to

him: Loose the latchet of thy shoe, and the rest. Now when we had ar- (Itin. IV.8)

Note that eo loco is the complement of a preposition. Is seems to be the default demonstrative with locus in the function of complement of a preposition, espe-cially after in. Is locus, in fact, occurs exclusively as the complement of a prepo-sition. Not only eo loco, but more specifically, preposition + eo loco (or eum locum) seems therefore to be a fixed expression. In these constructions, the is NP is syntactically an oblique argument. Moreover, obliques are not the best topic candidates. From this follows the fact that is NPs are more likely to occur in non-topic and non-subject functions.

Trager attributes the preference of is NPs for the phrase eo loco n-p p

is is not very marked in the adjec- 13). What Trager means by this claim is not clear. He

does not seem to take is as a definite article (which, as far as I can see, would be is a

n-


stratives rather than definite articles. In any case, there seems to be no indica-tion of adnominal is being anything else than a demonstrative in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Rather, is NPs are found in contexts where a definite article would not be appropriate, as will become clear in the following discussion.

We can account for the presence of a demonstrative in in eo loco phrases in terms of . The less accessible the referent is, the more informative an expression is required. The referent is not very accessible in the in eo loco cases. As I mentioned in Section 2.2.2.2, the head noun of the anaphoric noun phrase may indirectly affect accessibility. General nouns like locus

p y y ys

more specific one. The number of possible referents of a noun phrase of course depends on the discourse; there need not be a high number of potential refer-ents of locus or English place in a given discourse. If the entire discourse is about one place, this is the most accessible of other possible places, and by the place, the addressee can infer with a high degree of certainty that the intended referent is the place that is mentioned. In the Itinerarium Egeriae, on the other p

went further until we rea-

tive NP is employed instead of a definite NP when there is special reason for it y make your con-

tribution as informative as is requiredy

2.2.4 in the present book), it is possible to sustain that a demonstrative NP is necessary whenever the head noun is of such general character that it makes several referents possible, provided there are several referents available in the narrative.189 Since locus makes several other referents available, a demonstrative is required as a means of indicating that the intended referent is the place that is recently mentioned, and not some other place.190

The assumption that locus necessarily occurs with a demonstrative is sup-ported by the fact that it is practically never bare in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Admittedly, there are some bare locus in the Itinerarium Egeriae. However, of 25

189 Similarly, according to Selig (1992: 186), some form of determination is necessary in Clas-sical Latin with empty nouns like locus and tempus. See also the discussion of time expres-sions in Section 6.3.3.2 below. 190 This holds true, at least, for locus (and other general nouns) in non-subject functions. The situation may be different in subject function, when the place is not only part of the back-ground information, but what the clause in question is about (but not necessarily what the sentence is about, and hence not necessarily a topic in the sense topic is used here) (see ex-ample (241) above).


anaphoric bare locus, 16 occur as arguments of aptus, often in conjunction with diei as another argument of aptus. Consider the following example:

(247) Sane dominica die per pascha post

truly of.the.Lord-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG at Easter-ABL.SG after missa lucernarii, id est de dismissal-ABL.SG lucernare-GEN.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG from Anastase, omnis populus episcopum cum Anastasis-ABL.SG all-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG bishop-ACC.SG with ymnis in Syon ducet. Ubi cum uentum hymn-ABL.PL in Sion-INDECL escort-PRS.3SG there when come-NOM.SG fuerit, dicuntur ymni apti diei be-PRF.3SG say-PRS.PASS.3PL hymn-NOM.PL suitable-NOM.PL day-DAT.SG et loco

y

and place-DAT.SG plucernare, that

is, at the Anastasis, all the people escort the bishop with hymns to Sion. y (Itin.

XXXIX.5)

Aptus loco et diei seems to be a fixed expression in most of its occurrences, loco and diei resembling non-specific n

pp

expression is identified with the place in question is actually not important, and a demonstrative is not required to make the reference clear.

Now, why is it is that is used with locus in prepositional phrases and not any of the other demonstratives?191 Is does not survive in the Romance lan-guages, and as I pointed out above in Section 5.2, in a text showing several non-Classical Latin features, I would expect is to be rarer than it actually is. As Renzi

192 but fluctuates between the Classical Latin norms and new norms, as shown for example by the adnominal use of is (see also Nocentini 1990). The use of is as the non-subject counterpart to pro detected in Chapter 5

jis in

the construction preposition + eo loco seems also to be Classical in nature; is is

191 Anaphoric ipse NPs occur twice in in ipso loco. Ille NPs appear once in ad illum locum, idem NPs occur as de eodem loco four times and in eodem loco once. Hic NPs are never complements of prepositions. 192

pLatino reale .


apparently the preferred demonstrative in prepositional phrases with locus in Classical Latin narrative as well.193 Hence, the in eo loco type of expression may be a relic of Classical Latin.

Having identified the factors that are more likely to induce the choice of a demonstrative NP in part one when animacy status is PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE, the question arises as to why it is that the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE tend to show demonstrative NPs more than the other animacy catego-ries in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae.

6.3.3 Possible Reasons for the Tendency of PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE to Show Demonstrative NPs in Part One

With the exception of the is NPs and the idem NPs which share with the other demonstrative NPs the single property of occurring more easily when the ante-cedent is a topic the demonstrative NPs are more likely to occur if the ante-cedent is a topic and a subject and if the anaphor itself continues the relatively high accessibility by itself being a topic in subject function. Ipse NPs and ille NPs are also more likely to occur when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form than a full NP. The hypothesis is therefore that PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE show these properties more often than the other animacy categories in part one.

There is, however, no significant difference between PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE, on the one hand, and the other categories, on the other, regarding the topicality

-squared test). PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE does not differ from the other categories either with respect to the tendency of the anaph

g p y-

squared test). Also regarding the form of the antecedent, whether it is a full NP or an overt

pronominal form, there is no significant difference between PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE, on the one hand, and the other animacy categories, on the

-squared test). As regards the syntactic function of the anaphor, there is significant differ-

ence between PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE, on the one hand, and the other animacy

193 I have checked Caesar s Gallic War, and in/ab/ex eo loco are the regular expressions. Ille, for instance, never occurs in these expressions. Nor do we find any instance of preposition + bare loco/locum either, providing further support for the hypothesis that locus needs a demon-strative. The Gallic War is comparable to the Itinerarium Egeriae in that many different places are involved and talked about.


categories on t -squared test). Consider Figure 59:

Figure 59: Syntactic function of the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE NPs, respectively other noun phrases, in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae194

However, we saw that the demonstrative NPs in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group are more likely to occur in subject function than in other syntactic functions.195 That is, if it were PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE that showed subject anaphors more fre-quently than the other groups, differences in syntactic function could possibly account for the fact that PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE shows demonstrative NPs more frequently than the other categories. The fact that the other animacy categories show subject anaphors more frequently than PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE, however, cannot.

To sum up, there are no differences between PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE and the other animacy categories with respect to the features that have been shown to favour the presence of a demonstrative NP within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE

194 FALSE = non-subject, TRUE = subject. 195 With the exception of the idem NPs and is NPs.


group. Another possible reason for PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE showing demonstrative NPs more frequently than the other animacy categories is that there are more referents that cannot appropriately be referred to by a demonstrative NP in the latter categories.

6.3.3.1 Are there Other Types of Referents in the Other Animacy Categories? As we saw in Section 2.3.3, demonstratives cannot appropriately refer to unique referents (Himmelmann 1996).196 And, as already mentioned, nor do unique referents show a definite article in the early stages of development of the defi-nite article since languages tend to mark pragmatic definiteness before seman-tic (i.e. inherent) definiteness (Napoli 2009) or as Leiss (2007: 88) points out, at the beginning of the development of the definite article, definiteness is not marked whenev

p

In 11 occurrences, the referent of a NONCONC noun phrase is the Scriptures, which are uniques, and hence not appropriately referred to by a demonstrative, nor by a definite article in its early stages. Since a demonstrative NP would not be possible in these occurrences, we can exclude them from the group of bare NPs to see if they were responsible for the low proportion of demonstrative NPs in this animacy category. Yet the NONCONC group still shows 84.62 % bare NPs and only 15.38 % demonstrative NPs, which is a significantly lower proportion of demonstrative NPs than the proportion of demonstrative NPs shown by PLACE, CONCRETE and TIME (p=0.001756, chi-squared test).

The referent of the HUMAN noun phrases is often a unique referent too. First, the referent is God in 63 occurrences, and the Lord in 16. Furthermore, the refer-

hence not appropriately referred to by a demonstrative NP. Thus, excluding the occurrences of God, the Lord and the sons of Israel from the HUMAN bare NPs, the number of bare NPs with animacy status HUMAN is lower. Yet the percentage of bare NPs among the HUMAN noun phrases is still 82.86 and thus significantly higher than the percentage of bare NPs in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group (p=0.002736, chi-squared test).

196 Emotional demonstratives are theoretically possible with unique referents. However, the unique referents in the Itinerarium Egeriae do not appear to be candidates for emotional demonstratives, as I pointed out in Section 6.2.4 above (footnote 172) and as we will also see in Section 6.3.3.3.


So far, we have seen that PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE show no properties that are not shared by the other animacy categories,197 and even if we exclude those referents to which a demonstrative NP from the other animacy categories cannot refer, the proportion of bare NPs is still higher in the latter categories than in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE categories. Since PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE are no different than the other animacy categories, we cannot attribute the greater frequency of demonstrative NPs with PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE to some property or properties that PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE show more frequently than the other animacy categories.

Is it possible that animacy status PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE in itself is respon-sible for the higher frequency of demonstratives in these categories? First, let us discuss the TIME category, in which I believe that the demonstrative NPs are tracking devices necessary for the identification of the referent.

6.3.3.2 Animacy Status = TIME: Demonstratives as Tracking Devices As I argued with regard to locus in Section 6.3.2.5, also points and periods of time seem often to require a demonstrative, not only in the Itinerarium Egeriae, but in general. The point here too is that general nouns like hora, dies and tem-pus make several possible referents available, more so than a specific noun like, say, uallis. In a narrative like the Itinerarium Egeriae, whose structure is such y

with the use of dies, for instance, there are several possible referents available in the text, contrary to what is the case with uallis, for example. The second part y

make your contribution as informative as is required ee Gundel et al. 1993 as well as Section 2.2.4 in the present book), accounts for the presence of a demonstrative in examples like (248) and (249): (248) Vidimus etiam in extrema iam ualle ipsa

see-PRF.1PL also in outermost-ABL.SG now valley-ABL.SG ipse-ABL.SG memorias concupiscentiae, in eo tamen loco, grave-ACC.PL craving-GEN.SG in that-ABL.SG however place-ABL.SG in quo denuo reuersi sumus ad iter in REL.ABL.SG anew returned-NOM.PL be-PRS.1PL to journey-ACC.SG

197 We will see that there is indeed something special about TIME referents in that they gener-ally seem to require a demonstrative, but regarding the variables discussed so far in this sec-tion (6.3.3), there is nothing special about TIME (nor PLACE or CONCRETE) as compared to the other animacy categories.


Nam etiam ipsa die accessimus et ad our-ACC.SG for also ipse-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG reach-PRF.1PL also to ceteros monachos ualde

y

other-ACC.PL monk-ACC.PL very holy-ACC.PL y y

where we resumed our route. On that day we came up to the other very

(249) In ea ergo die et in ea hora,

In that-ABL.SG then day-ABL.SG and in that-ABL.SG hour-ABL.SG qua auerterant Persae aquam, statim REL.ABL.SG divert-PLUPRF.3PL Persian-NOM.PL water-ACC.SG immediately hii fontes, quos uides in eo this-NOM.PL fountain-NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL see-PRS.2SG in that-ABL.SG loco, iusso Dei a semel eruperunt: place-ABL.SG bidding-ABL.SG God-GEN from once burst.forth-PRF.3PL ex ea die hi fontes usque in from that-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG this-NOM.PL fountain-NOM.PL until in hodie permanent hic gratia Dei. today remain-PRS.3PL here favour-ABL.SG God-GEN y

the fountains which you see ibidding, and by the favour of God they remain here from that day to y

The referent of die would not be identifiable without ipsa, respectively ea:198 * A demonstrative is necessary in order to signal to the addressee y

by virtue of recent previous mention in the text. In sum, the demonstratives are necessary tracking devices with the TIME referents. In the next section, it will become clear that another explanation can account for the tendency of the demonstrative NPs to occur in the PLACE and CONCRETE categories.

198 Nor would it be clear if ipsa were analysed as a definite article only signalling the defi-niteness of the noun phrase. The point is that a more informative demonstrative is necessary.


6.3.3.3 Animacy Status = PLACE/CONCRETE: Demonstratives as Emotional Devices / Discourse Prominence Markers

It is first and foremost ipse NPs that are used as alternatives to bare NPs when animacy status is PLACE or CONCRETE. The PLACE and CONCRETE group show 78 ipse NPs, 30 is NPs, 28 ille NPs, 15 hic NPs and 8 idem NPs. The is NPs mostly show one specific use (see Section 6.3.2.5 above). Hic and idem NPs are not particular-ly frequent, and do not call for a special explanation. It is thus primarily the high frequency of ipse NPs, and partly ille NPs, in the animacy categories PLACE and CONCRETE that needs to be accounted for.

The high frequency of ipse NPs may be an indication of there being some-thing special about adnominal ipse. The tempting explanation, of course, is that ipse is a definite article. Since ille has also given rise to definite articles in the Romance languages, definite article is a possible analysis of ille as well, alt-hough ille NPs are less frequent than ipse NPs.

Not only are the ipse NPs particularly frequent, but ipse often seems redun-dant. That is, ipse does not seem strictly necessary for the identification of the referent, as I have suggested the demonstratives to be with TIME referents. Con-sider the following example:

(250) Vallis autem ipsa ingens est ualde,

valley-NOM.SG but ipse-NOM.SG great-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG very iacens subter latus montis Dei lying-NOM.SG under slope-ACC.SG mountain-GEN.SG God-GEN [23 words omitted]. Ipsam ergo uallem nos trauersare

ipse-ACC.SG then valley-ACC.SG we-NOM cross-INF habebamus, ut possimus montem ingredi. have-IMPF.1PL so.that can-PRS.1PL mountain-ACC.SG go.in-INF

mount of God. We had, therefore, to cross the/that valley in order to

There is only one valley present in the context, and there should be little doubt that the intended referent of ipsam uallem is the aforementioned valley. Thus, a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. A definite article analysis of ipse in this and similar examples is therefore tempting accord-y

do not make your contribu-tion more informative than is required.

Moreover, if we take ipse and ille to be definite articles, the ipse and ille NPs like the bare NPs would be simple, definite NPs. By considering ille NPs and


ipse NPs together with the bare NPs, the number of demonstrative NPs in the animacy categories PLACE/CONCRETE would not be higher than the number of demonstrative NPs in the other animacy categories. PLACE/CONCRETE would show 53 demonstrative NPs 16.92 %, and there would be nothing special about PLACE and CONCRETE, as it were. However, we would still have to account for the fact that it is primarily the categories PLACE and CONCRETE that show ille and par-ticularly ipse NPs. There seems to be no typological evidence for definite articles showing a preference for these categories, neither in their early stages of devel-opment, nor when they are fully developed.

A demonstrative analysis of ipse and ille, on the other hand, can account for the tendency of PLACE and CONCRETE to show demonstrative NPs. More precisely, an analysis of ille and ipse as emotional demonstratives can account for this tendency, since by assuming that the demonstratives are tracking devices, we would not be able to account for their preference for PLACE and CONCRETE. In-deed, CONCRETE referents, one may argue, are more prone to demonstrative ref-erence

y png demonstrative necessary

for the identification of the referent than at least abstract (NONCONC) referents are. That book seems to be more generally acceptable than, say, that love. That love is indeed possible, but, I believe, only if the love is concreticised, as in that love he showed you, where reference is to the concrete acts through which he showed his love. To speak of that love as a truly abstract entity does not seem possible. Nevertheless, why would humans be less likely than concrete entities p y

demonstrative? It seems perfectly appropriate to speak of that man, for instance. Therefore, ille and ipse cannot primarily be tracking demonstratives.

