# Conclusion: Discussion of main results and perspectives for future research

## 1. Discussion of the main results of this thesis with reference to previous research

This thesis has empirically examined the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, and investigated the impact of their morphological merging in Old French on their categorial distinction. The results of this study only partly confirm the standard hypothesis of the evolution of the two types of non-finite verb forms in Late Latin: they support a specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax, but not of the present participle in adjectival external syntax. Thus, the gerund shows signs of a 'converbalisation' process, while the present participle does not undergo a process of 'participialisation'. Rather, the present participle has predominantly adverbial external syntax, just like the gerund. As such, it is more converb-like than participle-like (cf. Haspelmath 1995: 4).

Because of this functional similarity between the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, their morphological merging in Old French raises a major problem for their categorial distinction. The present study has shown that a considerable proportion of all Old French verb forms in -ant (38%) are categorially indeterminate, that is, uncategorisable as either gerunds or present participles – even under the assumption that the two forms do not encroach on each other's distribution, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, nor during the Old French period itself. This finding led to the conclusion that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French caused these two forms to merge also on a categorial level. The label I propose for this categorial blend in Old French is '-ant form', by analogy to the term '-ing form' used for the equivalent category in English.

However, the results of this thesis need to be evaluated within the light of the material limitations of this historical corpus study. First of all, this study is confronted with the general problem of historical linguistics: we can observe the language used in the remote past only through written records, whereas innovations usually turn up in the spoken language and reach the written language only in a later stage. In the case of the historical period examined here, this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that, because of the cultural prestige of the Latin language, the writing of the emergent French language was delayed and very sparse during the first centuries. Although the Latin texts of this period show varying degrees of interference with the vernacular language (e.g. Banniard 1992, 2018; Van Acker 2004) and the texts in the PaLaFra corpus have been selected in such a way as to give a glimpse of this vernacular, the fact remains that the Late Latin texts do not faithfully reflect the spoken language of the period in which they were written. The problem arises to a lesser extent for Old French. It is however not excluded that, in this period, the language in religious texts is under influence of Latin, because Latin remains the liturgical language. Additionally, and more generally speaking, all *literati* mastered Latin and may have been influenced in their Old French writing practices by the Latin language.
These limitations of access to empirical data are manifest in my results. For Late Latin, as a result
of the gap between the spoken and the written language, the use of the gerund and the present participle
in Late Latin texts is quite different from their use in Old Romance texts. Since the Romance languages
emerged from distinct spoken varieties of Late Latin, the differences in the use of the gerund and the
present participle in Late Latin and Old Romance texts can be analysed as the outcome of changes that
have popped up in spoken Late Latin, but that have been filtered out in the written texts transmitted to
us. In order to put in perspective the results of this dissertation, it is therefore necessary to reassess the
evolution of the gerund and the present participle in spoken Late Latin on the basis of the comparison
of their use in written Late Latin and Old Romance texts. This reconstruction corresponds to the standard
hypothesis of the evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, explored in detail in
Chapter 2. In what follows, I will summarise this hypothesis and confront it with the results of my
empirical study. I will focus first on the evolution in Late Latin (§1.1), then on the transition from Late
Latin to Old French (§1.2 and §1.3).

**1.1. The evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin**

1.1.1. *Predictions of the standard hypothesis*

Classical Latin has an elaborate system of non-finite verb forms, comprising three ‘nominal forms’ (the infinitive, the gerund, and the supine) and two ‘adjectival forms’ (the participle and the gerundive). Most Old Romance languages possess a poorer system, consisting of one ‘nominal form’ (the infinitive), one ‘adjectival form’ (the participle), and one ‘adverbial form’ (the gerund). Despite this difference in the number of forms, the system of non-finite verb forms is about as tightly organised in Classical Latin and Old Romance, since the different types of forms are specialised in distinct functional domains. However, in Classical Latin, the functional differences between these forms are restricted to individual syntactic uses and/or semantic value(s) (e.g. the infinitive is specialised in verb complements, the gerund in adnominal phrases and manner/instrumental causal adjuncts, and the supine in adjective complements and purpose adjuncts), while in Old Romance, these differences concern groups of morphosyntactically related syntactic functions (i.e. the infinitive is specialised in nominal external syntax, the participle in adjectival external syntax, and the gerund in adverbial external syntax). In Late Latin, the system of non-finite verb forms thus evolves from a system based on syntactic and semantic oppositions to a system based on morphosyntactic oppositions. This evolution is in line with the more general development of the language of this period toward an increasing degree of morphosyntactic specialisation (cf. Carlier & Combettes 2015).
Like most cases of language change, this evolution from a syntactically/semantically organised
system to a morphosyntactically organised system is a slow and gradual process, taking several centuries
to be completed. Traces of this restructuring can be found already in the Classical period, especially in
substandard varieties. However, it is only in Late Latin and in the transition to Romance that the system
of non-finite verb forms undergoes the large-scale innovations adding up to its eventual restructuring.
The driving force behind this restructuring is the concept of functional competition, i.e. "the selection
struggle among alternative forms at language production" (Fonteyn 2019: 53; see also Berg 2014; De
Smet et al. 2018: 198). At some point in time, speakers started using certain types of non-finite verb
forms in innovative ways. Some of these innovations gave rise to functional competition. In choosing
between the available forms, speakers seem to have been led by some kind of "system pressure" (Haiman
1980; Haspelmath 2014: 198). Given the more general tendency of the language toward an increasing
degree of morphosyntactic specialisation, the pressure exerted by the system leads its speakers to
progressively select one type of non-finite verb forms for one group of morphosyntactically related
functions, e.g. the infinitive for all nominal functions at the expense of the gerund and the supine. The
eventual outcome of these selection struggles is the tightly organised system based on morphosyntactic
oppositions characteristic of most Old Romance languages.

In this restructuring of the system of non-finite verb forms, a crucial role is played by the evolution
of the gerund and the present participle. This evolution is also driven by functional competition. Most
significant are the competitions between the gerund and the present participle, on the one hand, and
between the gerund and the infinitive, on the other. The latter compete in nominal syntactic functions
and in purpose adjuncts. Both of these competitions settle in favour of the infinitive, which thus comes
to specialise in nominal external syntax. Due to its substitution by the infinitive in this syntax, the gerund
becomes entirely reliant on its adverbial external syntax and its use in progressive constructions. It is
precisely in these uses that the gerund competes with the present participle. The latter can also occur in
adjectival syntactic configurations, be used in a presentative progressive construction (a construction of
the type *I see him coming*), or act as a syntactically finite verb form. It is claimed that the competition
between the gerund and the present participle in adverbial syntax and in progressive constructions settles
in favour of the gerund, causing the present participle to specialise in particular in its adjectival uses. In
this way, the infinitive, the gerund, and the present participle gradually develop into respectively a
nominal, an adverbial, and an adjectival form of the verb.

1.1.2. Some critical remarks

This development toward a morphosyntactically motivated division of labour calls for three important
remarks.
(i) The specialisation of the infinitive and the gerund in respectively nominal and adverbial external syntax is not clear-cut, because the infinitive substitutes the gerund also in purpose adjuncts. Hence, it takes over part of its adverbial external syntax. The generalisation of the infinitive in this type of constituents might be syntactically motivated. As is well known, the distinction between verb complements and adjuncts is not discrete but rather gradient, giving rise to constituents that are neither prototypical verb complements nor prototypical adjuncts. These constituents may combine features of both prototypes, and are as such often difficult to analyse as either non-prototypical verb complements or non-prototypical adjuncts. A quantitatively important group of such ambiguous constituents are non-finite clauses with a purpose-like value (Pinkster 2021: §16.100). Witness the gerund clause *ad quemlibet parvum hortum fratribus excolendum* ‘to cultivate a garden however small’ (1), discussed in detail in §3.5.2.