A demonstrative nevertheless seems to be necessary for the identification of the referent in some occurrences, for instance in (251):

(251) Multos enim sanctos monachos uidebam inde

many-ACC.PL for holy-ACC.PL monk-ACC.PL see-IMPF.1SG thence uenientes in Ierusolimam ad uisenda loca coming-ACC.PL to Jerusalem-ACC to see.GERUNDIVE.ACC.PL place-ACC.PL sancta gratia orationis, qui singula holy-ACC.PL sake-ABL.SG prayer-GEN.SG REL.NOM.PL everything-ACC.PL referentes de eisdem locis fecerunt telling-NOM.PL about same-ABL.PL place-ABL.PL make-PRF.3PL magis desiderium imponendi michi more.ADV desire-ACC.SG undertake-GERUNDIVE.GEN.SG I-DAT


laboris, ut etiam usque ad illa loca labour-GEN.SG that also until to ille-ACC.PL place-ACC.PL accederem. reach-IMPF.1SG

the holy places for the sake of prayer, who, giving information of every-thing concerning those places, increased my desire to undertake the toil p

As I pointed out in the discussion of in eo loco expressions in Section 6.3.2.5, general nouns like locus make several referents available, and may therefore call for a demonstrative to signal that the intended referent is in fact the place p

make your contribution as informative as is required I believe a demon-y

Demonstratives, as mentioned in Section 2.3.3, have certain emotional uses,

and ille and ipse, then, seem primarily to be emotional devices in the PLACE and CONCRETE categories in part one. Emotional uses are more free uses of the demonstratives in that their presence is not motivated by a need for making reference clear, and emotional demonstratives occur where tracking demonstra-tives are not possible, or would b do not make your contribution more informative than is required (252) is an ex-ample of an ipse NP, (253) of an ille NP.

(252) Haec est ergo uallis, ubi celebrata

this-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG then valley-NOM.SG where celebrated-NOM.SG est pascha completo anno profectionis be-PRS.3SG Easter-NOM.SG fulfilled-ABL.SG year-ABL.SG departure-GEN.SG filiorum Israhel de terra Egypti, quoniam in son-GEN.PL Israel-INDECL from land-ABL.SG Egypt-GEN because in ipsa ualle filii Israhel commorati ipse-ABL.SG valley-ABL.SG son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL abode-NOM.PL sunt aliquandiu [...] be-PRS.3SG for.some.time

valley where the Passover was celebrated when one year had been fulfilled after that the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt. For the children of Israel abode in that valley for some y


(253) Hae autem ciuitates omnes, quas uidebamus, in this-NOM.PL but city-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL see-IMPF.1PL in montibus erant positae, infra autem modice mountain-ABL.PL be-IMPF.3PL placed-NOM.PL below but little deorsum planior locus nobis uidebatur. Tunc down flatter-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG we-DAT see-IMPF.3SG then dictum est nobis, quia in isdem diebus, said.NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG we-DAT because in same-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL qua sanctus Moyses uel filii Israhel contra when holy-NOM.SG Moses-NOM or son-NOM.PL Israel-INDECL against illas ciuitates pugnauerant, castra ibi fixa ille-ACC.PL city-ACC.PL fight-PLUPRF.3PL camp-ACC.PL there set.up-ACC.PL habuissent: have-PLUPRF.3PL

n mountains, but a little below them the ground seemed to be flatter. Then we were told that in the days when holy Moses and the children of Israel had fought against y y

As in (250) above, a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent in either of these examples. There is only one valley present in the con-text in (252), and only the aforementioned valley is a possible referent of ipsa ualle. The same holds true for (253). There are no other cities present in the con-text, and only the aforementioned cities are the possible referent of illas ciui-tates.

On the view that not only the ille and ipse NPs, but the other demonstrative NPs, too,199 are emotional demonstrative NPs, the frequent use of demonstrative NPs with PLACE and CONCRETE in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae follows quite p q

c-

discourse participants share some relevant knowledge or emotion about the referent of the demonstrative The discourse participants in this case, I believe, do share some emotion about the referents of the demonstrative NPs; not only Egeria herself, but her acquaintances at home, to whom she addresses her jour-nal, are probably just as enthusiastic about these places and sights as Egeria is. At least Egeria assumes them to share this enthusiasm with her.

199 Except for the is NPs in the in eo loco constructions.


Not all the referents occurring with a demonstrative are known to the ad-dressee in advance, however. In other words, shared knowledge is not always involved. The valley leading up to Mount Sinai in (250), for instance, which frequently shows a demonstrative NP, is introduced as a new referent in its first mention.200 Yet in later mentions the valley is indeed known to the addressee, and the speaker and the addressee share both emotion and knowledge about the referent. Note furthermore that the places and sights are important in Ege-p

can be considered markers of not only emotion, but also of discourse prominence. This is in accordance with the claim by Epstein (1993: 129), that demonstratives serve as markers of atten-tion and are discourse prominence markers.201 As discourse prominence mark-ers, the demonstrative NPs are different from the prototypical emotional use of demonstratives exemplified in sentences like this Obama is really a great guy, where the referent is new in the discourse and obviously

y not discourse

prominent. I do not believe that emotional demonstratives y

at least not as dis-course prominence markers are necessarily restricted to discourse-new refer-ents, as proposed by Wolter (2006: 83).202

The fact that the demonstrative NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae are more like-ly to occur when the referent is relatively highly accessible (when the anteced-ent is a topic, ipse and ille NPs also when the antecedent is an overt pronominal form, see Section 6.3.2 above), is a further argument in favour of the demonstra-tive NPs signalling discourse prominence. By assuming that the demonstratives are discourse prominence markers, we can explain why it is PLACE and CONCRETE that show demonstrative NPs, and not the other animacy categories. The prom-inent and important entities in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae are the places and sights, not the humans, for instance.

There is an apparent problem with the analysis of the demonstratives as emotional demonstratives, however. As I said in Section 2.3.3, emotional demonstratives are generally possible where demonstratives are normally not possible, for instance with unique referents. The demonstrative NPs in the Itin-erarium Egeriae, however, are not used with unique referents, either anaphori-

200 [...] peruenimus ad quendam locum, ubi se tamen montes illi, inter quos ibamus, aperiebant et faciebant uallem infinitam, ingens, planissima et ualde pulchram in Itin. I.1. 201 Similarly, Diessel (2006) argues in favour of demonstratives as markers of the speaker and addressee s

yjoint attentional focus .

202 The use of emotional demonstratives with proper names, on the other hand, may be subject to a discourse-new constraint. I do not, however, discuss this possibility any further here.


cally or non-anaphorically. This may be because the unique referents in the Itinerarium Egeriae are of such a nature that an emotional demonstrative would be inappropriate, as I suggested earlier (in footnote 172 in Section 6.2.4). Moreo-ver, the emotional use, I believe, derives from the tracking use, and the tracking function may still be visible in the anaphoric examples.203 Consider (254), for instance:

(254) Heroum autem ciuitas, quae fuit illo

Hero-NOM but city-NOM.SG REL.NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG ille-ABL.SG tempore, id est ubi occurrit Ioseph time-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG when meet-PRF.3SG Joseph-NOM patri suo Iacob uenienti, sicut father-DAT.SG POSS.REFL.DAT.SG Jacob-INDECL coming-DAT.SG as scriptum est in libro Genesis, nunc est written-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in book-ABL.SG Genesis-GEN now be-PRS.3SG comes, sed grandis, quod nos dicimus comes-NOM.SG but big-NOM.SG REL.ACC.SG we-NOM say-PRS.1PL uicus. Nam ipse uicus ecclesiam village-NOM.SG for ipse-NOM.SG village-NOM.SG church-ACC.SG habet et martyria et monasteria plurima have-PRS.3SG and martyrdom-ACC.PL and cell-ACC.PL many-ACC.PL sanctorum monachorum, ad quae singula holy-GEN.PL monk-GEN.PL to REL.ACC.PL each-ACC.PL uidenda necesse fuit nos ibi see.GERUNDIVE-ACC.PL necessary-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG we-ACC there descendere iuxta consuetudinem, quam alight-INF in.accordance.with custom-ACC.SG REL.ACC.SG tenebamus. Nam ipse uicus nunc hold-IMPF.1PL for ipse-NOM.SG village-NOM.SG now appellatur call-PRS.PASS.3SG Hero-INDECL The city of Hero, which existed at the time when Joseph met his father

Jacob as he came, as it is written in the book of Genesis, is now a comes, though a large one a village as we say. That village has a church and martyr-memorials, and many cells of holy monks, so that we had to

203 Similarly, Carlier & de Mulder (2010: 253) state, [a] strict separation between referential y

.


alight to see each of them, in accordance with the custom which we had. That village is 8)

The motivation for the presence of ipse here is due mostly to emotion and dis-course prominence because a demonstrative is not strictly speaking necessary for the identification of the referent. At the same time, however, it is also possi-ble to see a tracking function of ipse, namely as an element which explicitly signals that the intende

p y p y

memory because it has been mentioned previously in the text, and not some other uicus. In other words, the tracking function of the demonstratives may still be visible. This, then, can account for the absence of demonstratives with, among others, unique referents. But in general, the demonstrative NPs are emo-tional devices that are not necessary for the identification of the referent. Since they are not necessary for the identification of the referent, the addressee may readily perceive the demonstratives as superfluous or redundant.

Since the emotional demonstratives are likely to be perceived by the ad-dressee as superfluous insofar as they are not necessary for the identification of the referent, the transition into a definite article is easily accounted for. In sum, it seems that emotion, expressivity and discourse prominence may play a more important role in the development of the definite article than has been recog-nised in much of the literature concerned with the development of the Lat-in/Romance definite articles, with the notable exceptions of Trager (1932, as well as Lapesa 1961 and Adams 1967, following Trager) and Epstein (1993; 1994; 1995; 2001).

So far, I have not discussed why it is mainly ipse NPs that are found in this function. The answer may be that ipse is especially preferred in these emotional / expressive / discourse prominence uses because of its original intensifier meaning. Intensifiers are not tracking devices, but express some sort of emotion in their expressing remarkability/unexpectedness/centrality. Hence, the fact that ipse expresses a kind of emotion in its original use, may have made ipse the most suitable emotional demonstrative / discourse prominence marker in the Itinerarium Egeriae. If it is the original intensifier meaning of ipse that makes ipse the preferred discourse prominence marker in the Itinerarium Egeriae, one might argue that ipse is an intensifier rather than a demonstrative in these us-es.204 However, as I argued in Section 6.1, adnominal ipse is generally not an

204 Vincent (1997; 1998), in fact, focuses on the original topic marking function of ipse as the origin of ipse as a definite article, and assumes a development directly from intensifier into


intensifier because a contrast with another referent that is less central / less remarkable / less unexpected than the intended referent can hardly be seen in the examples of adnominal ipse. In other words, although ipse is not properly an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae, its original intensifier meaning may have made ipse the most suitable marker of emotion / expressivity / discourse prominence.

In sum, we can account for the use of the demonstrative NPs, first and foremost ipse NPs and ille NPs, with PLACE and CONCRETE referents as an emo-tional use of the demonstratives, as a wish for explicitly signalling discourse prominence. But at the same time, the tracking function of the demonstratives may be visible in some occurrences, and may account for the fact that the demonstratives never occur with, for instance, unique referents.

6.3.4 Animacy Status PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in Part Two

As we have already seen (in Figure 54 on page 289), there are fewer demonstra-tive NPs within these categories in part two than in part one.205 In part two, PLACE shows 75.71 % bare NPs, TIME 64.1 %, and CONCRETE 100 %. Table 44 shows the distribution of forms:

Table 44: Full NPs used when animacy status is PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE in part two of the Itin-erarium Egeriae



definite article. Hence, according to him, ipse would have to be an intensifier in the uses dis-cussed here. 205 The idem NPs are exceptions, occurring 10 times in part one and 16 in part two. This dif-ference is not significant (p=0.2393, chi-squared test).


The occurrences of each of the demonstrative NPs are few, and the full NPs in part two are not sensitive to the same variables as in part one.206 The excep-tion is the form of the antecedent (p<0.0001, two-sided Fisher test). The distri-bution of the full NPs across various antecedent forms is not very revealing, however. In the vast majority of cases, the antecedent of the demonstrative NP is a full NP, and the demonstrative NPs occur only occasionally when the ante-cedent is not a full NP, as we can see in Table 45:

Table 45: Antecedent form in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part two of the Itinerarium Ege-riae207

pro Full Pronominal

Full NP Other

Bare NP 0 3 184 0 Hic NP 0 0 3 0 Idem NP 0 1 15 0 Ille NP 1 0 11 3 Ipse NP 0 0 24 0 Is NP 0 0 8 3

There are only three occurrences of hic NPs with PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE referents in part two. In all of them, the referent is a time expression. In (255) the demonstrative is a necessary tracking device (see Section 6.3.3.2 above on time expressions):

(255) In Bethleem autem per totos octo

in Betlehem-INDECL but throughout all-ACC.PL eight-INDECL dies cotidie is ornatus est et day-ACC.PL everyday that-NOM.SG festal.array-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG and ipsa laetitia celebratur a presbyteris ipse-NOM.SG joyfullness-NOM.SG celebrate-PRS.PASS.3SG by priest-ABL.PL

206 Antecedent topicality p=0.7862, anaphor topicality p=0.9357, anaphor subject or not p=0.4048 (two-sided Fisher tests). 207 The numbers do not add up to the numbers in Table 44 because not all noun phrases have information about the antecedent (see Chapter 3).


et ab omni clero ipsius loci et a and by all-ABL.SG clergy-ABL.SG ipse-GEN.SG place-GEN.SG and by monazontes, qui in ipso loco deputati monk-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL in ipse-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG appointed-NOM.PL sunt. [31 words omitted] episcopum necesse est be-PRS.3PL bishop-ACC.SG necessary-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG hos dies semper i n Ierusolima tenere. this-ACC.PL day-ACC.PL always in Jerusalem-ABL keep-INF And in Bethlehem also throughout the entire eight days the feast is cel-

ebrated with similar festal array and joyfulness daily by the priests and by all the clergy there, and by the monks who are appointed in that place. It is necessary that the bishop should always keep these days in p

(Itin. XXV.12)

In the other two examples, however, hic seems redundant, even though the referent is a time expression: (256) Et hoc per scripturas sanctas

and this-NOM.SG through scripture-ACC.PL holy-ACC.PL inuenitur, quod ea dies sit find-PRS.PASS.3SG that that-NOM.SG day-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG enceniarum. [21 words omitted] Hi ergo dies dedication-GEN.PL this-NOM.PL then day-NOM.PL enceniarum cum uenerint, octo diebus dedication-GEN.PL when come-PRF.3PL eight-INDECL day-ABL.PL attenduntur. keep-PRS.PASS.3PL p

so the day of dedication. So when these days of dedication are come, they are kept for

(Itin. XLVIII.2 XLIX.1) This example differs from (255). The head noun is the general noun dies, which, as I have argued, needs a demonstrative, but the noun phrase is modified by enceniarum. Hence, there should be no doubt as to what is the intended refer-ent. Since there is no need for a demonstrative as a means of making the refer-ence clear, hic is an emotional demonstrative.208

208 Another possibility is that hic is a definite article, but there seems to be no evidence of hic ever being a definite article.