(1) [...] *ad quemlibet parvum hortum fratribus excole-nd-um*
to INDF.ACC.M.SG small.ACC.M.SG garden.ACC.M.SG brother.DAT.M.PL cultivate-GER-ACC
nulla patebat planities [...].
no.NOM.F.SG be_accessible.PST.3SG plain.NOM.F.SG

‘No plain was accessible for the brethren to cultivate a garden however small.’ (Greg. M. *dial*. 1.7)

Given that they are in between a status as verb complements and as adjuncts, such clauses are also in between a status of having respectively nominal and adverbial external syntax. Instead of setting in place a clear distinction between purpose verb complements and purpose adjuncts where such a sharp line is lacking, the system merges them in a single, but syntactically heterogeneous, group of purpose constituents. In line with the development of the language toward a higher degree of form-function isomorphism, this functional domain became the exclusive terrain of only one of the forms involved, *i.c.* the infinitive. The question as to why the infinitive generalised at the expense of the gerund instead of the other way around has to do with the emergence of the prepositional infinitive. One of the two dominant prepositions governing an infinitive in Late Latin (and in Romance) is *ad* ‘to’, whose default value is precisely a purpose value (Ernout & Thomas 1951: 256; Scherer 1975: 86; Harris 1978: 199; Schulte 2007: Ch. 7). The emergence of prepositional infinitives is one of the symptoms of the collapse of the case system, since it marks the shift from the synthetic marking of syntactic relations by means of inflectional morphology to their analytic marking by means of prepositions (Ernout 1914³: 9-10; Väänänen 1963³: 111). Hence, the victory of the more innovative prepositional infinitive over the existing bare and prepositional gerunds in purpose constituents is also part of a much more general process of language change.

(ii) The specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax should also be understood in relation to its specialisation in progressive constructions. As mentioned in §2.1.1.2.2.3, the use of the gerund in a progressive construction is historically derived from its use in a specific type of adjuncts, viz.
bare ablative conjunct adjuncts with an elaborating function. Due to this historical relationship, it
is not surprising that the gerund substitutes the present participle in both adjuncts and progressive
constructions. As a result of this historical relation between adjunct gerunds and gerunds used in a
progressive construction, the distinction between gerunds with adverbial and verbal external syntax
is not clear-cut. This is due to the fact that language change is a slow and gradual process, in which
synchronic stages are characterised by formal and/or functional ambiguity between an existing (or
'old') and an innovative (or 'new') analysis (Hopper 1991: 22-24; Hopper & Traugott 1993²: 124-
126; Heine 1993: 54-56, 2002: 86). For this reason, descriptions such as 'the specialisation of the
gerund in adverbial external syntax' should be understood within the context of this diachronic and
synchronic relation between adjunct gerunds and gerunds used in a progressive construction.

(iii) The third and most critical remark is that, in the existing literature, the above-sketched evolution of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin and in the transition to Old Romance has been traced on the basis of scattered empirical data, with a focus on specific forms and uses of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin, on the one hand, and on empirical data taken from Old Romance languages and analysed retrospectively for Late Latin, on the other.

1.1.3. *Novel insights emerging from the empirical investigation conducted in this thesis*

This thesis is the first study to examine the evolution of the two types of non-finite verb forms in Late Latin on a large empirical basis. Hence, it allows for the first time to objectively verify the standard hypothesis of this evolution. To this end, the empirical investigation has been conducted on the basis of quantitative and statistically evaluated results, so as to distinguish random trends from those reflecting processes of language change. The results of this quantitative study, compared with the predictions of the standard hypothesis, shed new light on the evolution of the gerund and the present participle and its driving forces. Crucially, they do not fully support the hypothesis of morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle in Late Latin. Rather, they show a more complex restructuring, in which this predicted specialisation and differentiation is only partial and seems to be a side-effect of an evolution related to another non-finite verb form, i.e. the infinitive. In the following sections, I will systematically contrast the predictions of the standard hypothesis with the quantitative results of this study, first for the gerund, and then for the present participle.

1.1.3.1. *The evolution of the gerund in Late Latin*

The Late Latin data show a specialisation of the gerund in adverbial external syntax or, put differently, a converbalisation of the gerund. However, this specialisation is not primarily due to the generalisation
of the (bare ablative) gerund at the expense of the present participle in adverbial configurations. On the
contrary, the bare ablative gerund maintains a strong link with its original manner/instrumental/causal
value in Late Latin. Hence, it does not turn into a full-fledged substitute of its semantically more neuter
and versatile present participle competitor. In other words, the empirical evidence leads me to reject the
widespread hypothesis that the converbalisation of the gerund in Late Latin is in the first place due to
an increasing use of non-manner/instrumental/causal bare ablative adjunct gerunds at the cost of adjunct
present participles.

It is hypothesised in this thesis that the main driving force behind the converbalisation of the
gerund is the generalisation of the infinitive at the expense of the gerund in nominal syntactic
configurations. This shift reduces the absolute number of nominal gerunds and, hence, their proportion
to the total number of gerunds. As a result, the share of gerunds with adverbial (and verbal) external
syntax increases, even if their absolute frequency remains relatively stable. The converbalisation of the
gerund thus appears to be the indirect effect of the expansion of the infinitive in nominal external syntax
(its 'masdarisation'). However, in the absence of corpus-based studies of the external syntax of the
infinitive, this hypothesis remains somewhat speculative. So as to gain more insight into the dynamics
behind the converbalisation of the gerund, it would therefore be interesting to carry out a diachronic
corpus study of the external syntax of the infinitive comparable to that conducted for the gerund in this
thesis, to collate the results obtained in these studies, and to interpret them in the light of the hypothesis
put forward here.

The empirical study further shows that the crucial period in the converbalisation of the gerund is
not the period of Late Latin itself, but rather the transition between Classical and Late Latin. Given the
definition in this thesis of Classical Latin as the period between the 3rd c. BC and the 2nd c. AD and of
Late Latin as that between the 3rd and the 10th c. AD, the shift from a predominantly nominal gerund
to a predominantly adverbial gerund thus appears to have been realised in the first centuries of this era.
Corpus studies of the use of the gerund in precisely this period, currently lacking, would be interesting
in order to empirically verify this hypothesis.

The empirical study of the gerund in Late Latin has revealed other interesting findings.

(i) While the use of the gerund in Late Latin is relatively homogenous on the diachronic axis, it shows significant variation in the three thematic domains. In particular, the use of the gerund in legal texts greatly differs from its use in historical and religious texts, which I claim to be due to the specific stylistic features of the juridical language. This difference between the legal texts, on the one hand, and the historical and religious texts, on the other, yields an important methodological insight: at least for Late Latin, it is recommendable not to rely exclusively on legal texts to examine language change, and to evaluate results obtained for these texts separately from those obtained for other text types.
(ii) The data of this study do not comprise any gerund used in a progressive construction. Hence, they do not provide evidence in favour of the replacement of the present participle by the gerund in this construction. However, this use is also extremely rare for the present participle, so that in fact no solid conclusions can be drawn from this.

(iii) The corpus of this thesis reveals a use of the gerund that has gone unnoticed in the literature so far, i.e. as a syntactically finite verb. These forms are scarce and quantitatively insignificant (n=3), but at the same time they have some relevance for the competition between the gerund and the present participle: one of the main origins of the syntactically finite use of the present participle is its use in adjuncts, and since the Late Latin gerund is claimed to replace the present participle in adjuncts, it is not unlikely that the gerund comes to occasionally substitute the present participle also in a use derived from this adjunct use, viz. as a syntactically finite verb. While the rareness of syntactically finite gerunds suggests that the gerund does not replace the present participle in this use on a systematic basis, the mere existence of these forms undeniably shows that, within the Late Latin period, the gerund encroaches on the external syntax of the present participle.