The is NPs typically occur in expressions of the type preposition + is + locus, as they do in part one (see Section 6.3.2.5 above), or in time expressions. (257) is an example of the former, (258) of the latter:

(257) Haec operatio cotidie per dies sex

this-NOM.SG order-NOM.SG everyday throughout day-ACC.PL six-INDECL ita habetur ad Crucem et ad Anastasim. thus have-PRS.PASS.3SG at cross-ACC.SG and at Anastasis-ACC Septima autem die, id est seventh-ABL.SG but day-ABL.SG that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG dominica die, ante pullorum cantum of.the.Lord-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG before cock-GEN.PL song-ACC.SG colliget se omnis multitudo, assemble-PRS.3SG REFL.ACC.SG whole-NOM.SG multitude-NOM.SG quaecumque esse potest in eo loco [...] all.that-NOM.SG be-INF can-PRS.3SG in that-ABL.SG place-ABL.SG

p

Day, the whole multitude assembles before cockcrow, in as great num-bers as that 8)

(258) Qui locus at ubi lectus fuerit,

REL.NOM.SG place-NOM.SG but when read-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG tantus rugitus et mugitus est so-great-NOM.SG moaning-NOM.SG and groaning-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG totius populi, ut nullus sit, qui whole-GEN.SG people-GEN.SG that none-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG REL.NOM.SG moueri non possit in lacrimis in ea move-INF.PASS not can-PRS.3SG in tear-ABL.PL in that-ABL.SG hora. hour-ABL.SG And when the passage has been read, there is such a moaning and

groaning of all the people that no one can help being moved to tears at (Itin. XXXIV.1)

Likewise, the idem NPs, as in part one, are used in expressions of the type

preposition + idem + PLACE/TIME:


(259) Sane quadragesimae de epiphania ualde cum truly fortieth-NOM.PL from epiphany-ABL.SG very with summo honore hic celebrantur. Nam highest-ABL.SG honour-ABL.SG here celebrate-PRS.PASS.3PL for eadem die processio est in same-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG procession-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in Anastase [...] Anastasis-ABL The fortieth day after the Epiphany is undoubtedly celebrated here y p p y y

(Itin. XXVI.1)

The ille and ipse NPs too, contrary to part one, where they are generally emotional demonstratives and not necessary for the identification of the refer-ent, are mostly found in time expressions where they are tracking demonstra-tives necessary for the identification of the referent, as I argued in Section 6.3.3.2:

(260) Et sic per illas tres horas1

and thus through ille-ACC.PL three-ACC.PL hour-ACC.PL docetur populus omnis nichil teach-PRS.PASS.3SG people-NOM.SG all-NOM.SG nothing-ACC.SG factum esse, quod non prius dictum sit, done-ACC.SG be-INF REL.NOM.SG not before said-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG et nichil dictum esse, quod non totum and nothing-ACC.SG said-ACC.SG be-INF REL.NOM.SG not wholly completum sit. Semper autem interponuntur fulfilled-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG always but intersperse-PRS.PASS.3PL orationes, quae orationes et ipsae prayer-NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL prayer-NOM.PL also ipse-NOM.PL apte diei2 sunt. [16 words omitted] nam nullus suitable-NOM.PL day-DAT.SG be-PRS.3PL for none-NOM.SG est neque maior neque minor, qui be-PRS.3SG neither bigger-NOM.SG nor smaller-NOM.SG REL.NOM.SG non i lla die2 illis tribus horis1 not ille-ABL.SG d ay-ABL.SG ille-ABL.PL three-ABL.PL hour-ABL.PL tantum ploret, quantum nec extimari potest [...] so.much lament-PRS.3SG as not conceive-INF.PASS can-PRS.3SG


And so through all those three hours the people are taught that nothing was done which had not been foretold, and that nothing was foretold which was not wholly fulfilled. Prayers also suitable to the day are inter-spersed throughout. For there is none, either great or small, who, on that day during those three hours, does not lament more than can be y

(Itin. XXXVII.6 7)

(261) Quarta feria autem et sexta feria, fourth-ABL.SG w eekday-ABL.SG but also sixth-ABL.SG weekday ABL.SG quoniam ipsis diebus penitus nemo ieiunat, in since ipse-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL entirely none-NOM.SG fast-PRS.3SG in Syon proceditur, sed mane; Sion-INDECL proceed-PRS.3SG but in.the.morning On the fourth and sixth weekdays, as no one fasts during those days,

the procession is ty

(Itin. XLI.1)

With the exception of (256), the demonstrative is necessary in all of the above-mentioned examples for the identification of the referent (as argued for general nouns like locus in Section 6.3.2.5 and for time expressions in Section 6.3.3.2). In sum, the demonstratives are not only less frequent in part two than in part one, in part one they are used superfluously as a means of signalling discourse prominence and emotion, while in part two, the demonstratives are tracking devices that are necessary to make the reference clear.

6.3.5 Animacy Status Other than PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE

So far, I have discussed the full NPs in the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE, because the demonstrative NPs are found primarily in these catego-ries. A brief overview of the full NPs in the other animacy categories, however, is in order. Although the demonstrative NPs are more frequent in part one than in part two of the text,209 I do not distinguish between part one and part two here, because the occurrences of demonstrative NPs in the animacy categories other than PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE are so few in both parts of the text.

Table 46 shows the distribution of the full NPs in the entire Itinerarium Ege-riae:

209 See Section 6.3.6 below for details.


Table 46: Distribution of full NPs in the animacy categories other than PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE


Bare NP 684 92.81 % Hic NP 11 1.49 % Idem NP 0 0 % Ille NP 8 1.09 % Ipse NP 28 3.80 % Is NP 6 0.81 %

As the table shows, of the demonstrative NPs, it is primarily ipse NPs that are used. Note furthermore that idem NPs are altogether absent. Since the demon-strative NPs are so few, it makes little sense to discuss them with respect to each of the variables assumed to influence accessibility and/or the choice of ana-phoric expression. Nor do the full NPs show clear tendencies with respect to these variables. Bare NPs are generally the preferred expressions, and are only occasionally substituted by a demonstrative NP. (262) and (263) are examples of demonstrative NPs:

(262) Tunc ergo quia retinebam scriptum esse

then thus because remember-IMPF.1SG written-ACC.SG be-INF baptizasse sanctum Iohannem in Enon iuxta baptise-INF.PRF holy-ACC.SG John-ACC in Aenon-INDECL near Salim, requisiui de eo, quam longe esset Salim-INDECL ask-PRF.1SG from that-ABL.SG how far.off be-IMPF.3SG ipse locus. Tunc ait ille sanctus ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG then say-PRF.3SG ille-NOM.SG holy-NOM.SG presbyter: priest-NOM.SG pThen, because I remembered that it was written that St. John had bap-

tized in Aenon near to Salim, I asked him how far off that place was. (Itin. XXIV.9 10)

(263) Et tunc ibi stat episcopus intro cancellos,

and then there stand-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG within rail-ACC.PL prendet euangelium et PRO-SUB accedet ad take-PRS.3SG gospel-ACC.SG and proceed-PRS.3SG to


hostium et leget resurrectionem Domini door-ACC.SG and read-PRS.3SG resurrection-ACC.SG Lord-GEN episcopus ipse. bishop-NOM.SG ipse-NOM.SG And then the bishop, standing within the rails, takes the book of the

Gospel, and proceeding to the door, that (the?) bishop reads the (narra-p p (Itin. XXIV.10)

In these examples, a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. The antecedent is close, there are no other priests, respectively bish-ops, present in the context, so it should be clear that reference is to the recently mentioned priest, respectively bishop. Ille and ipse are therefore best analysed as emotional demonstratives. Admittedly, they bear a strong resemblance to definite articles, and it may well be that they are definite articles in these and similar examples. The same apparently holds for the other examples in which a demonstrative NP refers to a HUMAN referent. Yet in general, anaphoric ille and ipse are demonstratives, as I argued in Section 6.3.3.3.

The referent is HUMAN in both (262) and (263). Apart from ipse NPs and ille NPs, demonstrative NPs are rare when the referent is HUMAN; we find only two hic NPs, and no is NPs. In (264) a hic NP refers to a NONCONC referent, and (265) is an example of an is NP used to refer to a NONCONC referent.

(264) Id enim nobis semper consuetudinis erat, ut

That.NOM.SG for we-DAT always custom-GEN.SG be-IMPF.3SG that ubicumque ad loca desiderata accedere uolebamus, whenever to place-ACC.PL desired-ACC.PL reach-INF want-IMPF.1PL primum ibi fieret oratio [18 words omitted] first there make-IMPF.PASS.3SG prayer-NOM.SG Hanc ergo consuetudinem iubente Deo this-ACC.SG then custom-ACC.SG bidding-ABL.SG God-ABL semper tenuimus [...] always keep-PRF.1PL For it was always our custom that, whenever we succeeded in reaching

the places we desired to visit, p(Itin. X.7)

(265) Ac sic ergo et ibi gratias Deo agentes

and thus then and there thank-ACC.PL God-DAT performing-NOM.PL


iuxta consuetudinem perexiuimus iter according.to custom-ACC.SG pursue-PRF.1PL journey-ACC.SG nostrum. Item euntes in eo itinere [...] our-ACC.SG likewise going-NOM.PL in that-ABL.SG journey-ABL.SG There too we gave thanks to God according to custom and pursued our

(Itin. XVI.2)

In sum, demonstrative NPs are rare when animacy status is not PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE. We find only hic NPs, ille NPs, is NPs and first and foremost ipse NPs. There are no occurrences of idem NPs. When the referent is HUMAN, almost exclusively ille NPs and ipse NPs are used. Ille and ipse seem generally to be emotional demonstratives.

6.3.6 Differences between Part One and Part Two of the Text

We have seen that demonstrative NPs are more frequent within the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one than in part two, which was my reason for concentrating on the full NPs with PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE referents in part one. Recall also that whereas the demonstratives are generally emotional devices in part one, in part two they are tracking devices necessary for the iden-tification of the referent.

As I mentioned in Section 6.3.5, the demonstrative NPs within the animacy categories other than PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE are more frequent in part one than in part two as well. HUMAN and ORG show significantly more demonstrative NPs in part one than in part two (p=0.01699 and p=0.0002152, respectively, two-sided Fisher test). NONCONC, however, shows no significant difference between the two parts (p=0.1508, two-sided Fisher test). Nevertheless, in sum, there is a general tendency for demonstrative NPs to be more frequent in part one than in part two, as Trager (1932) observes (see also Lapesa 1961; Nocentini 1990). Whereas in part one the percentage of bare NPs is 67.41 and demonstrative NPs 32.59, in part two the bare NP percentage is 87.8 as against 12.2 % for the demonstrative NPs. Different explanations apply to the TIME referents and the other referents, as will become clear in the following sections.


6.3.6.1 Why does TIME show More Demonstrative NPs in Part One than in Part Two?

I argued in Section 6.3.3.2 that TIME expressions generally require a demonstra-tive NP in order to make the reference clear. This holds true only when the refer-ence is to a specific point or period of time, however.

In part two, the nature of the points and periods of time is different than in part one. Part two is an account of the liturgy and rituals in Jerusalem (see Sec-tion 4.3.3). It is repetitive and generic in nature. That is, the structure is such

Reference of the TIME NPs is in most cases not to a specific point or period of time. Consider the following example:

(266) Postmodum mane sicut et semper dominica

afterwards in.the.morning as also always of.the.Lord-ABL.SG die proceditur et aguntur, quae day-ABL.SG proceed-PRS.PASS.3SG and do-PRS.PASS.3PL REL.ACC.PL dominicis diebus consuetudo est agi of.the.Lord-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL custom-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG do-INF.PASS [12 words omitted] Et similiter missa de ecclesia

and similarily dismissal-ABL.SG from church-ABL.SG facta ad Anastase itur cum ymnis, made-ABL.SG to Anastasis-ABL go-PRS.PASS.3SG with hymn-ABL.PL sicut semper dominicis diebus fit. as always of.the.Lord-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL do-PRS.PASS.3SG y y

s-ne. In like manner also when the dis-

missal from the church has been made, they go with hymns to the Ana-y g y

The noun phrase is tagged as OLD mentioned, but the reading is in fact generic, as implied also by the presence of semper

p y pr

Demonstratives are generally not appropriate with generic referents.210 ose

210 As I pointed out in Section 6.2.5 (footnote 174), emotional demonstratives are theoretically possible, but they are not to Egeria, as shown by the fact that the noun phrases with givenness status KIND invariably show bare NPs. As I suggested in Section 6.3.3.3, the fact that the track-ing function is still visible in the anaphoric use of the emotional demonstratives may account for their inappropriateness with uniques. We may account for their inappropriateness with


day-kind and the reading would not be generic anymore. In part one, none of the noun phrases tagged with animacy status TIME has this generic reading.

Note, however, that even in generic noun phrases a (tracking) demonstra-tive may appear if there is special reason for it

p a contrast with another referent

of the same kind, for instance:

(267) Dominicis autem diebus semper in Martyrio, of.the.Lord-ABL.PL but day-ABL.PL always in martyrium-ABL id est in ecclesia maiore, that-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG in church-ABL.SG greater-ABL.SG proceditur iuxta consuetudinem et inde proceed-PRS.PASS.3SG according.to custom-ACC.SG and thence itur ad Anastase cum ymnis. Quarta go-PRS.PASS.3SG to Anastasis-ABL with hymn-ABL.PL fourth-ABL.SG feria autem et sexta feria, quoniam weekday-ABL.SG but also sixth-ABL.SG weekday-ABL.SG since ipsis diebus penitus nemo ieiunat, in ipse-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL entirely none-NOM.SG fast-PRS.3SG in Syon proceditur, sed mane; Sion-INDECL proceed-PRS.PASS.3SG but in.the.morning p

is, to the great church, according to custom, and they go thence with hymns to the Anastasis. On the fourth and sixth weekdays, as no one fasts during those days, the procession is to Sion, but in the morning; g y p

(Itin. XLI.1)

demonstrative is necessary in order to make it clear that reference is to the last-y

mentioned earlier. The reference would not be clear without a demonstrative: * (268):

generics in the same way. An additional reason is that there is no emotion connected with the generic referents in Egeria s account, especially not in part two, which is an impersonal ac-count of the liturgy in Jerusalem.


(268) Item quinta feria aguntur ea de likewise fifth-ABL.SG weekday-ABL.SG do-PRS.PASS.3PL that-NOM.PL from pullo primo, quae consuetudinis est cockcrow-ABL.SG first-ABL.SG REL.NOM.PL custom-GEN.SG be-PRS.3SG usque ad mane ad Anastase; similiter ad tertia until to in.the.morning at Anastasis-ABL likewise at third-ABL.SG et ad sexta. Octaua autem hora iuxta and at sixth-ABL.SG eighth-ABL.SG but hour-ABL.SG according.to consuetudinem ad Martyrium colliget se custom-ACC.SG at Martyrium-ACC gather-PRS.3SG REFL.ACC.SG omnis populus, propterea autem temporius all-NOM.SG people-NOM.SG therefore but earlier quam ceteris diebus, quia citius missa than other-ABL.PL day-ABL.PL because sooner dismissal-NOM.SG fieri necesse est. Itaque ergo do-INF.PASS necessary-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG therefore then collecto omni populo aguntur, gathered-ABL.SG whole-ABL.SG people-ABL.SG do-PRS.PASS.3PL quae agenda sunt; fit REL.NOM.PL do-GERUNDIVE.NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL make-PRS.PASS.3SG ipsa die oblatio ad Martyrium et ipse-ABL.SG day-ABL.SG oblation-NOM.SG at Martyrium-ACC and facitur missa hora forsitan do-PRS.PASS.3SG dismissal-NOM.SG hour-ABL.SG perhaps decima ibidem. tenth-ABL.SG at.the.same.place On the fifth weekday everything that is customary is done from the first

cockcrow until morning at the Anastasis, and also at the third and at the sixth hours. But at the eighth hour all the people gather together at the martyrium according to custom, only earlier than on other days, be-cause the dismissal must be made sooner. Then, when the people are gathered together, all that should be done is done, and, the oblation is made on that day at the martyrium, the dismissal taking place about the y

Here too, because of the presence in the context of ceteris diebus a demonstra-tive is necessary to signal the contrast with the other days. The reference would y g y

e-


less, apart from such exceptional examples, demonstrative NPs are not possible with generic referents.

A demonstrative NP sometimes appears even when there is no contrast or other reason for the noun phrase to show a demonstrative, albeit only excep-tionally. Consider the following example:

(269) At ubi autem ceperit se mane facere

but when but begin-PRF.3SG REFL.ACC.SG morning-INDECL make-INF sabbato illucescente, offeret episcopus et sabbath-ABL.SG dawning-ABL.SG offer-PRS.3SG bishop-NOM.SG and facit oblationem mane sabbato. [140 words make-PRS.3SG oblation-ACC.SG in.the.morning sabbath-ABL.SG omitted] In Lazario autem cum uentum fuerit, ita

in Lazarium-ABL but when come-NOM.SG be-PRF.3SG thus se omnis multitudo colligit, ut REFL.ACC.SG whole-NOM.SG multitude-NOM.SG assemble-PRS.3SG so.that non solum ipse locus sed et campi omnes not only ipse-NOM.SG place-NOM.SG but also field-NOM.PL all-NOM.PL in giro pleni sint hominibus. in circle-ABL.SG full-NOM.PL be-PRS.3SG human.being-ABL.PL Dicuntur ymni etiam et antiphonae say-PRS.PASS.3PL hymn-NOM.PL also and antiphon-NOM.PL apti i psi diei et loco; suitable-NOM.PL ipse-DAT.SG day-DAT.SG and place-DAT.SG p y p

the oblation. And on arriving at the Lazarium, so great a multitude as-sembles that not only the place, but also the fields around, are full of people. Hymns and antiphons suitable to the day and to the place are p p y

5)

Here, there is no contrast as there was in (267) and (268) above to explain the presence of a demonstrative. Since demonstratives do not have generic refer-ence (with the exception of special cases like (267) and (268)), we can only ac-count for the presence of ipse by interpreting it as a definite article. Note also the parallel use of loco without a demonstrative. There seems to be no difference between diei and loco.

In sum, the TIME referents in part two show a demonstrative NP less fre-quently than in part one because reference is often generic in part two, cases in which a demonstrative NP is normally not possible.


6.3.6.2 Why do the Animacy Categories other than TIME Show More Demonstrative NPs in Part One?

So far, we have seen that the higher frequency of demonstrative NPs in the ani-macy category TIME in part one than in part two may be due to the fact that the TIME referents in part two are often of a different nature; they are frequently generic, in which case a demonstrative NP is hardly appropriate.

In the other animacy categories, on the other hand, the higher frequency of demonstrative NPs in part one than in part two is harder to account for. In Sec-tion 5.6 I accounted for the higher frequency of ipse in part one as a result of diglossia and the fact that Egeria in part one follows the norms of the popular p p p

the sublimity and importance of the content. A similar explanation may account for the higher frequency of demonstrative NPs in part one. However, the differ-ence here is not between new and Classical norms. I have argued that the demonstrative NPs in general are in fact demonstrative NPs, or more specifical-ly, the demonstratives are frequently emotional demonstratives, signalling dis-course prominence. Emotional demonstratives exist in Classical Latin too, so there are no new norms in this case. Emotional demonstratives are a feature of the spoken language, however, and part one is more colloquial than part two, not only in that Egeria follows the new norms of the spoken language, but also in that grammatical phenomena that are not new, but simply colloquial, are more frequent in part one. Moreover, as I pointed out in Section 6.3.3.3, what Egeria is enthusiastic about, what is prominent and important and hence can-didates for emotional demonstratives, are the places and sights she sees. These are described in part one. Hence, part one allows for more emotional demon-stratives than part two. Thus, even if part two part one, there would perhaps still be more demonstrative NPs in part one.

6.4 On Ille NPs and Ipse NPs as Heads of Restrictive Relative Clauses

As we saw in Section 1.1.2, it has been claimed that ille functionas as the head of (restrictive) relative clauses in Late Latin / the Itinerarium Egeriae. We saw above in Section 6.2.2 that ANCHORED referents sometimes show ille NPs, in which case the ille NP is the head of a restrictive relative clause. Ipse NPs, too, however, are used in this way.

Regarding the full NPs in general, irrespective of givenness status, when the noun phrase is the head of a relative clause, ipse NPs occur 22 times, ille NPs 47.

On the Contexts of Origin of the Definite Articles 331

Although Egeria uses ille NPs more frequently than ipse NPs, ipse NPs certainly occur as well. In sum, the view that ille introduces restrictive relative clauses and not ipse, is not entirely correct as far as the ille NPs and ipse NPs are con-cerned.

6.5 On the Contexts of Origin of the Definite Articles

In the present chapter, I have identified two possible contexts of origin of the definite article, namely the emotional / discourse prominence marking use of the demonstratives, and the non-anaphoric uses. As Section 1.1.4.1 showed, other views have been advanced as to the contexts of origin of the definite arti-cles.

Vincent (1998) mentions object dislocations as a context in which ipse through its topic marking function - could develop into a definite article, stating that dislocated objects frequently occur with ipse (more rarely ille). This, how-ever, does not hold true of the Itinerarium Egeriae. Initial objects, in fact, show ipse in only 5.08 % of the cases (and never ille).

Non-initial subjects are possible contexts of origin of the definite article ac-cording to Rosén (1994). In the Itinerarium Egeriae, however, ille and ipse are infrequent with non-initial subjects, occurring in 3.37 % and 4.33 % of the cases, respectively.211 I furthermore mentioned in Section 1.1.4.1 that Pieroni (2014) finds a tendency for post-verbal subject noun phrases to be marked by ille in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and she regards this context as important for the emergence of the definite article. Pieroni (2014: 4) finds 22 post-verbal subject NPs marked by ille. There are altogether 91 ille NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae (as shown in Table 36 on page 263 above). In other words, 69 ille NPs 75.82 % of the ille NPs

are found in other contexts. Since the majority of the ille NPs are not post-verbal subjects, we can hardly conclude on the basis of Egerian data that this particular context was of particular importance for the development of ille into a definite article. The data from the Itinerarium Egeriae does not support such claim with regard to ipse either. Of 178 ipse NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae (here too, see Table 36 above) only 24 13.48 % - are in fact post-verbal subjects.

Disregarding the position of the NP in the clause, we find that ille NPs most-ly occur in oblique (34.78 %) and subject function (34.78 %),212 less so in object function (15.22 %). Ipse NPs, too, are most frequent in oblique (36.52 %) and

211 Pieroni (2014), although she does not discuss the origin of the definite article, 212 The percentages are in fact equal.


subject function (31.46 %), and less so in object function (5.06 %). The data in the Itinerarium Egeriae, then, agree with Meyer- 1974: 216) view that y

6.6 Summary

I have discussed in this chapter the full NPs in the Itinerarium Egeriae. First, we saw that givenness status influences the choice between the full NPs. Whereas the bare NPs are used with all givenness statuses, the demonstrative NPs are more restricted. As regards the non-anaphoric uses, new (NEW and NON_SPEC) referents are invariably referenced by bare NPs. ANCHORED referents, on the other hand, allow for demonstrative NPs because the referent is present in the

ANCHORED referent is not present in the P is the selected expression in a few

cases; in these cases, the demonstrative is perhaps not [+DEMONSTRATIVE] at all. Moreover, we saw that not only ille NPs occur when the referent is ANCHORED, but also ipse NPs, an argument against the commonly held view that ipse is only anaphoric whereas ille is also non-anaphoric in Late Latin / the Itinerarium Egeriae. We saw furthermore that both an ille NP and an ipse NP can be the head of a relative clause, irrespective of givenness status. As regards the inferable NPs, they mostly show a bare NP. Yet we sometimes find a demonstrative NP, if the referent from which the inferable referent is inferred creates a representa-p

referents most frequently show a bare NP as well, which was accounted for by q y and the fact that these referents are often unique. The

generic referents always show bare NPs. Referents that are present in the imme-diate situation mostly show hic NPs or iste NPs, and I concluded that both hic and iste were proximal demonstratives that iste NPs are restricted to direct speech, it is hard to see a clear difference between hic NPs and iste NPs. Finally, I discussed whether ille and ipse are defi-nite articles in their non-anaphoric uses, and concluded that in most cases they may be, but do not have to be.

As regards the anaphoric use of the full NPs, we saw that the animacy cate-gories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE are the contexts in which a demonstrative NP is most likely to occur, especially in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae. Thus, I concentrated my discussion on these animacy categories in part one. The cases in which referents belonging to the categories PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE are more likely to show an ille NP, hic NP or ipse NP are cases in which the referent is relatively highly accessible and the anaphoric expression itself is a topic/and or

Summary 333

a subject. The idem NPs and is NPs are different, and show specific uses; is NPs prefer the phrase type preposition + is + locus; idem NPs are used in the expres-sion preposition + idem + PLACE/TIME. I accounted for the frequency of demon-strative NPs with TIME referents in part one as tracking use of the demonstra-tives, whereas the frequency of demonstrative NPs in particular ipse and ille NPs in the animacy categories PLACE and CONCRETE in part one was accounted for as emotional use of the demonstratives. In other words, ille and ipse are usually not definite articles, because on a definite article analysis we would not be able to account for the link that apparently exists between ille/ipse and ani-macy status PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE. The full NPs used in the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part two of the text are not sensitive to the same variables as the full NPs within the PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE group in part one. Hic NPs are rare. Is NPs and idem NPs show the same properties as in part one. In addition, is NPs also occur in time expressions. Contrary to the ille and ipse NPs in part one, ille and ipse NPs in part two seem often to be necessary for the identification of the ref-erent, and they are generally not emotional demonstratives, but tracking demonstratives, here. In the animacy categories other than PLACE/TIME/CONCRETE, demonstrative NPs are rare in both parts of the text, but more so in part two. Only ille and ipse NPs, and exceptionally hic NPs, are used when the referent is HUMAN.

The fact that the animacy category TIME shows fewer demonstratives in part two than in part one of the text was explained by the fact that the TIME category in part two contain several generic referents, which are usually not appropriate-ly referred to by a demonstrative NP. The higher frequency of demonstrative NPs in part one in the other animacy categories was accounted for as a result of the fact that part one is more colloquial than part two, thus allowing for more emotional demonstratives. In addition, there are more referents that are candi-dates for emotional demonstratives in part one.

Regarding the question as to whether ille and ipse are definite articles, the answer in essence is no. Non-anaphorically, however, ille and ipse are often ambiguous. Therefore, the non-anaphoric uses are possible contexts of origin of the definite article. In addition to the non-anaphoric uses, the emotional uses of the demonstratives may have given rise to the definite articles. What these con-texts share is that a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. Because the demonstrative is not necessary, the addresse may easily perceive it as a definite article.

Based on the discussion in the present chapter, we can set up a tentative accessibility hierarchy of the full NPs. Since the bare NPs are the only ones that can refer to a new referent, these require the lowest accessibility. Ille NPs, ipse


NPs and hic NPs occur with HUMAN referents, whereas is NPs and idem NPs do not. Given this, we may regard ille NPs, ipse NPs and hic NPs as higher accessi-bility markers than is NPs and idem NPs. Furthermore, ipse NPs are used for inferable referents, which are less accessible than strictly old referents. Hence, ipse NPs can be ranked lower than the ille NPs and hic NPs. Iste NPs are used exclusively with referents that are present in the immediate situation. Such referents are less accessible than previously mentioned referents, so we may consider iste NPs lower accessibility markers than the other demonstrative NPs. But because a demonstrative

yiste NPs

are as such higher accessibility markers than the bare NPs. We can now rank the full NPs as follows, with the forms to the left being higher accessibility markers than the forms to the right:

(270) Ille/hic NPs > ipse NPs > is/idem NPs > iste NPs > bare NPs

7 Conclusions

I set out in the present study to investigate third person reference in the Itinerar-ium Egeriae. A central aim was to contribute to the discussion of the develop-ment of ille and ipse into definite articles and personal pronouns. In this con-cluding chapter, I summarise my main findings and answer the research questions identified in Chapters 1 and 0 (Sections 7.1 through 7.4). In addition, I discuss to what extent the findings for the Itinerarium Egeriae may be repre-sentative for fourth century Latin (Section 7.5), as well as some theoretical im-plications of the present study on accessibility and related matters (Section 7.6).

7.1 The Interrelationship between the Third Person Referring Expressions

One of the aims of the present study was to establish the use of the various third person referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae. The various types of pronominal forms, as high accessibility markers, and the various types of full NPs, as low accessibility markers, were discussed separately.

The pronominal forms are sensitive to givenness status. In most cases they are anaphoric, which we can expect insofar as they are high accessibility mark-ers. As regards their anaphoric uses, there is a main division between anaphors in subject function and other syntactic functions. pro occurs only once in a non-subject function. I argued that is is the non-subject counterpart of pro. This general picture, that is replaces pro in non-subject functions, is apparently the same as in Classical Latin and other earlier Latin texts. Regarding the pronomi-nal subject anaphors, however, compared to the situation in Classical Latin as illustrated by Bolkestein & van de Grift (1994), Pennell Ross (1996) and Bolke-stein (2000), as well as in other Latin texts, the situation is different in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. We do not find the same division between the forms as we do in Classical Latin. For instance, ille

e-spective of the properties shown by the antecedent, referent or anaphor in the Itinerarium Egeriae, is pro. In other words, compared with that of Classical Lat-in, the overall system is simplified in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Nevertheless, some of the pronominal forms have some clearly defined functions, which I sum up below.

336 Conclusions

Insofar as the full NPs require low accessibility, they are more flexible than the pronominal forms, and occur with all givenness statuses. Insensitivity to givenness status is mainly an attribute of the bare NPs, however. The demon-strative NPs are more sensitive to givenness status than the bare NPs due to the constraint on demonstratives that that the referent must be present in the ad-

-)linguistic context (see Section 2.3.3). The demonstrative NPs are primarily ANCHORED or anaphoric. In some of the AN-CHORED occurrences, the referent is not present in the immediate (extra-)linguistic context, nor necessarily in the addresdemonstratives may not be [+DEMONSTRATIVE] at all in these cases. Anaphorical-ly, there is especially one factor that favours a demonstrative NP in preference to a bare NP in the Itinerarium Egeriae, and that is animacy status PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE in the first part of the text. With the exception of is NPs and idem NPs, it is not easy to identify clear differences between the demonstrative NPs in this context. In the following, I summarise the findings for each of the demonstra-tives, both pronominally and adnominally, in the Itinerarium Egeriae.

With few exceptions, neither pronominal nor adnominal ipse is an intensifi-er in the Itinerarium Egeriae, contrary to the claim advanced by Fruyt (2003: 102 103), according to which ipse

y y y213 Pro-

nominal ipse is only exceptionally non-anaphoric; its primary use is anaphoric. Anaphorically, non-subject ipse shows a tendency to occur in oblique and ad-nominal functions. Apart from that, ipse shows few clear tendencies, which is probably because it is in a period of transition between demonstrative and per-sonal pronoun. It may be contrastive in some occurrences, as stated by Vincent (1997; 1998), but this is far from always the case. Ipse NPs, on the other hand, have both non-anaphoric and anaphoric uses. Hence, although pronominal ipse is indeed almost always anaphoric, the claim advanced by several scholars that ipse can only be anaphoric needs some modification. Anaphorically, although ipse NPs tend to occur when animacy status is PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE, they occur with HUMAN referents as well. Indeed, they show a slight tendency towards relatively highly accessible PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE referents, and they are relatively high accessibility markers.