Finally, the results of this study show that, despite the shift from a predominantly nominal gerund in Classical Latin to a predominantly adverbial gerund in Late Latin, there is still a considerable difference between the use of the gerund in Late Latin and in Old Romance – or at least in most Old Romance languages. Indeed, whereas the gerund can only occur in adjuncts and in progressive constructions in most Old Romance languages, these two uses represent only 61% of all gerunds in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis (this proportion corresponds in fact to the fraction of the adjunct gerunds alone, since the Late Latin corpus does not contain any gerund used in a progressive construction). This low proportion in the Late Latin corpus is due to the fact that the gerund does not substitute the present participle in adjuncts nor in progressive constructions. Hence, the absolute frequency of gerunds with adverbial and verbal external syntax does not increase. Thus, the question why there is a large difference between the use of the gerund in my Late Latin corpus and in most Old Romance languages boils essentially down to the question why the (bare ablative) adjunct gerund does not develop into a full-fledged competitor of the adjunct present participle in this corpus. As mentioned in the conclusion of Chapter 5 and in the introductory pages of this Conclusion, the most plausible answer has to do with the limitations of the empirical data. Though the corpus elaborated within the context of the PaLaFra project and used as the Late Latin corpus of this thesis is – in comparison with the existing Late Latin corpora – large and varied, it is well known that, from a sociolinguistic point of view, there is a significant gap between written and spoken language (cf. Herman 2006: 186). Hence, the texts of the Late Latin corpus might not faithfully reflect the ongoing changes in the spoken language. Evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from Old Romance languages. In most of these languages, the gerund can occur in adjuncts and in progressive constructions, while the present participle cannot (cf. Vincent 2016: 45). Since the Romance languages emerge from distinct spoken varieties of Late Latin, it can be assumed that, in the spoken vernaculars,
the gerund did substitute the present participle in these uses. For without this replacement, the system of non-finite verb forms in most Old Romance languages would not have been as tightly organised as it is. However, since no records of spoken Latino-Romance vernaculars are available from this period, there is no empirical evidence to settle this issue in a more precise way. Such indeterminacy, however, is a common price to pay in historical linguistics.

### 1.1.3.2. The evolution of the present participle in Late Latin

As to the present participle, the data of this study do not show any sign of specialisation of this form in adjectival external syntax or, put differently, of ‘participialisation’. This finding is at odds with what is predicted by the standard hypothesis of its evolution. Instead of undergoing participialisation, it appears to specialise in adverbial external syntax, thus showing signs of converbalisation, just like the gerund. However, while the converbalisation of the gerund makes this form shift from a predominantly nominal external syntax in Classical Latin to a predominantly adverbial external syntax in Late Latin, the converbalisation of the present participle only strengthens the link of this form with its adverbial external syntax, since this syntax prevails already in Classical Latin. As in the case of the gerund, the crucial period in the converbalisation of the present participle is between Classical and Late Latin, rather than the period of Late Latin itself. Another parallel with the gerund is that the use of the present participle in Late Latin is relatively stable on the diachronic axis, while it shows large variation from a thematic point of view. The external syntax of the present participle is very different in legal texts in comparison with historical and religious texts, leading to the same methodological recommendation formulated with respect to the gerund. The difference between legal texts, on the one hand, and historical and religious texts, on the other, is nonetheless less pronounced in the case of the present participle than in the case of gerund.

The unexpected evolution of the present participle has at least three reasons.

(i) The first reason relates to the competition between the adverbial uses of the gerund and the present participle. As noted above, this competition is held to settle in favour of the (bare ablative) gerund, leading to the replacement of adjunct present participles by gerunds. Consequently, the absolute frequency of adjunct present participles and, hence, their proportion to the total number of present participles are thus expected to decline instead of rise. As a corollary, the share of present participles with adjectival (and verbal) external syntax is predicted to increase, even if their absolute number remains more or less stable. However, the data of this study do not provide evidence of an evolution of the gerund into a full-fledged substitute of the adverbial present participle. Unsurprisingly, then, the present participle is not replaced by the gerund in adverbial external syntax. This reason is able
to explain why the frequency of adverbial present participles does not decline, yet does not account for its increase.

(ii) One of the reasons of this frequency increase lies in the narrative and text-structuring uses of the adverbial present participle (cf. Combettes 2018: 404). Used as a narrative strategy, two or more present participles are combined so as to express a series of states of affairs succeeding each other on the temporal axis and/or serving as background for the subsequent discourse, as in (2) (Van Acker 2004: 130-131). Used as a text-structuring device, the present participle serves, among other things, to mark the beginning or end of a direct speech, as in (3).

(2) **Quem vide-ns** Placidus et desidera-ns
REL.ACC.M.SG see-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Placidus.NOM.M.SG and wish-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG
eum capere, **relinque-ns** omnes, cum paucis
DEM.ACC.M.SG seize.INF.PRS leave-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG all.ACC.M.PL with few.ABL.M.PL
**militibus** eum insequitur.
soldier.ABL.M.PL DEM.ACC.M.SG follow.PST.3SG

'When Placidus saw him and because he wanted to seize him, he left everyone and followed him with a few soldiers.' (Pass. Eustach. 1.3)

(3) Tunc dixerunt eis beatissimi apostoli Petrus
then say.PST.3PL DEM.DAT.M.PL most_fortunate.NOM.M.PL apostle.NOM.M.PL Petrus.NOM.M.SG
cum Paulo: "[...]". Hoc **audie-nt-es**, omnes
with Paulus.ABL.M.SG DEM.ACC.N.SG hear-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL all.NOM.M.PL
qui in custodia erant clamaverant unanimiter
REL.NOM.M.PL in custody.ABL.F.SG be.PST.3PL shout.PST.3PL unanimously
dice-nt-es: "[...]".
say-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL

'Then the most fortunate apostles Peter and Paul said to them: "(...)". When they heard this, everyone who was in custody shouted unanimously, saying: "(...)". (Pass. Proc. 1.6.1-2)

In Late Latin, the adverbial present participle is much more often used as a narrative strategy or text-structuring device than in Classical Latin. Since especially the narrative use of the present participle is characterised by a succession of adjunct forms, this naturally leads to a high frequency of adverbial present participles. The increasing narrative and text-structuring uses of the adverbial present participle also explain the spectacular frequency increase of the total number of present participles between Classical and Late Latin (see §3.4.2.3). Noteworthily, the narrative and text-structuring use of the adjunct present participle are particularly frequent in religious texts. Hence, the influence of Biblical Latin – be it authentic Latin or Latin translated from Biblical Greek – in this evolution may not be underestimated.
(iii) The third and final explanation for the unexpected evolution of the present participle is again related to the nature of the data examined. As already pointed out for the gerund, the corpus of this study only contains written texts, while language change typically emerges in spoken language. Hence, the use of the present participle in the Late Latin corpus might not faithfully reflect its presumably more innovative use in the spoken language. An argument in favour of this hypothesis comes again from Romance. In most Romance languages, the present participle has lost its adverbial external syntax and specialised in adjectival external syntax, though not necessarily as a fully productive (or lexically open) form (e.g. Rigau (2000: 352) on Spanish, where adnominal present participles can only be built on transitive and unaccusative intransitive verbs; see also other chapters in Ledgeway & Maiden 2016). Given that the Romance languages develop from varieties of Late Latin that are "particularly but not exclusively spoken" (Herman 2000: 7), and that the present participle can no longer show adverbial external syntax in these languages, it can be hypothesised that, in vernacular varieties of Late Latin, the present participle is nonetheless replaced by the gerund in this syntax. For without this shift, the present participle would not have been ousted from this adverbial use, so that the system of non-finite verb forms in most Romance languages would be less tightly organised as it is. In other words, we need to assume a large gap between the use of the present participle in written and spoken Late Latin in order to explain the important difference between its use in my Late Latin corpus and in Old Romance, and thus to account for its evolution from Late Latin to Old Romance.

## 1.2. The evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French

The above-mentioned evolution toward morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle can readily be hypothesised for the transition from Late Latin to Romance languages such as Italian and Spanish, in which the gerund and the present participle survive as two morphologically distinct types of non-finite verb forms. Indeed, in these languages, the morphologically distinct forms show a distinct morphosyntactic profile and thus allow us to assume with a high degree of probability that this tendency toward morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation was ongoing in Latino-Romance vernaculars, even if it is not or only partly corroborated by the Late Latin data that have come down to us. By contrast, this hypothesis is fragile for the transition from Late Latin to Old French, in which the gerund and the present participle merge morphologically in the *-ant* form. It could nonetheless be argued that the changes taking presumably place from Late Latin to other Old Romance languages are in fact pan-Romance, and thus need to be assumed also for Old French.