Non-anaphorically, pronominal ille occurs when the givenness status is AN-CHORED. As Section 1.1.2 showed, ille is often claimed to be non-anaphoric in Late Latin, more specifically, it is said to function as the head of restrictive rela-tive clauses. In the ANCHORED occurrences, however, pronominal ille is the head

213 -

The Interrelationship between the Third Person Referring Expressions 337

not only of restrictive relative clauses, but also of complement clauses in appo-sition (see Fruyt 2003: 108 109). Anaphorically, it is hard to find any clear tendencies in the use of ille, a plausible effect of ille

ye

a personal pronoun, but without having established any clearly defined func-tions as yet. Ille NPs are both non-anaphoric and anaphoric. In their anaphoric uses, ille NPs, like ipse NPs, tend to appear within the animacy categories PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae, and they show a ten-dency towards relatively highly accessible PLACE, TIME and CONCRETE referents

Pronominal is frequently occurs in the fixed expression id est. Apart from that, non-anaphoric is occurs when givenness status is ANCHORED, as the head either of a restrictive relative clause (as observed by Fruyt 2003: 107), or of a clausal apposition. It occurs once with an inferable referent. Anaphorically, is is rare in subject function. When it does occur, it is in accusative with infinitive constructions as the counterpart of pro, or discourse deictically with OLD_INACT referents and modified by a restrictive relative clause. The primary anaphoric use of is is as the non-subject counterpart to pro (see Fruyt 2003: 106), and it seems to be the highest accessibility marker in non-subject functions. Non-anaphorically, is NPs occur when the givenness status is ANCHORED, in which case the is NP is the head of a restrictive relative clause. Moreover, is NPs occa-sionally occur when the referent is inferable or present in the immediate situa-tion. Anaphorically, is NPs frequently occur in the expression preposition + is + locus, in the second part of the text also in time expressions like ea hora (as observed by Fruyt 2003: 106 and Nocentini 1990: 144). In sum, is NPs mostly have fixed, Classical Latin uses in the Itinerarium Egeriae. The is NPs are never used with HUMAN referents, and they are relatively low accessibility markers.

Iste is always adnominal in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Iste NPs are restricted to direct speech, and iste is a proximal demonstrative, as also Adams (1967: 26), Väänänen (1987: 48), Nocentini (1990: 146), Christol (1994: 146) and Fruyt (2003: 117) claim. Even when they are anaphoric or ANCHORED, the iste NPs are invariably found in passages of direct speech. Therefore, I did not discuss them together with the other anaphoric full NPs as a part of the general system of referring expressions. Because they are never anaphoric, we can regard iste NPs as lower accessibility markers than the other demonstrative NPs. They are, however, higher accessibility markers than bare NPs, which are possible with all givenness statuses.

Hic too is a proximal demonstrative in the Itinerarium Egeriae, but unlike iste, it is not restricted to direct speech. First, pronominal hic occurs with the givenness status ANCHORED. In these cases, hic is the head of a restrictive relative clause, as also Väänänen (1987: 48), Christol (1994: 145) and Fruyt (2003: 112)

338 Conclusions

observe, or of a complement clause in apposition. Moreover, hic occurs when the referent is present in the immediate situation, and it is a proximal demon-strative. Yet it is primarily anaphoric. Anaphoric hic has two main uses. It is used discourse deictically and in identificational constructions of the type hic est locus ubi... in accordance with the observations of Väänänen (1987: 48), Christol (1994: 145) and Fruyt (2003). The former use of hic is found in Classical Latin too, according to Bolkestein (2000: 114 115). Hic NPs are used with AN-CHORED referents, and with referents that are present in the immediate situation. Adnominal hic is also a proximal demonstrative. The primary use of hic NPs too, is anaphoric. More precisely, together with the other demonstrative NPs, hic NPs occur primarily when the animacy status of the referent is PLACE, TIME or CON-CRETE in part one of the Itinerarium Egeriae. Within these groups, the hic NPs tend to be used when the referent is relatively highly accessible.

With one exception, idem is always adnominal. Idem NPs are occasionally used when the referent is ANCHORED. Apart from this, idem NPs are anaphoric. In their anaphoric uses, they never occur outside the animacy categories PLACE, TIME or CONCRETE. They occur in expressions of the type preposition + idem + PLACE/TIME, and are relatively low accessibility markers in such cases.

7.1.1 An Accessibility Hierarchy of the Referring Expressions

In Chapter 2 I raised the question if it is possible to establish an accessibility hierarchy of the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae. I have given a tentative ranking of both the pronominal forms and the full NPs. If we combine these hierarchies, the result is as follows:

The Interrelationship between the Third Person Referring Expressions 339

High accessibility pro/is

Ipse

Ille

Hic

Ille/hic NPs

Ipse NPs

Is/idem NPs

Iste NPs

Proper names

Low accessibility Bare NPs

Figure 60: An accessibility hierarchy of the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae

As pointed out in Section 4.2.1, I assume that proper names require higher accessibility than common nouns. Proper names are therefore higher than the bare NPs in the accessibility hierarchy. Moreover, full NPs are lower accessibil-ity markers than pronominal forms (see Section 2.2.3). Thus, the full NPs are lower than the pronominal forms in Figure 60.

7.1.2 Are Ille and Ipse Synonymous in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

As we saw in Chapter 1, Aebischer (1948) assumes ille and ipse to be semantical-ly nearly identical in Late Latin, whereas others emphasise the different func-tions of ille and ipse. Pronominal ille and pronominal ipse are synonymous, or semantically identical, in the sense that anaphorically, they are both personal pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae, as I argued in Chapter 5. They are not, however, synonymous in the sense that ille is both anaphoric and non-anaphoric, whereas ipse is indeed primarily anaphoric, as several scholars have observed.

As far as ille NPs and ipse NPs are concerned, they are also synonymous and semantically identical in the sense that in their anaphoric uses, ille and ipse are generally demonstratives, not definite articles. Both ille NPs and ipse NPs have non-anaphoric uses, and both ille NPs and ipse NPs function as the heads of relative clauses. In sum, the claim that ille is non-anaphoric and introduces restrictive relative clauses, whereas ipse is anaphoric, does not hold to the same extent for adnominal ille and ipse.

340 Conclusions

7.2 Are Ille and Ipse Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae?

, I argued in Chapter 5 that anaphoric ille and ipse are indeed personal pronouns in most occurrences in the Itinerarium Egeriae. In the non-anaphoric uses, however, their correct categorial label is harder to determine, especially when their givenness status is ANCHORED and ille/ipse is the light head of a restrictive relative clause.

Likewise, the correct categorial label of non-anaphoric adnominal ille and ipse is notoriously hard to determine because both demonstratives and definite articles are often possible cross-linguistically in these cases. Ille and ipse are used anaphorically usually with the animacy categories PLACE, CONCRETE or TIME, especially in the first part of the text. Since there is no evidence for definite arti-cles being restricted to these animacy categories, I concluded that only a demonstrative analysis could account for the tendency of ille and ipse NPs to occur in these animacy categories.

In sum, ille and ipse are personal pronouns in the Itinerarium Egeriae, but not definite articles (with possibly some rare exceptions), suggesting a later development of the definite articles than of the personal pronouns. As Section 7.5 will show, Jerome

p pr-

mons of Saint Augustine confirm this impression, although further research is necessary to establish the validity of this claim.

7.3 How did Ille and Ipse Develop into Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns?

Several accounts of the origin of the definite articles in Latin/Romance share the assumption that the definite article originated in contexts where there was a need for explicit definiteness marking for some reason or another. But it is not the need for explicit definiteness marking, I suggest, that leads to the rise of the definite articles, but rather the redundant use of demonstratives e-

a-tion of the referent. The contexts in which a demonstrative is not necessary for the identification of the referent are the emotional uses of the anaphoric ille and ipse NPs as well as the non-anaphoric uses. This hypothesis that non-anaphoric or emotional uses of the demonstratives, viz. contexts in which the demonstratives are not necessary for the identification of the referent, are the contexts of origin of the definite articles

How did Ille and Ipse Develop into Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns? 341

(1993; 1994; 1995; 2001) analyses. They both assume that subjectivity or dis-course prominence

y y j y

is responsible for the development of ille and ipse into definite articles. Further research on a larger corpus is necessary to establish the validity of this hypothe-sis, however.

The personal pronouns, too, find their origin in contexts in which a demon-strative is not necessary for the identification of the referent. It is the non-anaphoric uses in particular, the ANCHORED examples where ille/ipse is the light head of a restrictive relative clause that are ambiguous and allow for both a demonstrative analysis and a definite article analysis. Emo-tion/subjectivity or the like is not relevant to the development of the personal pronouns because personal pronouns are invariably tracking devices, and not p p p y

inence or the like.

7.3.1 Did Ipse Develop into a Personal Pronoun and Definite Article through a Demonstrative Stage?

As we saw in Chapter 1, opinions differ as to whether ipse developed directly from an intensifier or went through a demonstrative stage in its development into a definite article and personal pronoun. I have argued that adnominal ipse is in general not an intensifier in the Itinerarium Egeriae, but a demonstrative, and that the contexts in which demonstratives are not necessary for the identifi-cation of the referent are the contexts in which the definite article most likely originated. It follows from this that ipse did not develop directly from an intensi-fier into a definite article, but in fact went through a demonstrative stage.

Regarding the development of ipse into a personal pronoun, I have likewise argued that pronominal ipse, with a few exceptions, is generally not an intensi-fier in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Moreover, I proposed that the context of origin of the personal pronoun is the non-anaphoric uses, where the item in question is ambiguous between a personal pronoun reading and a demonstrative reading. Hence, ipse went through a demonstrative stage also in its development into a personal pronoun. Further research on other texts is needed to establish the validity of these hypotheses, however.

How did Ille and Ipse Develop into Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns?

342 Conclusions

7.3.2 Why was Ille Eventually the Preferred Definite Article and Personal Pronoun?

In Chapter 1, I presented various opinions as to why ille eventually became the preferred definite article and personal pronoun. Carlier & de Mulder (2010) sug-gest that ille was eventually the preferred definite article because it was more flexible in not requiring the referent to be previously mentioned. This is a possi-ble explanation of ille being the preferred personal pronoun because, as we saw in Chapter 5, pronominal ipse is only exceptionally non-anaphoric in the Itin-erarium Egeriae. Regarding the definite article, on the other hand, both ille NPs and ipse NPs are used when the referent is not previously mentioned. Thus, the y

that ipse, originally having a contrastive-emphatic value, could only be used in certain contexts, whereas ille was more flexible, does not seem to hold either. In fact, adnominal ipse occurs more frequently than adnominal ille, and as such, ipse is apparently more flexible than ille.

If, however, as I have assumed, ipse did not develop directly into a personal pronoun or definite article, but went through a demonstrative stage, ille was possibly a better candidate for development into a definite article; whereas ipse required first a transition from intensifier to demonstrative in order to be per-ceived as a definite article in certain contexts, ille could be perceived as a defi-nite article in its original use, without going through an intermediate change. In other words, ille s-

7.4 On the Proposed Causes behind the Changes

I have argued that plausible contexts of origin of the definite article and person-al pronoun are those in which a demonstrative is unnecessary rather than the contexts in which a definite article or a personal pronoun is necessary. Hence, it is not likely in my opinion that the loss of case endings or word order change was responsible for the rise of the definite articles since both hypotheses imply that the definite articles originated from a need for explicit definiteness mark-ing, not as a redundant or unnecessary use of the demonstratives.

The hypothesis that the explicit marking of emotion or expressivity (Trager 1932; Epstein 1993; 1994; 1995; 2001) was responsible for the rise of the articles seems reasonable since I assume that the definite articles may have originated

for Fourth Century Latin? 343

from emotional / discourse prominence marking uses of the demonstratives.214 The hypothesis, however, does not have much explanatory power. Why would there be a greater need in Late Latin to mark subjectivity/expressivity explicitly than earlier? Why did language users not find the emotional uses of demonstra-tives to be superfluous at an earlier date? Harris (1980a; 1980b) connects the rise of the definite article with the increasing tendency to mark elements analyt-ically and explicitly in Late Latin. This may explain why the language users did not perceive the superfluous demonstratives as definite articles until Late Latin because only then were analytic and explicit expressions of various grammati-cal phenomena common. This in turn, however, leads one to ask why they started to mark grammatical phenomena analytically in Late Latin.

A final proposed cause of the rise of the definite article is Greek influence. Renzi (1976; 1979) discusses this hypothesis, but concludes that Greek influence cannot have been decisive. This seems correct. It is easy to imagine Greek influ-ence on the development of the definite articles in Latin since the Greek definite article was fully developed and frequently used by the Classical Greek period. However, in Jerome

p q y y p

with the Itinerarium Egeriae,215 the Greek definite article in the vast majority of cases is left untranslated. If Greek influence did play a role, I would have ex-pected to find ille and ipse used frequently as definite articles in texts translated from Greek.

In sum, further research is needed to answer how and why the definite arti-cles and personal pronouns originated. Linguistic change is notoriously hard to explain, but by looking at other Latin texts and the use of ille and ipse as part of a bigger system of referring expressions, as I have done here, rather than in isolation, it may be possible to reach a conclusion.

7.5

Having established the use of the third person referring expressions in the Itin-erarium Egeriae

p pe e

Latin language around 400 AD; do the findings of the present study reflect gen-y

214 But if the non-anaphoric use of the demonstratives is the context of origin, this hypothesis becomes less plausible. 215 Provided that the dating of the Itinerarium Egeriae to the late fourth or early fifth century is correct, see footnote 177 on page 225.

344 Conclusions

An examination of other fourth century texts along the same lines as the Itinerarium Egeriae is far beyond the scope of the present book. Further research is needed to determine with certainty whether the conclusions reached for the Itinerarium Egeriae are valid for the Latin language around 400 AD. Looking at other texts from the same period will nevertheless give an impression as to whether the conclusions reached in the present study are more generally valid. Since the study of the Itinerarium Egeriae was intended as a contribution to the discussion of the development of ille and ipse into definite articles and personal pronouns, in this section, I concentrate on the categorial status of ille and ipse.

I have already made reference to Jeromep

Testament in my discussion of the Itinerarium Egeriae. This text is also part of the PROIEL corpus Bible translation adheres more to the norms of the Classical language than the earlier Latin Bible versions did, the language of the Vulgate is like the language of other Christian texts close to the spoken language (e.g. Mohrmann 1948; Palmer, 1954: 181 205 and refer-ences therein). The Vulgate can therefore tell us something about the spoken language around 400 AD.

In Hertzenberg (2011) I argue that pronominal ipse is sometimes an intensi-fier in the Vulgate, but also acts as a personal pronoun. Ille too is overwhelm-ingly pronominal in the Vulgate (in 1423 out of 1645 occurrences), and it usually seems best analysed as a personal pronoun. Consider (271), for instance:

(271) et circumspiciens eos cum ira

and looking.around-NOM.SG that-ACC.PL with anger-ABL.SG contristatus super caecitatem cordis eorum saddened-NOM.SG over hardness-ACC.SG heart-GEN.SG that-GEN.PL dicit homini: manum say-PRS.3SG man-DAT.SG stretch.out-IMP hand-ACC.SG your-ACC.SG et PRO-SUB extendit et restituta est and stretch.out-PRF.3SG and restored-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG manus illi. hand-NOM.SG ille-DAT.SG And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of

and his hand was restored.

Here, the antecedent is close, and the animacy status is HUMAN. Moreover, there are no competing referents. The referent is highly accessible. As the translation shows, the reference is perfectly clear if we interpret ille as a personal pronoun.

345

A demonstrative would therefore o not make your contribution more informative than is required.

As regards adnominal ipse in the Vulgate, I have argued (Hertzenberg 2011) that it is not a definite article. In fact, in very few occurrences does ipse modify a noun; in most cases, it occurs together with a personal pronoun, as in (272):

(272) dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad se ipsos

say-PRF.3PL then Jew-NOM.PL to REFL.ACC.PL ipse-ACC.PL The Jews said to one another )

Since demonstratives and definite articles cannot co-occur with a personal pronoun, ipse must be an intensifier in this example. In a few occurrences, however, adnominal ipse is best analysed as a (tracking) demonstrative: (273) Cum autem venissent ad eum, viri dixerunt:

when but come-PLUPRF.3PL to that-ACC.SG man-NOM.PL say-PRF.3PL Iohannes Baptista misit nos ad te

John-NOM baptist-NOM.SG send-PRF.3SG we-ACC to you-ACC.SG dicens: "Tu es qui saying-NOM.SG you-NOM.SG be-PRS.2SG REL.NOM.SG venturus es an alium expectamus?" In come-PTCP.FUT.NOM.SG be-PRS.2SG or other-ACC.SG expect-PRS.1PL in ipsa autem hora curavit multos ipse-ABL.SG but hour-ABL.SG heal-PRF.3SG many-ACC.PL a languoribus from weakness-ABL.PL

one who is to come, or shall we look In that hour he healed many people of diseases

Luc. 7.20 21) Ipse cannot be an intensifier in this example; it is hardly remarkable or unexpected that Jesus heals many people in that hour, and it does not make sense to interpret this hour as more central than other hours. As I have mentioned at several points in this book, time expressions require a demonstrative to make reference clear. Ipse is therefore not a definite article either, but a tracking demonstrative that is necessary for the identification of the referent.

346 Conclusions

Adnominal ille frequently occurs when animacy status is PLACE or, especially, TIME. The head noun in these cases is dies

ys locuss

ciuitasy

s , or similar. (274) is an example:

(274) Huic [sc. Thimoteo] testimonium reddebant qui this-DAT.SG Timothy-DAT testimony-ACC.SG give-IMPF.3PL REL.NOM.PL in Lystris erant et Iconii fratres. Hunc in Lystra-ABL be-IMPF.3PL and Iconium-GEN brother-NOM.PL this-ACC.SG voluit Paulus se-cum proficisci: et want-PRF.3SG Paul-NOM REFL.ABL.SG-with depart-INF and adsumens circumcidit eum propter receiving-NOM.SG circumcise-PRF.3SG that-ACC.SG because.of Iudaeos qui erant in illis locis. Jew-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL be-IMPF.3PL in ille-ABL.PL place-ABL.PL The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to

take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in those places. 3)

As is usually the case with expressions of place (and time), locis requires a demonstrative to make the intended referent identifiable. The referent would not be identifiable

. I therefore analyse ille as a demonstrative in this example. Ille, in fact, seems best analysed as a tracking demonstrative also in its other occur-rences in the Vulgate.

In sum, pronominal ille seems usually to be a personal pronoun in the Vulgate, whereas ipse is sometimes an intensifier, and sometimes a personal pronoun. That is to say, the use of pronominal ille and ipse as personal pronouns found in the Itinerarium Egeriae is apparently possible in the Vulgate as well. Since the Vulgate is a translation of the Greek New Testament text, however, some caution is in order when we use data from this text to draw general conclusions about the Latin language. For example, one might argue that the use of ipse as personal pronoun is a result of Greek influence. In fact, Greek autós is an intensifier, but it also functions as a third person personal pronoun.216 There are, however, no one-to-one relationships between autós in the Greek original and ipse in Jerome autós is not always rendered

216 In Classical Greek autós functions as a personal pronoun only in the oblique cases (e.g. Smyth 1956: 92 93). In Modern Greek autos is used as a personal pronoun in all cases, and this is the situation in New Testament Greek as well (Blass, Debrunner & Funk 1961: 145).

esentative for Fourth Century Latin? 347

by ipse. That is to say, Jerome did not uncritically render all instances of autós by ipse. This suggests

ys time there were some rules

governing the use of ipse as a personal pronoun, and hence that this use of ipse is not merely due to Greek influence (Hertzenberg 2011). As far as adnominal ille and ipse are concerned, they are demonstratives and not definite articles, in the Vulgate as in the Itinerarium Egeriae. Whereas ille and ipse are frequently emotional demonstratives in the Itinerarium Egeriae, however, they seem to be tracking demonstratives in the Vulgate, and rarely if ever

y emotional

demonstratives. The difference between the Vulgate and the Itinerarium Egeriae in this respect finds its natural explanation in the fact that the two texts are of very different type. Whereas Egeria (at least in the first part of the text) is emotional and enthusiastic about the places she visits, there is no perceivable emotion or enthusiasm in the New Testament. It is a neutral and objective

The Sermons of Saint Augustine as well are approximately coeval with the

Itinerarium Egeriae; Augustine lived from 354 to 430 AD. The Sermons are Burton 2012 and references

therein). As such, these can also tell us something about the spoken language of the period. Here, as in Jerome s Vulgate, pronominal ipse seems to be an intensifier in several occurrences, but sometimes it is best analysed as a personal pronoun. (275) is an example of the latter:

(275) dimittantur peccata, et cessent peccata:

forgive-PRS.PASS.3PL sin-NOM.PL and cease-PRS.3PL sin-NOM.PL dimittantur praeterita, cessent futura. sed non forgive-PRS.PASS.3PL past-NOM.PL cease-PRS.3PL future-NOM.PL but not potest hic uiui sine ipsis: can-PRS.3SG here live-INF.PASS without ipse-ABL.PL May sins then be forgiven and may sins cease: the past [sins] forgiven,

and the future [ones] cease. But without them here you cannot live. (Aug. Serm. 58.9)

First, ipse cannot be an intensifier here; it makes no sense to describe ipse either in terms of centrality, remarkability/unexpectedness, inclusiveness, exclusiveness or a reversal of semantic roles. The antecedent is moreover close, it is a topic and a subject. The sins are highly accessible and at the current centre of attention. As the translation shows, the referent is identifiable on a personal pronoun reading of ipse, and a demonstrative is therefore ruled out

348 Conclusions

do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Ille, too, primarily seems to be a personal pronoun in Augustineas in (276):

(276) ecce sunt oues de quibus dixit, non

behold be-PRS.3PL sheep-NOM.PL about REL.ABL.PL say-PRF.3SG not sum missus, nisi ad oues quae be-PRS.1SG sent-NOM.SG unless to sheep-ACC.PL REL.NOM.PL perierunt domus Israel. Illis enim be-lost-PRF.3PL house-GEN.SG Israel-INDECL ille-DAT.PL for exhibuit praesentiam suam exhibit-PRF.3SG presence-ACC.SG POSS.REFL.ACC.SG Lo here are the sheep of whom he said, I am not sent but unto the lost

sheep of the house of Israel. For to them he exhibited his presence(Aug. Serm. 77.3)

Even though the animacy status is non-HUMAN, the antecedent is in a lowly accessible syntactic function (oblique) and realised as a full NP, all of which indicate low accessibility, the antecedent is close in the previous sentence. We saw in Section 5.5.1.2 above that ille in the Itinerarium Egeriae is best analysed as a personal pronoun when the antecedent is in the sentence immediately preceding the sentence containing the anaphor. In (276), too, the referent is highly accessible, and as the translation indicates, it is identifiable on a personal pronoun reading of ille. A demonstrative is therefore ruled out according

pdo not make your contribution more informative than

is required. Ille in Augustine

used adnominally, it is apparently a tracking demonstrative. (277) exemplifies this use of adnominal ille:

(277) dies illi sine fine, dicti sunt

day-NOM.PL ille-NOM.PL without end-ABL.SG called-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL dies, et PRO-SUB dictus est dies. day-NOM.PL and called-NOM.SG be-PRS.3SG day-NOM.SG ait enim quidam, ut habitem in domo say-PRS.3SG for certain-NOM.SG that dwell-PRS.1SG in house-ABL.SG domini in longitudinem dierum, cum de illis Lord-GEN in length-ACC.SG day-GEN.PL when about ille-ABL.PL

349

diebus diceret. day-ABL.PL speak-IMPF.3SG Those days without an end are called both days, and a day. For one

when he was speaking of those days, says, That I may dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days.

y y

As I have pointed out several times, time and place expressions of such general kind as locus, dies

p ps to make reference

clear. This holds true here as well; the reference would in fact not be clear on a definite article reading of illeedemonstrative is necessary to signal that the intended referent is the aforemen-tioned days, and not some other days.

Although ipse, too, appears to be mostly pronominal in AugustineSermons, we find some adnominal occurrences as well. In most of them, ipse is best analysed as an intensifier, as in (278):

(278) numquid angelis codices sunt necessarii, aut

INTERROG angel-DAT.PL book-NOM.PL be-PRS.3PL necessary-NOM.PL or disputatores, aut lectores? absit! uidendo interpreter-NOM.PL or reader-NOM.PL not.at.all see-GERUND.ABL legunt: uident enim ipsam ueritatem, et illo read-PRS.3PL see-PRS.3PL for ipse-ACC.SG truth-ACC.SG and ille-ABL.SG fonte satiantur, unde nos fountain-ABL.SG satisfy-PRS.PASS.3PL whence we-NOM irroramur. besprinkle-PRS.PASS.1PL Do the angels need books, and interpreters, and readers? Surely not.

They read in seeing, for the truth itself they see, and are satisfied from that fountain, from which we obtain some few drops.

Here, we can interpret ipse as expressing the remarkability or unexpectedness of the fact that the angels actually see the truth itself directly without any need for interpreters or the like.

In a few occurrences, ipse is best analysed as a (tracking) demonstrative:

(279) iugum meum super uos, et discite lift.IMP.PL yoke-ACC.SG my-ACC.SG upon you-ACC.PL and learn.IMP.PL a me:

y non mundum fabricare, non cuncta uisibilia

from I-ABL not world-ACC.SG build-INF not all-ACC.PL visible-ACC.PL

350 Conclusions

et inuisibilia creare, non i n ipso mundo and invisible-ACC.PL create-INF not in ipse-ABL.SG world-ABL.SG miracula facere, et mortuos suscitare; miracles-ACC.PL perform-INF and dead-ACC.PL raise-INF

Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; not to build a world, not to create all things visible and invisible, not in that world to perform miracles and raise the dead;

It is hardly remarkable p-y pp

world more central than other alternative places in this context. An intensifier reading of ipse is therefore ruled out. A definite article analysis seems to be excluded as well; a definite article would in fact imply that reference is to the unique world that we live in. In this context, however, reference is to the (hypo-y

i-ously in the discourse. A demonstrative is necessary to signal that the intended referent is

y

cannot refer to unique referents (see Section 2.3.3 above). Hence, a demonstra-tive tells the addressee to look for another referent.

To conclude this section, Augustine the impression we get from the Itinerarium Egeriae and Jerome ille and ipse are personal pronouns in Latin around 400 AD, but not yet definite articles. Both Jerome and Augustine differ from Egeria in that they use adnominal ille and ipse as tracking demonstratives, and not as emotional demonstratives. As I pointed out above with respect to the Vulgate, there is no perceivable emotion or enthusiasm in the New Testament as it is in the Itinerarium Egeriae. This

Sermons as well. Before I conclude this book by proposing some directions for further re-

search, in the next section I discuss the theoretical implications that the present study has for accessibilty theory and the choice of referring expression.

7.6 Some Theoretical Implications for Accessibility and Referring Expressions

7.6.1 Accessibility and the Variables Determining Accessibility

Regarding the general division between full NPs, pro and overt pronominal forms, my study has shown that new and inferable referents are normally not

Some Theoretical Implications for Accessibility and Referring Expressions 351

accessible enough for pronominal reference; they are mostly realised as full NPs. Moreover, generic referents and generally known referents are always realised as full NPs. When the referent is ANCHORED, on the other hand, the noun phrase contains additional information that assists the addressee in identifying the intended referent, and pronominal forms can therefore be used. Neverthe-less, pronominal forms, as high accessibility markers, are primarily anaphoric. These general observations are uncontroversial and in accordance with the assumptions made by Gundel et al. (1993) and Ariel (1990), among others.

Based on these observations we can conclude that givenness status indeed has an effect on the choice of referring expression. Moreover, most variables that are thought to influence the choice of anaphoric expression have a certain effect on the choice between full NPs and pronominal forms, but distance to the antecedent is the most important one. Crucial for the choice of a full NP or pro-nominal form is not the distinction between antecedents within or outside the same sequence/frame/paragraph (Sanford & Garrod 1981; Garrod & Sanford 1982; Fox 1987), but between antecedents in the same sentence and antecedents further away. Importantly, however, the three above-mentioned works are all concerned with English, a non-pro-drop language, unlike Latin. It may be the null pronouns that are subject to the distinction same sentence / not same sen-tence, and not overt pronouns.

For the choice of anaphor in subject function, the animacy status of the ref-erent is moreover important, and there seems to be a sort of parallel between pronominal antecedents and pro anaphors. Non-HUMAN referents are rarely pro-nominalised (as Dahl & Fraurud (1996) show for Swedish), and pro antecedents are picked up by pro relatively frequently even when the antecedent is further away than the same sentence, yet, importantly, not when the antecedent is too far away. Note finally that all three main groups of anaphoric expressions, full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro, are possible irrespective of the properties shown by the antecedent, referent, context or the anaphor itself; no property of the referent, anaphor or antecedent excludes an expression altogether.

When scholars discuss the choice between referring expressions in general and anaphoric expressions in particular, they mostly seem to be concerned with subject expressions at least they tend not to distinguish explicitly between subject and non-subject anaphors. It is not obvious that non-subject anaphors show the same properties as subject anaphors. As we saw in Chapter 4, in the Itinerarium Egeriae, non-subject anaphors indeed behave differently from sub-ject anaphors. In non-subject functions, full NPs are generally the preferred anaphoric expressions irrespective of the properties of the referent, antecedent, anaphor or context. The preference for full NPs in non-subject functions in the

352 Conclusions

Itinerarium Egeriae may be accounted for partly by the fact that several referents are just passing referents that never take part in the action performed (God, the Lord etc.). Apart from that, however, it may be that referents in non-subject functions are often non-HUMAN and hence less prone to pronominalisation than referents in subject function. Also, I believe that referents occurring in non-subject functions are often less central than referents in subject function. In sum, non-subject anaphors do not necessarily show the same properties as subject anaphors, and should perhaps be treated separately in our attempts to understand anaphoric choice.

In the anaphoric uses of the full NPs, overt pronominal forms and pro, whereas the factors indicating low accessibility lead to a preference for low accessibility markers, the factors that are thought to indicate high accessibility do not always lead to a preference for high accessibility markers, that is, pro-nominal forms, and in particular pro, even in subject function. This suggests that lower accessibility markers can be used when there is high accessibility, but vice versa, high accessibility markers cannot be used when accessibility is y

hierar-chy is implicational, lower accessibility markers being possible when accessibil-ity is high, but not the other way around. The reason why the factors indicating high accessibility in the Itinerarium Egeriae often do not lead to a preference for high accessibility markers, however, is perhaps the fact that the Itinerarium Egeriae the first part at least is written in the first person, and I have not been concerned with first and second person reference in the present study. If the protagonist were a third person referent, the factors thought to induce the choice of a high accessibility marker would perhaps lead to a stronger prefer-ence for high accessibility markers because the protagonist, as a central and highly accessible referent, would frequently be realised as pro.

Although I have established a (tentative) accessibility hierarchy of all the referring expressions in the Itinerarium Egeriae, it is harder to find clear differ-ences in accessibility and clear effects of the accessibility determining variables within the group of full NPs and the group of pronominal forms, especially in their anaphoric uses. This may hold for other texts and other languages as well. Yet among the pronominal subject anaphors, an overt pronominal form is more likely to appear instead of pro when there are indications of low accessibility, thus indicating that the accessibility determining variables do have a certain effect here too. Conversely, in non-subject functions, the preferred anaphor, is, is less likely to be the chosen anaphor when there are indications of low acces-sibility. Some differences were detected among the anaphoric full NPs, and we can establish a tentative accessibility hierarchy of the full NPs, but in general,

Some Theoretical Implications for Accessibility and Referring Expressions 353

the choice between the various types of anaphoric full NPs is not sensitive to most of the accessibility determining factors. In sum, the primary division ap-pears to be between pronominal forms as high accessibility markers and full NPs as low accessibility markers.