According to such a pan-Romance view, the evolution toward morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle can be analysed in three ways.
(i) It might be a Late Latin evolution taking place in all substandard varieties serving as the basis for individual Romance languages. In this case, the evolution of the gerund and the present participle is completed in the mother varieties of the various Romance languages, and so it is naturally pan-Romance.

(ii) The shift toward (morpho)syntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle might take place in the transition from Late Latin to the individual Romance languages. In this scenario, the pan-Romance character of the evolution can only be assumed if the gerund and the present participle do not only evolve in the same way in various geographical regions, but also more or less simultaneously and independently from one region to another.

(iii) The third option combines (i) and (ii): the evolution toward morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation might set off in substandard varieties of Late Latin serving as the basis for individual Romance languages, while being completed only in the transition from Late Latin to the individual Romance languages.

As stated above, it cannot be empirically established whether the evolution of the gerund and the present participle takes mainly place within the period of Late Latin or in the transition to Romance. Hence, the two first scenarios cannot be assumed with absolute certainty. The third scenario is without any doubt the most convincing, also because the outcome of the evolution is not the same in the different Romance languages. But again, it is impossible to empirically show whether the evolution in issue is to be situated in the period of Late Latin or in the transition from Late Latin to the individual Romance languages. In sum, the analysis of the evolution toward (morpho)syntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle as a pan-Romance development to be assumed also for Old French is not without problems.

Moreover, the analysis of the evolution toward morphosyntactic specialisation and differentiation of the gerund and the present participle as a pan-Romance development, which amounts to imposing it on the evolution of these forms from Late Latin to Old French, raises an important theoretical problem. Indeed, it violates the categorial particularism, viz. the idea that languages have their own categories and their own criteria for category assignment, and can as such not be described using the categories created for the description of other languages – at least not without a revision of their defining properties (Boas 1911; Joos 1957; Haspelmath 2010: 664, 669). So, even if the (morpho)syntactic evolution of the gerund and the present participle in the transition from Late Latin to Old French is the same as in the transition from Late Latin to the other Romance languages, it is compromised in Old French due to their morphological merging. Since linguistic categories are best defined on the basis of morphological and syntactic criteria (Trask 1999: 281; Aarts 2007: 2; Pullum 2009: 257), this morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in Old French requires the criteria for category assignment in this language to be revised. The very revision of these criteria distinguishes Old French from the other
Romance languages, so that the evolutionary profile of the gerund and the present participle sketched on the basis of languages like Spanish and Italian cannot be assumed as such for Old French.

### 1.3. The impact of morphological merging and functional overlap of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction

The empirical study of the Old French -ant form conducted in this thesis has important implications with respect to the categorial distinction between the gerund and the present participle in Old French. Due to the morphological merging of these forms, Old French verb forms in -ant can indeed not be categorised as either gerunds or present participles on morphological grounds. However, two exceptions can be made. On the one hand, all prepositional forms can be taken as gerunds, since in Late Latin, the gerund, but not the present participle, can be prepositional. On the other hand, all forms having an inflectional variant of the ending -ant can be categorised as present participles, because in Late Latin, the present participle, but not the gerund, agrees with a noun in case, gender, and number. In addition, some Old French verbal forms in -ant can be categorised on the basis of their syntactic function: all forms having a syntactic function accessible to the Late Latin present participle, but inaccessible to the Late Latin gerund, can be considered present participles (there are no Old French verb forms in -ant performing a syntactic function accessible to the Late Latin gerund, but inaccessible to the Late Latin present participle, and hence the opposite argument does not hold). In the Old French corpus of this study, the combination of these three criteria allows determining the category of 62% of all verb forms in -ant, among which 54% can be taken as present participles and 9% as gerunds (the sum of these percentages makes 62% instead of 63% for reasons of rounding off). However, this “retrospective historical approach” (Aspland 1968: 151) to categorise verb forms in -ant is based on the assumption that the gerund and the present participle do not encroach on each other’s morphology and distribution, neither in the transition from Late Latin to Old French nor within the period of Old French itself. Yet, such encroachment cannot be excluded from a purely theoretical point of view. Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that such encroachment does take place (cf. De Smet 2014: 40). Witness forms like *enhortanz* ‘encouraging’ (4): on the one hand, it is governed by the preposition *por* ‘in order to’, and hence it should be analysed a gerund, but on the other hand, it agrees with the NP *li apostoiles* ‘the apostle’, on the basis of which it should be taken as a present participle.

(4) [...] *por les clers enhort-anz li*
to ART.DEF.OBL.M.PL clerk.OBL.M.PL encourage-V.ANT.OBL.M.PL ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG
*apostoiles i donat consentement.*
apostle.SBJ.M.SG to_it give.PST.3SG consent.OBL.M.SG

‘The apostle gave his consent to it in order to encourage the clerks.’ (Dial. Greg. 4)
This and similar forms are to be regarded as either agreeing gerunds or prepositional present participles (cf. De Smet 2014: 40). Hence, they indicate that either the gerund encroaches on the morphology of the present participle or the present participle on the morphology of the gerund. Given this morphological exchange, the three criteria to categorise Old French -ant forms are only weakly reliable. Consequently, the 62% of the verb forms in -ant concerned are best taken as categorially indeterminate after all, just like the remaining 38% of unambiguously indeterminate occurrences. The empirical study thus reveals the extent of the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French -ant form.

The morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle in the transition from Late Latin to Old French and the lack of completely reliable morphological and syntactic criteria to establish their categorial distinction raise the fundamental question whether the gerund and the present participle survive in Old French as two distinct categories of non-finite verb forms or whether they merge into a single category (cf. Ménard 1973: 169; Adams 2003: 749; De Smet 2014: 39-40; Bazin-Tacchella 2020: 852). Both points of view can be evaluated here in the light of the previous discussion and of the results obtained in the empirical part of this study.

Most authors claim that the gerund and the present participle exist in Old French as two distinct categories of non-finite verb forms, just like in (Late) Latin (Gougenheim 1929; Anglade 1958: 215-217; Väänänen 1963³: 140-141; Ménard 1973: 169-175; Harris 1978: 199-201; Arnavielle 1982, 1984: 38, 1997; Jensen 1990: 322-334; Buridant 2000: 324-327, 2019: 461). Since their categorial distinction is held to be preserved, the main challenge of this hypothesis is to establish the criteria for category assignment enabling to draw a sharp line between the categories of the gerund and the present participle. Yet, such criteria are lacking, as shown in the foregoing discussion. Hence, the distinction between the two categories is blurred, which brings us to the second hypothesis, that of categorial blending.

Some authors dealing with this categorial distinction from outside the field of French historical linguistics, in particular the Latinist Adams (2003: 749) and the Anglicist De Smet (2014: 40), hold that the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle causes these forms to merge also on a categorial level. Adams (2003: 749) speaks of a “conflation of the two categories”, and De Smet (2014: 40) describes the resulting categorial blend as an “all-purpose invariable non-finite form in -ant” that is “in syntactic terms neither a real gerund nor a real participle”. This hypothesis of categorial blurring has far-reaching implications for the grammatical description of Old French: it implies that the gerund and the present participle cease to exist as distinct linguistic categories, so that the labels ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ can no longer be used to describe Old French -ant forms. Though discarding category labels that are so entrenched in the French grammatical tradition is a major decision, it is the only way to convincingly account for the impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction, both in view of the empirical data and from a strictly theoretical perspective. This hypothesis is also in keeping with the particularist view on linguistic categories, in
that it separates Old French from the other Romance languages, in which the gerund and the present participle do not merge morphologically and are thus exempt from categorial blurring.