7.6.2 Correlations between Accessibility and the Various Expressions

Some aspects of the use of some of the referring expressions have received little or no attention in the literature. The fact that pronominal forms, albeit rarely, can occur when the referent is NEW (referring cataphorically), and more fre-quently when it is ANCHORED, shows that the referent of a pronominal form need not be previously mentioned in the discourse. Gundel et al. (1993) do not take this into account in their Givenness hierarchy, in which personal pronouns require the referent to be in focus, and pronominal demonstratives require that it be activated. As Ariel (1990) puts it, (discussing this/that vs. this/that + noun),

e information, for instance in the form of a relative clause, Intermediate Accessibility Markers turn into full-fledged Low Accessibil-ity Markers

y

account that demonstratives have ANCHORED uses.217 This use actually seems to conflict with the [+DEMONSTRATIVE] feature of demonstratives, which requires

that the referent be present either in the -)linguistic context. Possibly, however, the

demonstratives are not [+DEMONSTRATIVE] at all in these uses. With regard to the demonstratives, it remains to be settled how the emo-

tional uses are to be implemented in the Givenness hierarchy (Gundel et al. 1993) or in similar rankings of referring expressions. Gundel et al. (1993) do not take the emotional use of demonstratives into consideration,218 whereas Ariel (1990: 199) views the emotional uses as violations of accessibility. The emotion-al demonstratives, however, require some shared knowledge between speaker q p

, where adnominal demonstratives require the referent to be familiar, that is,

217 The referent may be present in the addressee s memory in the ANCHORED examples, as in y

, which is accounted for in the Givenness hierarchy since the referent is familiar. The referent in the ANCHORED examples, however, need not be present in the address-ee s memory, as we have seen. 218 Emotional uses, they suggest, may be attributed to quantity implicatures (Gundel et al. 1993: 302n), but it is not clear how quantity implicatures create the emotional effect.

354 Conclusions

of a noun phrase with an emotional demonstrative must be new in the discourse s-

tion. Familiarity by previous mention seems sufficient.219 The problem with the emotional demonstratives is the assumed interaction of accessibility / the Givenness . Emotional demonstratives are never necessary for the identification of the referent, and as such, in the emotional use of demonstratives, the speaker in a sense always confounds y

quantity. Py220 Alternatively, the emotional

demonstratives, like the demonstratives used when the referent is not present in , are not [+DEMONSTRATIVE], hence they are no more in-y

Another issue is the relationship between common nouns and proper

names. I argued in Section 4.2.1 that proper names are higher accessibility p pn. Finally,

pro, assumed to require particularly high accessibility, can in fact be used when the referent is non-specific and hence not accessible at all, a fact which seems to go unnoticed in the literature.

7.7 Directions for Further Research

In light of the findings of the present study, a study of other texts along the same lines would seem called for, of texts whose provenance is both prior to as well as later than the Itinerarium Egeriae, in order to reach an understanding of the chronological development not only of ille and ipse, but of the system of referring expressions in general. Furthermore, there is a need for similar studies to establish the validity of hypotheses concerning the contexts of origin of the personal pronouns and definite articles as well as the mechanisms behind and causes of this particular evolution.

219 I suggested in Section 6.3.3 that emotional demonstratives with proper names may be subject to a discourse-new constraint, as Wolter (2006: 83) proposes. 220 Similarly, Ariel (1990) states, intended violations of accessibility are produced in order to encourage an addressee to derive specific additional contextual implications (Ariel 1990: 199).

Bibliography Adams, Leonard. (1967). The definite article: its evolution in Late Latin and its usage in Old

French. McMaster, Hamilton, Ontario. Aebischer, Paul. (1948). Contribution à la protohistoire des articles ille et ipse dans les langues

romanes. Cultura neolatina, 8, 181–203. Andersen, Stephen R., & Keenan, Edward L. (1985). Deixis. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Language

typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3, pp. 259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Apothéloz, Denis, & Reichler-Béguelin, Marie-José. (1999). Interpretations and functions of demonstrative NPs in indirect anaphora. Journal of pragmatics, 31(3), 363–397.

Ariel, Mira. (1988). Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87. Ariel, Mira. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge. Ariel, Mira. (1991). The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of pragmatics, 16,

443–463. Baayen, R. Harald. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using

R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banniard, Michel. (1988). Ille et son système: chronologie du développement (IIIe–VIIIe s.). In

Louis Callebat (Ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif IV: actes du 4e colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Caen 2-5 septembre 1994 (pp. 313–321). Hildesheim: Olms.

Bauer, Brigitte. (2009). Strategies of definiteness in Latin: implications for early Indo-European. In Vít Bubeník, John Hewson, & Sarah Rose (Eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages: papers presented at the workshop on Indo-European linguistics at the XVIII International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007 (pp. 71-87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Beaver, David. (2004). The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and philosophy, 27, 3–56.

Bertocchi, Alessandra. (1996). Some properties of ipse. In Hannah Rosén (Ed.), Aspects of Latin: papers from the seventh international colloquium on Latin linguistics (pp. 539–552). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Bever, Thomas G., & Townsend, D. (1979). Perceptual mechnisms and formal properties of main and subordinate clauses. In William E. Cooper & Edward C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 159–226). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blass, Friedrich, Debrunner, Albert, & Funk, Robert W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bolinger, Dwight. (1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.

356 | Bibliography

Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. (1996). Is "qui" "et is"? On the so-called free relative connection in Latin. In Hannah Rosén (Ed.), Aspects of Latin: papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993 (Vol. Bd. 86, pp. 553–566). Innsbruck: Die Universität.

Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. (2000). Discourse organization and anaphora in Latin. In Pieter van Reenen Susan C. Herring, Lene Schøsler (Ed.), Textual parameters in older languages (pp. 107–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bolkestein, A. Machtelt , & van de Grift, Michel. (1994). Participant tracking in Latin dicourse. In József Herman (Ed.), Linguistic studies on Latin: selected papers from the 6th international colloquium on Latin linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991) (pp. 283–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bosch, Peter. (1983). Agreement and anaphora: a study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic Press.

Brennan, Susan E., Friedman, Marilyn W., & Pollard, Carl J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, California.

Burton, Philip. (2012). Augustine and Language. In Mark Vessey (Ed.), A Companion to Augustine (pp. 111–124). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Calboli, Gualtiero. (1985). Relatif de liaison et absence d'article en latin In Christian Touratier (Ed.), Syntaxe et latin: actes du IIème Congrès international de linguistique latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28-31 mars 1983 (pp. 361-381). Aix-en-Provence: Universite de Provence.

Carlier, Anne, & De Mulder, Walter. (2010). The emergence of the definite article: ille in competition with ipse in Late Latin. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 241–275). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1972). Discourse structure and human knowledge. In Roy O. Freedle & John B. Carroll (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 41–69). Washington D. C: V. H. Winston.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York: Academic Press.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chesterman, Andrew. (1991). On definiteness: a study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christol, Alain. (1994). Ipse: "articloïde" ou article dans la Peregrinatio? LALIES, 13, 143–153. Christophersen, Paul. (1939). The articles: a study of their theory and use in English.

Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. Citko, Barbara. (2004). On Headed, Headless, and Light-Headed Relatives. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory, 22(1), 95–126.

Bibliography | 357

Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract Discourse Production and Comprehension. Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Comrie, Bernard. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Crawley, R. A., & Stevenson, Rosemary J. (1990). Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191–210.

Croft, William. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Östen, & Fraurud, Kari. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Torstein Fretheim &

Jeanette K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Declerck, Renaat. (1986). Two Notes on the Theory of Definiteness. Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 25–39.

Devine, A. M., & Stephens, Laurence D. (2000). Discontinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek. New York: Oxford University Press.

Devine, A. M., & Stephens, Laurence D. (2006). Latin word order: structured meaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diessel, Holger. (1999). Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Diessel, Holger. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive linguistics, 17, 463–489.

Edmondson, Jerold A., & Plank, Frans. (1978). Great Expectations: An Intensive Self Analysis. Linguistics and philosophy, 2(3), 373–413.

Epstein, Richard. (1993). The definite article: early stages of development. In Jaap van Marle (Ed.), Historical linguistics 1991: papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Free University Amsterdam, August 12-16,1991 (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Epstein, Richard. (1994). The development of the definite article in French. In William Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Epstein, Richard. (1995). L'article défini en ancien français: l'expression de la subjectivité. La langue française, 107, 58–71.

Epstein, Richard. (2001). The meaning of definite articles in cross-linguistic perspective. In Enikö Nemeth (Ed.), Cognition in language use: selected papers from the 7th International pragmatics conference (pp. 174–189). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

Feltoe, C.L., & McClure, M.L. (1919). The pilgrimage of Etheria: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 31–59). Chichester: John Wiley.

358 | Bibliography

Fox, Barbara A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frege, Gottlob. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.

Fruyt, Michèle. (2003). Anaphore, cataphore et déixis dans l'Itinerarium d'Egérie. In Heikki Solin, Martti Leiwo, & Hilla Halla-aho (Eds.), Latin vulgaire / Latin tardif VI: Actes du VIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Helsinki, 29 août - 2 septembre 2000 (pp. 99–119). Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.

Garrod, S.C., & Sanford, A. J. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system: implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 1(1), 21–41.

Giusti, Giuliana. (2001). The birth of a functional category. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp. 157-171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Givón, Talmy. (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In Talmy Givón, Charles A. Ferguson, & Edith A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language (Vol. 4, pp. 291–330). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Givón, Talmy. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-linguistic study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978). How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, & Edith A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language (Vol. 3, Word structure, pp. 47–82). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 58–90). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Grice, Herbert Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Gries, Stefan Thomas. (2009). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: a practical introduction. New York: Routledge.

Grosu, Alexander, & Landman, Fred. (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125-170.

Grosz, Barbara J., Joshi, Aravind K. , & Weinstein, Scott. (1995). Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.

Grosz, Barbara J., Joshi, Aravind K., & Weinstein, Scott. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 44–50).

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985). ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of pragmatics, 9(1), 83–107.

Bibliography | 359

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. (2000). Statut cognitif et forme des anaphoriques indirects. Verbum, 22, 59–78.

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. (2001). Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: why accommodation is unnecessary. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 273–295.

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. (2005). Pronouns without NP antecedents: how do we know when a pronoun is referential? In António Branco, Tony McEnery, & Ruslan Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing : linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling (pp. 351–365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Götze, Michael, Weskott, Thomas, Endriss, Cornelia, Fiedler, Ines, Hinterwimmer, Stefan, Petrova, Svetlana, . . . Stoel, Ruben. (2007). Information structure. In S. M. Dipper, M. Götze, & S. Skopeteas (Eds.), Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure (pp. 147–187). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halmari, Helena. (1996). On accessibility and coreference. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K.

Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 155–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Harris, Alice C., & Campbell, Lyle. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, Martin. (1978). The evolution of French syntax: a comparative approach. London: Longman.

Harris, Martin. (1980a). The marking of definiteness in Romance. In Jacek Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (pp. 141–156). The Hague: Mouton.

Harris, Martin. (1980b). The marking of definiteness: a diachronic perspective. In Rebecca Labrum, Susan Shepherd, & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 75–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Haug, Dag T. T., Jøhndal, Marius L., Eckhoff, Hanne M., Welo, Eirik, Hertzenberg, Mari J. B., & Müth, Angelika. (2009). Computational and Linguistic Issues in Designing a Syntactically Annotated Parallel Corpus of Indo-European Languages. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 50, 17–45.

Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Hawkins, John A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 405–442.

Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

360 | Bibliography

Heim, Irene Roswitha. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Graduate Linguistics Students Ass., Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.

Heine, Bernd. (2003). Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 575–601). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania. (2006). The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heraeus, Wilhelm. (1939). Silviae vel potius Aetheriae peregrinatio ad loca sancta (Fourth ed.). Heidelberg: Winter.

Herman, József. (1991). On the grammatical subject in Late Latin In Robert Coleman (Ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics : selected papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987 (pp. 415–425). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Hertzenberg, Mari Johanne. (2011). Classical and Romance usages of ipse in the Vulgate. Oslo Studies in Language, 3(3), 173–188.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. (1997). Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1996). Demonstratives in narrative discourse: a taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 205–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hofmann, Johann Baptist, & Szantyr, Anton. (1972). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (2. ed. Vol. 2). München: C. H. Beck.

Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iatridou, Sabine, & Embick, David. (1994). pro-hibitions on reference. In Erin Duncan, Donka Farkas, & Philip Spaelti (Eds.), The Proceedings of the twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 12, pp. 299–317). Stanford, Calif.: Published for the Stanford Linguistics Association by the Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Iatridou, Sabine, & Embick, David. (1997). Apropos pro. Language, 73(1), 58–78. Isard, Stephen. (1975). Changing the context. In Edward L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of

natural language: papers from a colloquium sponsored by the King's College Research Centre, Cambridge (pp. 287–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Joffre, Marie-Dominique. (2007). ipse, anaphore et déixis. In Gérald Purnelle & Joseph Denooz (Eds.), Ordre et cohérence en latin : communications présentées au 13e Colloque international de linguistique Latine (Bruxelles-Liège, 4-9 avril 2005) (pp. 97–110). Genève: Droz.

Joffre, Marie-Dominique. (2009). Ille: réflexions sur ses emplois dans l'Eunuque de Térence et le livre XLII de Tite-Live. Revista de estudios latinos, 9, 15–34.

Kaiser, Elsi. (2000). Pronoun and demonstratives in Finnish: indicators of referent salience. In P. Baker, A. Hardie, T. McEnery, & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Bibliography | 361

Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Conference (pp. 20–27). Lancaster, UK: University Center for Computer Corpus Research on Language.

Kaiser, Elsi. (2003). The quest for a referent: a crosslinguistic look at reference resolution. (ph.d. thesis), University of Philadelphia.

Kaiser, Elsi. (2011). Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: The interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1587–1624.

Kameyama, Megumi. (1999). Stressed and unstressed pronouns: complementary preferences. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 306–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kamp, Hans. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, M. B. J. Stokhof, & T. M. V. Janssen (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (Vol. 135-136, pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

Kamp, Hans. (2008). Discourse structure and the structure of context. IMS University of Stuttgart.

Karttunen, Lauri. (1976). Discourse referents. In James D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.

Keenan, Edward L., & Comrie, Bernard. (1977). Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.

Krámský, Jiri. (1972). The article and the concept of definiteness in language. The Hague: Mouton.

Krifka, Manfred, & Musan, Renate. (2012). Information Structure: Overview and Linguistic Issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (Eds.), The Expression of Information Structure (pp. 1–43). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Kroon, Caroline. (2009). Text structure and referential choice in narrative: the anaphoric use of the Latin demonstrative ille. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 115–131.

Kuno, Susumu. (1972). Functional Sentence Perspective: A Case Study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(3), 269–320.

Kühner, Raphael, & Stegmann, Carl. (1955). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre (3. ed. Vol. 2). Leverkusen: Gottschalksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

König, Ekkehard. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

König, Ekkehard, & Gast, Volker. (2006). Focused expressions of identity: a typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology, 10(2), 223–276.

Lakoff, Robin. (1974). Remarks on This and That Papers from the tenth regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19-21, 1974 (pp. 345–356). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.

Lambrecht, Knud. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

362 | Bibliography

Lambrecht, Knud, & Lemoine, Kevin. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French: a Construction-Grammar account. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: back to the roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lapesa, Rafael. (1961). Del demonstrativo al artículo. Nueva revista de filología hispanica, 15, 23–44.

Leiss, Elisabeth. (2007). Covert patterns of definiteness/indefiniteness and aspectuality in Old Icelandic, Gothic and Old High German. In Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss, & Werner Abraham (Eds.), Nominal determination: typology, context constraints and historical emergence (pp. 73–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levinson, Stephen. (2004). Deixis. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Oxford: Blackwell.

Lewis, David. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of philosophical logic, 8, 339–359.

Li, Charles N., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1979). Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 311–335). New York: Academic Press.

Linde, Charlotte. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 337–354). New York: Academic Press.

Luraghi, Silvia. (1997). Omission of the Direct Object in Latin Indogermanische Forschungen (1997) (Vol. Volume 102, pp. 239–257): Walter de Gruyter.