The question remains as to how to denominate this new category and the forms associated with it. Of the various labelling strategies explored in Chapter 6 (§6.9), the best options are the purely formal label '-ant' form' and the terminological blend 'parund'. Due to the neological character of the latter and, hence, its risk of not successfully spreading in the linguistic community (a precedent in this respect is the terminology forged by Damourette & Pichon 1968-1971 for the grammatical description of French), the formal label '-ant' form' is most appropriate. This term is moreover parallel to the term '-ing' form', used by many authors to refer to the equivalent forms in English.

This new category could be easily integrated in the grammatical description of Old French. From a morphological viewpoint, the Old French -ant form is to be defined as a type of non-finite verb form built on the present stem of a verb and having (or at least generalising) the invariable ending -ant. It can moreover be bare (e.g. *plorant* 'crying' (5)) or prepositional (e.g. *en fuiant* 'when flying' (6)), just like the (Late) Latin gerund – the label ‘V.ANT’ stands for this categorial blend).

(5) Tristan l' a plor-ant salüe.
Tristan she.OBJ.F.SG have.PRS.3SG cry-V.ANT greet.PTCP.PST.F.SG
'Tristan greeted her while crying.' (Bér. *Tristan* 3777)

(6) Li leüns en *fui-ant* / Sa trace vait
ART.DEF.SBJ.M.SG lion.SBJ.M.SG in flee-V.ANT his.OBL.F.SG track.OBL.F.SG go.PRS.3SG
*cuvrant* [...].
cover.V.ANT

'The lion covers his track while fleeing.' (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 165-166)

From a syntactic point of view, the -ant form can display the external syntax of an adjective, an adverb or a verb, just like the (Late) Latin present participle. In Old French, the adjectival -ant form occurs in adnominal phrases (e.g. *curant* 'running' (7)), subject predicates (e.g. *mordant* 'biting' (8)), or object predicates (e.g. *querant* 'seeking' (9)), while the adverbial -ant form is restricted to adjuncts (e.g. *plorant* 'crying' (5) and *en fuiant* 'while flying' (6)). As for the verbal -ant form, it can serve as the main verb of either a progressive (e.g. *demenant* 'pursuing'/*abatant* 'slaying' (10)) or a presentative progressive construction (e.g. *seant* 'sitting' (11)).

(7) En Rencesvals ad un' ewe cur-ant [...].
in Roncevaux have.PRS.3SG ART.INDF.OBL.F.SG water.OBL.F.SG run-V.ANT
'In Roncevaux there is a running water (stream).' (Roland 2225)
(8) [...] *se moz i trouvez ja mis qui*
if word.OBL.M.PL PRO.LOC find.PRS.2PL ever put.PTCP.PST.M.PL REL.NOM.M.PL
*samblent mord-ant [...]*
seem.PRS.3PL bite-V.ANT

'If you ever find some words written here that seem offensive (lit. 'biting') (...).' (J. de Meun *Rose* 15168-15169)

(9) [...] *Tost le fait pain quer-ant [...].*
soon he.OBJ.M.SG make.PRS.3SG bread.OBL.M.SG seek-V.ANT

'He soon appoverishes him (lit. 'makes him poor/bread-seeking').' (Ph. de Thaon *Bestiaire* 1012)

(10) *Bretun les vunt mult demen-ant / E a granz*
Briton.SBJ.M.PL they.OBJ.M.PL go.PRS.3PL heavily pursue-V.ANT and in large.OBL.F.PL
*turbes abat-ant [...]*
crowd.OBL.F.PL slay-V.ANT

'The Britons go heavily pursuing them and slaying them in large numbers.' (Wace *Brut* 12069-12070)

(11) [...] *Sur la roche u sunt venud / Trovent*
on ART.DEF.OBL.F.SG rock.OBL.F.SG where be.PRS.3PL come.PTCP.PST.M.PL find.PRS.3PL
*se-ant homme nud.*
sit-V.ANT man.OBL.M.SG naked.OBL.M.SG

'On the rock where they arrived, they found a naked man sitting.' (Ben. *Brendan* 1221-1222)

Since it can have the external syntax of the prototypical members of three distinct categories, the Old French *-ant* form holds as a 'tri-functional category of non-finite verb forms' (cf. Nedjalkov 1995: 105), just like the Late Latin gerund and present participle.

From a more general perspective, the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle should be evaluated in view of the overall evolutionary tendency of the language toward an increasing degree of morphosyntactic specialisation. As shown by Carlier & Combettes (2015), within the family of the Romance language, this tendency is the most far-reaching in French. However, the evolution of the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French provides an important exception to this general evolutionary trend. In contrast with Romance languages such as Spanish and Italian, which have three distinct forms for the three main types of non-finite external syntax (the infinitive for nominal external syntax, the gerund for adverbial external syntax, and the participle for adjectival external syntax), Old French has one form specialised in nominal external syntax (*i.e.* the infinitive), one form compatible with both adverbial and adjectival external syntax (the *-ant* form), and one form specialised, though not exclusively, in adjectival external syntax (*i.e.* the past participle). The general conclusion to be drawn from this particular position of Old French is that large-scale evolutionary tendencies do not necessarily manifest themselves in all parts of grammar. Since linguistic items are pairings of both form and function (cf. de Saussure 1916; Goldberg 1995: 4, 2006: 3-5; Croft 2001: 18), large-scale functional
developments can in some parts of grammar be cancelled by formal evolutions. In our case, the general
development of Old French toward morphosyntactic specialisation is neutralised in the evolution of the
gerund and the present participle by a combination of morphological and phonetic evolutions.

## 2. Directions for future research

The hypothesis of categorial blending solves the fundamental problem of the categorial indeterminacy of the Old French -ant form, while at the same time suggesting avenues of future research with respect to the categorisation of the -ant form. Two of these will be developed here – the interest of carrying out a corpus-based study of the external syntax and morphosyntactic categorisation of the infinitive between Classical and Late Latin and during the Late Latin period has already been mentioned above.

Most obviously, the hypothesis of categorial merging raises the question as to how to account for
the evolution of the -ant form in the further history of French. In the existing literature, the gerund and
the present participle are recognised as distinct categories of non-finite verb forms, and their categorial
distinction is considered to be definitively settled in the course of the 17th c. (Sarré 2000: 51; Bazin-
Tacchella 2020: 852). In 1679, the Académie française prescribes the use of en ‘in’ before the gerund.
Henceforth, all forms introduced by en are taken as gerunds and those without en as present participles.
According to Sarré (2000: 51), this prescription is not artificial, but symptomatic of ongoing changes in
language use: of all -ant forms with adverbial external syntax in Middle French (14th-16th c.) and being
thus categorisable as gerunds from a retrospective historical (and comparative Romance) approach, 80%
are preceded by en ‘in’. However, this morphologically-based categorial distinction between the gerund
and the present participle from the 17th c. onward raises two fundamental problems.

On the one hand, from a diachronic viewpoint, it is surprising to hypothesise a resurgence of the
Latin categories of the gerund and the present participle, after they had disappeared in Medieval French.
This appears to be the position defended by Bazin-Tacchella (2020: 852):

> *En ancien et moyen français, on parlera plutôt de formes en -ant, variables ou invariables, car les catégories de participe et de gérondif, adaptées à la grammaire latine, ne seront établies qu’à partir du 17e s.*

This is to say that the use of the categorial labels ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ for Classical French (17th-18th c.) is not justified by a diachronic continuity, because the categorial distinction in issue fades away in the transition from Late Latin to Old French, and that changes taking place after Medieval French are conceptualised without any problematisation within the grammatical framework developed for Latin. Moreover, the reintroduction of the term ‘gerund’ for the construction [*en ‘in’ + -ant* form] is
neither motivated by a similarity with the Classical Latin gerund, which mostly has nominal external syntax, nor with the Late Latin gerund, which has by no means the monopoly of adverbial uses, but is in competition with the present participle in these uses. In my view, the use of the Latin category labels ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ for the description of Classical French violates the principle of the categorial particularism and illustrates the enormous influence of the grammatical tradition of Latin on the grammatical description of other, in the first place Romance, languages.

On the other hand, the existence of the gerund in both a bare and a prepositional form is widely accepted until well into the 17th c. (cf. Sarré 2000). Hence, it is implausible that the official prescription of the *Académie française* in 1679 changes the situation radically, so that from this date onward, *all* prepositional *-ant* forms are to be categorised as gerunds, and all bare forms as present participles. As has been shown in great detail by Ayres-Bennett (2018), the *Remarqueurs* of the French Academy have mistakenly been called legislators, but were instead good observers of usage and of changing usage, and so it is likely that, throughout the history of French, adjunct *-ant* forms are increasingly introduced by *en* ‘in’, without there being any objective reasons to suddenly take only these forms as gerunds, while analysing all bare adjunct forms as present participles. The fact remains that the increasing use of *en* ‘in’ with adjunct *-ant* forms seems to have been wrongly evaluated in categorial terms, probably again under the weight of the Latin grammatical tradition.

In the light of the preceding discussion, the morphologically-based distinction between the gerund and the present participle imposed by the *Académie française* should be rejected, just like their categorial distinction in Old French. It would therefore be interesting to explore the evolution of the *-ant* form in the further history of French (i.e. in the stages after Old French) from the point of view of the categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle, in order to investigate to which extent this hypothesis of categorial blending might also account for the empirical data from Old French onward. At first glance, this hypothesis is compatible with empirical data. For instance, in Modern French, the subject of adjunct forms introduced by *en* ‘in’ is in theory coreferential with the subject of the main verb, while the subject of bare adjunct *-ant* forms is coreferential with the closest NP. Witness *sortant* ‘leaving’ (12-13), whose subject corresponds to the subject of the main verb in (12), but to its direct object in (13).

(12) *Max a rencontré Pierre en sort-ant du train.*
Max have.PRS.3SG meet.PTCP.PST Peter in leave-V.ANT from;ART.DEF.M.SG train.M.SG
‘Max met Peter as he (Max) was leaving the train.’

(13) *Max a rencontré Pierre sort-ant du train.*
Max have.PRS.3SG meet.PTCP.PST Peter leave-V.ANT from;ART.DEF.M.SG train.M.SG
‘Max met Peter as he (Peter) was leaving the train.’
Hence, the use of *en* ‘in’ could be a syntactic means to impose coreferentiality between the subject of the adjunct form and the subject of the main verb. In this way, the adjunct forms in (12) and (13) belong to the same category, that of the *-ant* form, and simply differ in terms of the reference of their subject, just like in Old French. The increasing use of *en* ‘in’ with subject-oriented adjunct forms in Middle French observed by Sarré (2000: 51) can then be analysed as the evolution toward this new, category-internal distinction between adjunct *-ant* forms specialised in subject-orientation, on the one hand, and adjunct *-ant* forms without such an orientation, on the other. In this evolution, *en* ‘in’ is best analysed as shifting from the status of preposition to that of marker of subject coreferentiality.<fnref n="1" /> However, this hypothesis remains speculative until supported by a comprehensive, diachronic study of empirical data.

The second issue raised by the hypothesis of categorial merging of the gerund and the present participle and worth investigating in more detail pertains to the distinction between *-ant* forms displaying adjectival external syntax and (de)verbal adjectives in *-ant*. In this thesis, the verb form in *-ant* has been defined in a very broad sense, comprising any non-finite verb form ending in *-ant* (or with an inflectional variant of this ending) and built on a verb “used in the language current at the time when the text in question was written” (Eklund 1970: 12). Its formation may be regular or irregular, but the *-ant* form needs to have the same meaning as its corresponding finite verb or one that can be derived from it through deactualisation and/or contextual recategorisation (see §3.4.3). The broadness of this definition is recommendable for the specific purpose of this dissertation: in examining the degree of categorial indeterminacy of the Old French verb form in *-ant*, it allows measuring its maximal degree of categorial determinacy, and, as a corollary, its minimal degree of categorial indeterminacy. In a stricter definition, some forms exhibiting adjectival external syntax qualify as adjectives, and would therefore be excluded from the dataset. As a result, the absolute frequency of adjectival *-ant* forms would be lower, and, with this, their proportion to the total number of *-ant* forms. Consequently, the portion of forms categorisable as present participles would be lower, leading to a higher overall degree of categorial indeterminacy of the verb form in *-ant*. In this way, the implications of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction would be more drastic, and, hence, the hypothesis of their categorial merging (even) more convincing. In a certain sense, the broad definition of the *-ant* form adopted in this thesis strengthens the conclusion drawn from the study of its categorial indeterminacy.

However, having evaluated the impact of the morphological merging of the gerund and the present participle on their categorial distinction in terms of categorial merging, it would now be interesting to refine the description of this categorial blend by addressing the distinction between *-ant* forms displaying adjectival external syntax, on the one hand, and lexicalised (or lexicalising) (de)verbal adjectives, on the

<footnote n="1">¹ This analysis of *en* ‘in’ as the marker of subject coreferentiality instead of as a preposition is new. However, its analysis as a morpheme having left the category of the preposition is not. Indeed, some authors regard this morpheme in Modern French as the marker of the gerund (e.g. Halmøy 2003: 62-63, 2013: 275; Begioni & Rocchetti 2010: 81-83). My hypothesis is in contrast with this analysis, in that it treats this morpheme as an optional functional marker rather than as a mandatory category marker.</footnote>
other. This matter is primarily to be approached from a qualitative point of view and based on the lexical
stock of the forms used in adjectival configurations, but it would be relevant to implement the insights
gathered from such a study in quantitative studies of the -ant form and (de)verbal adjectives in -ant. For
instance, a stricter definition of the -ant form could serve to adjust the figures obtained for the external
syntactic, morphosyntactic, and typological profile of the Old French -ant form in this dissertation. This
adjustment could give us a more faithful idea of the functional properties of this form, and thus of its
position in the Old French system of non-finite verb forms. This, in turn, would allow not only a more
faithful study of the evolution of the -ant form in the further history of French, but also a more faithful
comparison of the Old French -ant form with its source categories in Latin and their counterparts in
other, especially, but not exclusively, Romance languages.
<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>
# Bibliographical references

## 1. Corpora and databases

[BFM] *Base de Français Médiéval* (2012-). Lyon, IHRIM (CNRS & ENS de Lyon).
[http://bfm.enslyon.fr]

[BL2LAT] *Corpus de textes uniquement latins* (vies de saints, Frédégaire et Egérie, etc.) (*corpus privé*).
Portal BFM-TXM, Lyon, IHRIM (CNRS & ENS de Lyon).
[http://bfm.enslyon.fr]

[PALAFRAFRO-V2-2] *Corpus français*. Portal BFM-TXM, Lyon, IHRIM (CNRS & ENS de Lyon).
[http://txm.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/bfm/]

[PALAFRALAT-V2-0] *Corpus latin*. Portal BFM-TXM, Lyon, IHRIM (CNRS & ENS de Lyon).
[http://txm.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/bfm/]

[PALAFRAPAR] *Corpus parallèle*. Portal BFM-TXM, Lyon, IHRIM (CNRS & ENS de Lyon).
[http://txm.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/bfm/]

[LASLA] *Laboratoire d'Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes* (1961-). University of Liège.
[http://web.philo.ulg.ac.be/lasla/]

## 2. Dictionaries

[DEAF] *Dictionnaire Etymologique de l'Ancien Français*. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.
[http://www.deaf-page.de/fr]

[ThLL] *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae*. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
[https://thesaurus.badw.de/das-projekt.html]

## 3. Scientific references

Aalto, P. (1949). *Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum*, Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Aalto, P. (1951). "L'origine du gérondif absolu", *Neuphilologische Mitteilungen* 52 (3), 145-157.

Aarts, B. (2007). *Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Adams, J. N. (1973). "The Substantival Present Participle in Latin", *Glotta* 51, 116-136.

Adams, J. N. (2003). *Bilingualism and the Latin Language*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Adams, J. N. (2005). "The 'Bellum Africum'". In T. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge & J. N. Adams (eds), *Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 73-96.