Luraghi, Silvia. (1998). Participant tracking in Tacitus. In Benjamín García Hernández, Rosario López Gregoris, Emilio Nieto Ballester, & María Esperanza Torrego (Eds.), Estudios de lingüística latina: actas del IX coloquio internacional de lingüística latina, Universidad autónoma de Madrid, 14-18 de abril de 1997 (Vol. 1, pp. 467–485). Madrid: Ed. Clasicás.

Lyons, Christopher. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Löfstedt, Einar. (1911). Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen

zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache (Vol. 9). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Löfstedt, Einar. (1956). Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins.

Lund. Löfstedt, Leena. (1981). À propos des artcles et des articloïdes. In Horst Geckeler & Eugenio

Coseriu (Eds.), Logos semantikos: studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu 1921-1981 (pp. 269–279). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Maraval, Pierre. (1982). Journal de voyage (itinéraire) et lettre sur la Bse Égérie. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.

Meyer-Lübke, W. (1920). Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. (1974). Grammaire des langues romanes (Auguste Doutrepont & Georges Doutrepont, Trans. Vol. III, Syntaxe). Genève: Slatkine Reprints.

Bibliography | 363

Mohrmann, Christine. (1948). Les Elements Vulgaires Du Latin Des Chretiens. Vigiliae Christianae, 2(1), 89–101.

Moravcsik, Edith A. (1972). Some crosslinguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. In Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, & Gloria C. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 8, pp. 271–277). Chicago: The Society.

Mulder, Hotze. (1991). Object continuity and elliptical objects in Latin. Romance linguistics and literature review, 4, 12–26.

Napoli, Maria. (2009). Aspects of definiteness in Greek. Studies in language, 33(3), 569–611. Nissim, Malvina , Dingare, Shipra , Carletta, Jean , & Steedman, Mark. (2004). An annotation

scheme for information status in dialogue Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004). Lisbon.

Nocentini, Alberto. (1990). L'uso dei dimostrativi nella Peregrinatio Egeriae e la genesi dell'articolo romanzo Atti del convegno internazionale sulla Peregrinatio Egeriae (pp. 137-158). Arezzo: Accademia Petrarca di lettere, arti e scienze.

Orlandini, Anna. (1992). La référence définie: La naissance dans les langues romanes de l'article défini à partir du démonstratif ille Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature: LALIES, 11, (Cortona, 20-31 août 1990) (pp. 195–210). Paris: Presses de L'École normale supérieure.

Palmer, Leonard R. (1954). The Latin language. London: Faber and Faber. Pennell Ross, Deborah. (1996). Anaphors and antecedents in narrative text. In Hannah Rosén

(Ed.), Aspects of latin: papers from the seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (pp. 511-523). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

Pieroni, Silvia. (2010). Deixis and anaphora. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (Eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, Volume 3, Constituent syntax: quantification, numerals, possession, anaphora (pp. 389–501). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Pieroni, Silvia. (2014). A note on the functional distribution of ille in Late Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen, 119(1), 1–20.

Pinkster, Harm. (1987). The pragmatic motivation for the use of subject pronouns in Latin: the case of Petronius Études de linguistique générale et de linguistique latine offertes en hommage à Guy Serbat par ses collègues et ses élèves (pp. 369–379). Paris: Société pour l'Information Grammaticale.

Pinkster, Harm. (2005). The use of is and ille in Seneca Rhetor. In Sándor Kiss, Luca Mondin, & Giampaolo Salvi (Eds.), Latin et langues romanes: études de linguistique offertes à Jozef Herman à l'occasion de son 80ème anniversaire (pp. 57-64). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Primus, Beatrice. (1992). Selbst --variants of a scalar adverb in German. In Joachim Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (pp. 54–88). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

364 | Bibliography

Prince, Ellen. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.

Prince, Ellen. (1992). The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson & W. mann (Eds.), Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Raposo, Eduoardo. (1986). On the null object in European portuguese. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalán (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 373–389). Foris: Dordrecht.

Reinhart, Tanya. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.

Renzi, Lorenzo. (1976). Grammatica e storia dell'articolo italiano Studi di grammatica italiana (Vol. V). Firenze: Accademia della crusca.

Renzi, Lorenzo. (1979). Per la storia dell'articolo romanzo. In Alberto Vàrvaro (Ed.), Atti XIV congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza (pp. 5 b.). Napoli: Macchiaroli.

Renzi, Lorenzo. (1992). Le développement de l'article en roman. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 37(2-3), 161–176.

Renzi, Lorenzo. (1997). Fissione di lat. ILLE nelle lingue romanze. In Günter Holtus & Johannes Kramer (Eds.), Italica et romanica: Festschrift für Max Pfister zum 65. Geburtsdag (pp. 7–18). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Riester, Arndt. (2008). A Semantic Explication of Information Status and the Underspecification of the Recipient’s Knowledge. In Atle Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SUB12 (pp. 508–522). Oslo: Institutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk.

Riester, Arndt, Lorenz, David, & Seeman, Nina. (2010). A recursive annotation scheme for referential information status. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner, & Daniel Tapias} (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10) (pp. 717–722).

Rizzi, Luigi. (1986). Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.

Rosén, Hannah. (1994). The definite article in the making, nominal constituent order, and related phenomena. In József Herman (Ed.), Linguistic studies on Latin: selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991) (pp. 129-150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

Russell, Bertrand. (1905). On Denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493. Sanford, Anthony J., & Garrod, Simon C. (1981). Understanding written language: explorations

of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: John Wiley. Selig, Maria. (1992). Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Spätlatein. Tübingen:

Niemeyer.

Bibliography | 365

Sidner, Candace L. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In Michael Brady & Robert C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 267–330). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Siemund, Peter. (2000). Intensifiers in English and German: a comparison. London: Routledge. Siemund, Peter. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives.

Linguistics, 44(2), 343–382. Silverstein, Michael. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (Ed.),

Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. (1956). Greek grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition.

Oxford: Blackwell. Spevak, Olga. (2008). Le placement de is, hic, et ille chez Grégoire de Tours. In Roger Wright

(Ed.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Oxford, 6-9 septembre 2006 (pp. 361–370). Hildesheim: Olms.

Stolz, F., & Schmalz, J. H. (1928). Lateinische Grammatik: Laut- und Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik (5. ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlund.

Strawson, Peter Frederick. (1950). On Referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344. Touratier, Christian. (1980). La relative: essai de théorie syntaxique : à partir de faits latins,

français, allemands, anglais, grecs, hébreux, etc. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Trager, George L. (1932). The use of the latin demonstratives (especially ILLE and IPSE) up to

600 A.D., as the source of the Romance article. New York: Institute of French Studies. van der Wurff, Wim. (1994). Null objects and learnability: the case of Latin Working papers of

Holland Institute for Generative Linguistics (Vol. 1). Vincent, Nigel. (1998). Tra grammatica e grammaticalizzazione. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma

(Eds.), Sintassi storica: atti del XXX Congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26-28 settembre 1996 (pp. 411–440). Roma: Bulzoni.

Vincent, Nigel (1997). The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change (pp. 149–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Väänänen, Veikko. (1981). Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck. Väänänen, Veikko. (1987). Le journal-épître d'Égérie: (Itinerarium Egeriae) : étude linguistique

(Vol. 230). Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia. Wales, Katie. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Walker, Marilyn, Cote, Sharon, & Iida, Masayo (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of

centering. Computational linguistics, 20(2), 193–232. Wilkinson, John. (1981). Egeria's travels (Second ed.). Jerusalem: Ariel. Wolter, Lynsey Kay. (2006). That's that. the semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun

phrases. (Doctor of philosophy), University of California.

366 | Bibliography

Zaenen, Annie, Carletta, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, . . . Wasow, Tom. (2004). Animacy encoding in English: why and how. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, Spain.

Index Accessibility 35, 55, 352, 350–53, 354 – variables determining 46 Accessibility hierarchy 50f., 70, 95, 261f.,

333, 338f., 338–39, 352 Accessibility scale 50 Accommodation 27, 31, 34 Anaphora 55, 61, 65, 99–163, 261, 270,

337ff., 352 Anaphoric link 79, 78–80, 82 ANCHORED 95–96, 163, 173f., 176–79, 255,

257ff., 268–72, 276, 280, 282, 330, 332, 336ff., 340f., 351, 353

Animacy 40, 42, 285, 336f., 340, 351 – in the PROIEL corpus 36–38 Animacy hierarchy 81 Antecedent distance 38–39, 40, 351 Apposition 7, 77f., 176ff., 257, 260, 268f.,

337f. Assertion 24 Associative anaphora, See Indirect anaphora Augustine 6, 10, 340, 347ff.

Cataphora 57, 59, 61, 97, 174, 353 Centrality 67ff., 267, 347, 350 Classical Latin 93, 174, 179, 183, 187, 191f.,

197, 204, 209ff., 216, 240, 260, 303ff., 335, 344

Classification tree 86 Cognitive frame 29 Cognitive status 37, 49 Contexts 74 Contrast 5, 11, 17, 23, 26f., 59, 68ff., 191,

222, 225f., 231, 243, 246ff., 253f., 261, 266, 317, 327ff., 336, 342

Cooperative principle 52

Definite article 2–4, 10, 22, 24f., 27, 32, 35, 52f., 55f., 58f., 61f., 64ff., 268, 274, 280–84, 302f., 307, 310f., 324, 332f., 339ff., 345, 347, 349f.

– definition 56 – general knowledge use 56, 66 – immediate situation use 27f., 30, 56, 65 – larger situation use 27f., 65

– origin 16, 10–16, 331–32 Definite NP 26, 33, 39, 52, 54, 268, 273, 303,

310 Definiteness 22, 35, 22–35, 307 – as familiarity 25–27 – as identifiability 28–30 – as inclusiveness 27–28 – as the identifiability of discourse referents

35 – as uniqueness 23–24 Demonstrative 2–4, 32f., 35, 50, 52f., 55,

64ff., 69, 98, 243f., 246, 252, 255ff., 261, 265, 267, 271, 274f., 280, 282f., 287, 303, 307f., 334, 339ff., 345, 347ff., 353

– adnominal 52f., 59, 69, 83, 260, 353 – constraint on 60 – definition 58–64 – distal 13, 171, 279 – emotional use 63, 273, 307, 310–17, 319,

321, 324f., 330f., 333, 340, 343, 347, 350, 353f.

– immediate situation use 61 – medial 276f. – pronominal 51ff., 59, 98f., 166, 179, 192,

256, 353 – proximal 8, 17, 104, 171, 174, 178, 181, 187,

207, 214, 253f., 276ff., 332, 337f. – recognitional use 13, 63, 282 – tracking use 61f., 274, 308–9, 311f., 315,

318, 321, 333, 345ff., 349f. Demonstrative NP 51f., 54, 125, 158, 267ff.,

273, 285, 288ff., 293, 295, 297, 299, 303, 305ff., 311, 313f., 316ff., 322ff., 329f., 332ff., 336ff.

Diglossia 259, 330 Direct speech 270, 276ff., 332, 337 Discourse deixis 61, 104, 138, 152, 185, 187,

189, 192, 194, 200f., 205, 209, 212, 214f., 219, 222, 225, 227, 229f., 233, 235, 238, 241, 261, 338

Discourse prominence 81, 314, 316f., 322, 330f., 341, 343

368 | Index

Discourse referent 22, 25f., 34f., 57, 70, 74f., 80

Discourse representation theory 74 Dislocation 12, 16, 121, 258f., 331

Establishing relative clause 30, 56 Exclusiveness 69, 347

Familiarity 25, 27f., 30f., 33f. File cards 26f., 34 File change semantics 25–27 Free relative connection 90 Full NP 39ff., 44f., 47f., 50ff., 54, 89, 94, 98,

102f., 123, 127, 259, 336, 338f., 351ff. full NPs 48, 129, 132 Future topic 206, 236

Generally known referent 65, 97, 163, 173, 273–74, 273–74, 280f., 332, 351

Generics 14, 29f., 56, 62, 65f., 75, 97, 163, 173, 274, 326f., 329f., 332f., 351

Givenness 37, 36–38, 41, 79 – annotation in the PROIEL corpus 73–77 Givenness hierarchy 37, 40, 49ff., 59, 74,

269, 271, 352ff. Greek 15, 19, 71, 82, 169f., 264, 278f., 343,

346

High accessibility marker 39, 50f., 57, 95, 98, 100, 107, 122, 125, 153, 173, 176, 188, 260, 297, 335f., 351ff.

Identifiability 29, 33ff., 55, 268, 346 Identificational construction 192, 194, 199f.,

209, 212, 215, 261, 338 Immediate situation, presence of referent in

13, 98f., 163, 182, 280, 332, 334, 337f. Inalienable possession 29 Inclusiveness 28, 31ff. Inclusiveness of intensifiers 69, 347 Indirect anaphora 25, 27f., 30, 56, 62, 65,

96–97, 163, 180, 179–80, 272f., 280, 283, 332, 334, 337, 350

Inferable referent See Indirect anaphora Intensifier 38–39, 167–72, 260f., 264–67,

316, 336, 341f., 344ff., 349f. – adnominal 67f., 67–68, 69, 167, 267

– adverbial 69 – adverbial exclusive 170f. – definition 67–70 Intermediate accessibility marker 50, 59, 353

Jerome 10, 277f., 340, 343f., 346f., 350

Light-headed relative clause 8, 177f., 255, 258f., 340f.

Low accessibility marker 50, 335, 352f.

Maxim of quantity 22, 36, 49, 51f., 70, 241, 273, 280, 282f., 303, 308, 310, 332, 340, 348, 354

– interaction with accessibility 51–55

New referent 94–95, 173–76, 258, 267–68, 274, 333

Non-specific referent 34, 57, 75f., 258, 260, 304, 354

Null pronoun 45, 51, 58, 75, 79, 81, 89f., 91–94, 244, 351f., 354

Null-head modifier 167

Overt pronominal form 45, 47, 51, 58, 89f., 259, 351f.

Overt pronoun 351, See Overt pronominal form

Personal pronoun 2–4, 35, 52ff., 58, 61f., 64ff., 81, 98, 226, 241–59, 259, 261, 340ff., 350, 353

– definition 56–58 – origin 16, 258–59 Possessive pronoun 77, 89 Pragmatic set 28, 65 Presupposition 24 pro See Null pronoun Pronominal form 39ff., 45, 51f., 54, 94, 98,

123, 335f., 338f., 351ff. Pronoun 41, 44, 50, See Pronominal form Proper name 94, 264, 314, 354

Quantifier 27, 76, 80 Quantifier restriction 76

Referentiality 26, 34

Index | 369

Referring expressions – choice between 35 – correlations with accessibility 49–51 Reflexive pronoun 89 Relative clause 7, 77, 178, 256, 258ff., 269,

330, 332, 336f., 339ff., 353 Relative pronoun 77, 89f. Remarkability/unexpectedness 67ff., 167,

170, 266, 345, 347, 349f. Reversal of semantic roles 347 Romance languages 93, 172, 216, 225, 276,

304, 310

Saliency 48, 81 Shared set 27 Sinn und Bedeutung 23 Speech act theory 27 Statistical test 87 Subject continuity 190ff. Subject expression 46, 48, 101, 105, 109f.,

112, 115ff., 120, 122, 127f., 135f., 139f.,

142f., 183, 190, 202, 204, 206, 209, 216, 240, 351

Subject shift 190ff., 195, 216 Syntactic functions, hierarchy of 43–44, 81

The PROIEL corpus 71–82, 344 – information structure annotation 73–81 – syntactic annotation 73 Topic 40f., 36–38, 81, 192f., 195, 226ff., 243,

250, 293, 295, 302f., 305, 331f. Topic continuity 192, 195ff., 228, 300 Topic guesser 80–81 Topic shift 11, 191f., 195ff., 211, 216, 222,

228, 231, 254

Uniqueness 23f., 26, 28, 31, 33 Uniques 56, 62, 65, 273, 307, 314, 317, 326,

332, 350

Word order 12, 18, 42, 81, 206, 342

Date post:	11-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Third Person Reference in Late Latin: Demonstratives, Definite Articles and Personal Pronouns in the...

Documents