Adams, J. N. (2013). *Social Variation and the Latin Language*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Aebischer P. (1948). "Contribution à la protohistoire des articles *ille* et *ipse* dans les langues romanes", *Cultura neolatina* 8, 181-203.

Aikhenvald, A. (2004a). "The Adjective Class in Tariana". In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds), *Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 97-124.

Aikhenvald, A. (2004b). *Evidentiality*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Alexiadou, A. (2013). "Nominal vs. Verbal -ing Constructions and the Development of the English Progressive", *English Linguistics Research* 2 (2), 126-140.

Amenta, L. (2003). *Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in latino. Origini e grammaticalizzazioni*, Milan, FrancoAngeli.

Anglade, J. (1958). *Grammaire élémentaire de l'ancien français*, Paris, Librairie Armand Colin.

Arnavielle, T. (1982). *Recherches sur les formes en -ANT des origines du français au début du XVIIe siècle*, PhD dissertation, University of Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris 3).

Arnavielle, T. (1984). "Recherches sur les formes en -ANT des origines du français au début du XVIIe siècle", *L'information grammaticale* 23, 38-40.

Arnavielle, T. (1997). *Le morpheme -ant: unite et diversite*. *Etude historique et theorique*, Leuven, Peeters.

Aronoff, M. (1976). *Word Formation in Generative Grammar*, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.

Aronoff, M. (1983). "A Decade of Morphology and Word Formation", *Annual Review of Anthropology* 12, 355-375.

Asher, N. & A. Lascarides (2003). *Logics of Conversation*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Aspland, C. (1968). "The So-Called Absolute Construction in Old French: Types – *Voiant toz*, *Oiant toz*", *Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association: A Journal of Literary Criticism*, *Philology & Linguistics* 30, 151-168.

Aspland, C. (1974). "La proposition participe (*mes anemis voi ici aproichans*) et la proposition gérondif (*jo vei paens venant*) dans la poésie française du douzième siècle", *Studia Neophilologica* 46 (1), 15-31.

Ayres-Bennett, W. (2018). *Claude Favre de Vaugelas. Remarques sur la langue française*, Paris, Editions Classiques Garnier.

Baayen, H. (1992). "Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity". In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), *Yearbook of Morphology 1991*, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 109-149.

Baayen, H. (1993). "On Frequency, Transparency and Productivity". In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), *Yearbook of Morphology 1992*, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 181-208.
Baayen, H. & R. Lieber (1991). "Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study", *Linguistics* 29, 801-843.

Bacherler, M. (1922). "Zum sogenannten Nominativus Absolutus bei Curtius", *Wiener Studien* 43, 100-102.

Baehrens, W. A. (1913). "Vermischtes über lateinischen Sprachgebrauch", *Glotta* 4 (3), 265-280.

Baker, M. (2003). *Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Banniard, M. (1992). *Viva voce. Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident Latin*, Paris, Collection des Études Augustiniennes.

Banniard, M. (2018). "Comment le latin parlé classique est devenu le français parlé archaïque". In A. Carlier & C. Guillot-Barbance (eds), *Latin tardif, français ancien: continuités et ruptures*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 21-34.

Barðdal, J. (2008). *Productivity Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (eds) (2015). *Diachronic Construction Grammar*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Barðdal, J. & S. Gildea (2015). "Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications". In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (eds), *Diachronic Construction Grammar*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1-50.

Bary, C. & D. Haug (2011). "Temporal Anaphora across and inside Sentences: The Function of Participles", *Semantics and Pragmatics* 4 (8), 1-56.

Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney (1982). "Functionalist Approaches to Grammar". In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (eds), *Language Acquisition: The State of the Art*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 173-218.

Bauer, B. (1993). "The Coalescence of the Participle and the Gerund/Gerundive: An Integrated Change". In H. Aertsen & R. Jeffers (eds), *Historical Linguistics 1989*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 59-73.

Bauer, B. (2005). "Innovation in Old French Syntax and its Latin Origins". In S. Kiss, L. Mondin & S. Giampaolo (eds), *Latin et langues romanes. Etudes de linguistique offertes József Herman à l'occasion de son 80ième anniversaire*, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 507-521.

Bauer, L. (2001). *Morphological Productivity*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Bayard, L. (1902). *De gerundivi et gerundii vi antiquissima et usu recentiore*, PhD dissertation, University of Paris.

Bazin-Tacchella, S. (2020). "Chapitre 31. Catégories variables: le verbe". In C. Marchello-Nizia, B. Combettes, S. Prévost & T. Scheer (eds), *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français (GGHF)*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 745-855.
Greule, B. Kluge, J. Jarnut & M. Selig (eds), *Die merowingischen Monetarmünzen als interdisziplinär-mediävistische Herausforderung*, Paderborn, Wilhelm Fink, 293-401.

Buridant, C. (2000). *Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français*, Paris, SEDES.

Buridant, C. (2019). *Grammaire du français médiéval (XIe - XIVe siècles)*, Strasbourg, Éditions de Linguistique et de Philologie (ELiPhi).

Burton, P. (2000). *The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Burzio, L. (1986). *Italian Syntax*, Dordrecht, Reidel.

Bybee, J. (1985). *Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. (1995). "Regular Morphology and the Lexicon", *Language and Cognitive Processes* 10 (5), 425-455.

Bybee, J. (2010). *Language, Usage and Cognition*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, J. & S. A. Thompson (1997). "Three Frequency Effects in Syntax", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 23, 378-388.

Cabrillana, C. (2010). "*Praedicativum* and Subject Complement". In P. Anreiter & M. Kienpointer (eds), *Latin Linguistics Today*, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 233-245.

Cabrillana, C. (2019). "*Praedicativum* and Subject Complement: A Question Revisited in Light of the Latin Verb *sto*". In L. van Gils, C. Kroon & R. Risselada (eds), *Lemmata Linguistica Latina. Volume 2: Clause and Discourse*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 116-133.

Cappelle, B. (2006). "Particle Placement and the Case for 'Allostructions'", *Constructions* 7, 1-28.

Carlier, A. (2016). "The Capricious Evolution of the Indefinite Plural Article *uns* and its Relationship with Lexical Plurality in Medieval French", *Linguisticae Investigationes* 39 (2), 309-334.

Carlier, A. (2017). "Le système des démonstratifs en cours de restructuration en latin tardif: une séparation des rôles référentiel et pragmatique de la deixis", *Langages* 208, 29-51.

Carlier, A. & W. De Mulder (2010). "The Emergence of the Definite Article in Late Latin: "ille" in Competition with "ipse"". In H. Cuykens, K. Davidse & L. Van de Lanotte (eds), *Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalisation*, The Hague, Mouton, 241-275.

Carlier, A. & B. Combettes (2015). "Typologie et catégorisation morphosyntaxique: du latin au français moderne", *Langue française* 187 (3), 15-58.

Carlier, A. & C. Guillot-Barbance (2018) (eds), *Latin tardif, français ancien: continuités et ruptures*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Carlier, A. & B. Lamiroy (2018). "The Emergence of the Grammatical Paradigm of Nominal Determiners in French and in Romance: Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives", *Canadian Journal of Linguistics* 63 (2), 141-166.
Carlier, A., L. Danckaert, C. Guillot-Barbance, M. Selig & J. Vangaever (in progress) (eds). *Bridging the Gap between Late Latin and Early Old French: Empirical Investigations of (Morpho)Syntactic Changes*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Cavallin, S. (1934). *Literarhistorische und textkritische Studien zur Vita S. Caesarii Arelatensis*, Lund, Gleerup.

Chafe, W. (1984). "How People Use Adverbial Clauses", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 10, 437-449.

Chomsky, N. (1965). *Aspects of the Theory of Syntax*, Cambridge (MA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.

Combettes, B. (2003). "L'évolution de la forme en -ant: aspects syntaxiques et textuels", *Langages* 149, 6-24.

Combettes, B. (2018). "La subordination dans la Chronique de Frédégaire: les propositions non régies". In A. Carlier & C. Guillot-Barbance (eds), *Latin tardif, français ancien: continuités et ruptures*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 373-412.

Comrie, B. (1976). *Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspects and Related Problems*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, B. (1985). *Tense*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Corbett, G. (2000). *Number*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Corblin, F. (1990). "Les groupes nominaux sans nom du français". In G. Kleiber & J.-E. Tyvaert (eds), *L'anaphore et ses domaines*, Paris, Klincksieck, 63-80.

Corssen, W. (1863). *Kritische Beiträge zur lateinischen Formenlehre*, Leipzig, Teubner.

Coussé, E., P. Andersson & J. Olofsson (eds) (2018). *Grammaticalisation meets Construction Grammar*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Cristofaro, S. (2003). *Subordination*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cristofaro, S. (2009). "Grammatical Categories and Relations: Universality vs. Language-Specificity and Construction-Specificity", *Language and Linguistics Compass* 3, 441-479.

Croft, W. (2000). *Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach*, London, Longman.

Croft, W. (2001). *Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cuzzolin, P. & G. Haverling (2009). "Syntax, Sociolinguistics, and Literary Genres". In P. Baldi & P. Cuzzolin (eds), *New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1: Syntax of the Sentence*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 19-64.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (1996). *The French Influence on English Morphology. A Corpus-Based Study of Derivation*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Davison, A. (1979). "Some Mysteries of Subordination", *Studies in the Linguistic Sciences* 9, 105-128.

De Carvalho, P. (2003). ""Gérondif", "participe présent" et "adjectif verbal" en morphosyntaxe comparative", *Langages* 149, 100-126.
De Smet, H. (2008a). "Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation: Gerunds, Participles, and *for...to*-infinitives", PhD dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven.

De Smet, H. (2008b). "Functional Motivations in the Development of Nominal and Verbal Gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English", *English Language and Linguistics* 12 (1), 55-102.

De Smet, H. (2009). "Analysing Reanalysis", *Lingua* 119, 1728-1755.

De Smet, H. (2013). *Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

De Smet, H. (2014). "Does Innovation Need Reanalysis?" In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (eds), *Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 23-48.

De Smet, H., F. D'Hoedt, L. Fonteyn & K. van Goethem (2018). "The Changing Functions of Competing Forms: Attraction and Differentiation", *Cognitive Linguistics* 29 (2), 197-234.

Declerck, R. (1982). "The Triple Origin of Participial Perception Verb Complements", *Linguistic Analysis* 10, 1-26.

Degand, L. & B. Fagard (2012). "Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain: French *car* and *parce que*", *Journal of Pragmatics* 44 (2), 154-168.

Diessel, H. (2005). "Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses", *Linguistics* 43 (3), 449-470.

Diessel, H. (2008). "Iconicity of Sequence. A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Positioning of Temporal Adverbial Clauses in English", *Cognitive Linguistics* 19, 457-482.

Dietrich, W. (1973). *Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen*, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag.

Diez, F. C. (1843⁴ [1877]). *Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen*. Vol. 3, Bonn, Eduard Weber.

Dik, S. C. (1985). "Formal and Semantic Adjustment of Derived Constructions". In M. Bolkestein & C. de Groot (eds), *Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar*, Dordrecht, Foris, 1-28.

Dik, S. C. (1997). *The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1984). "The Semantic Basis of Syntactic Properties", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 10, 583-595.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2004). "Adjective Classes in Typological Perspective". In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds), *Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 30-84.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2009). "The Semantics of Clause Linking in Typological Perspective". In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds), *The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-Linguistic Typology*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1-55.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). *Basic Linguistic Theory*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Dryer, M. (1997). "Are Grammatical Relations universal?". In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds), *Essays on Language Function and Language Type*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 115-143.
Duffley, P. (2006). *The English Gerund-Participle. A Comparison with the Infinitive*, New York, Peter Lang.

Eklund, S. (1970). *The Periphrastic, Completive and Finite Use of the Present Participle in Latin. With Special Regard to Translations of Christian Texts in Greek up to 600 A.D.*, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Elcock, W. D. (1960). *The Romance Languages*, London, Faber and Faber.

Elss, H. (1907). "Untersuchungen über den Stil und die Sprache des Venantius Fortunatus", PhD dissertation, University of Heidelberg.

Eriksson, A. (1939). *Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Epiphanius' Interpretatio evangeliorum*, Lund, Gleerup.

Ernout, A. (1914³ [1953]). *Morphologie historique du latin*, Paris, Klincksieck.

Ernout, A. & F. Thomas (1951). *Syntaxe latine*, Paris, Klincksieck.

Etienne, E. (1895). *Essai de grammaire de l'ancien français (IX-XIVe s)*, Nancy/Paris, Berger-Levrault.

Faarlund, J. T. (1990). *Syntactic Change. Toward a Theory of Historical Syntax*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Fabricius-Hansen, C. & D. Haug (2012). "Introduction". C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. Haug (eds), *Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 1-18.

Fanego, T. (2004). "On Reanalysis and Actualisation in Syntactic Change", *Diachronica* 21, 5-55.

Fauchet, C. (1579). *Recueil des antiquitez gauloises et françoises*, Paris, Chez Iacques du Puys.

Fay, D. & A. Cutler (1977). "Malapropisms and the Structure of the Mental Lexicon", *Linguistic Inquiry* 8 (3), 505-520.

Fedeli, P. (1980). *Il primo libro delle Elegie*, Firenze, L.S. Olschki.

Fernández-Ordóñez, I. (2000). "Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo". In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), *Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española*, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1316-1397.

Fertig, D. (2013). *Analogy and Morphological Change*, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Filzi, M. (1914). "Contributo alia sintassi dei dialetti italiani", *Studi romanzi* 11, 5-92.

Flinck-Linkomies, E. (1924). "Einige Bemerkungen zu den absoluten Konstruktionen in den neueren Sprachen", *Neuphilologische Mitteilungen* 25 (4/8), 214-221.

Flinck-Linkomies, E. (1929). *De ablativo absoluto quaestiones*, Helsingfors, Academia Fennica.

Flobert, P. (1975). *Les verbes déponents latins: des origines à Charlemagne*, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

Flobert, P. (1996). "Les verbes support en latin". In A. Bammesberger & F. Heberlein (eds), *Akten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik*, Heidelberg, Winter, 193-199.

Foley, W. & R. Van Valin (1984). *Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Fonteyn, L. (2016). *Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund*, PhD dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven.
Fonteyn, L. (2019). *Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Fonteyn, L. & C. Maekelberghe (2018). "Competing Motivations in the Diachronic Nominalisation of English Gerunds", *Diachronica* 35 (4), 487-524.

Foulet, L. (1930). *Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français*, Paris, Champion.

Francis, A. L. & H. F. Tatum (1919). *An Advanced Latin Syntax*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Francis, E. (1999). *Variation within Lexical Categories*, PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Francis, E. & L Michaelis (2004). *Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar*, Stanford (CA), Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.

Fruyt, M. (1996). "La syntaxe de l'infinitif en latin tardif: réflexions sur la nature des processus évolutifs", *Recherches augustiniennes* 29, 43-73.

Fruyt, M. (2019). "Apulée et la créativité lexicale: le suffixe -tus, -tūs". In J. Dalbera & D. Longrée (eds), *La langue d'Apulée dans les Métamorphoses*, Paris, L'Harmattan, 181-201.

Gabain, A. von (1941). *Alttürkische Grammatik*, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Gaffiot, F. (1934). *Dictionnaire illustré latin français*, Paris, Hachette.

Galdi, G. (2014). "Some Considerations on the Apodotic Uses of *atque* and *et* (2nd c. BC – 2nd c. AD)", *Journal of Latin Linguistics* 13 (1), 63-91.

Galdi, G. (2015). "Some Remarks on the Language of the *Itinerarium Antonini Placentini*", *Listy filologické* 138, 41-63.

Galdi, G. (2017). "Zum sogenannten Nominativus Absolutus im Lateinischen: Neue Auslegungen zu einem alten Problem", *Symbolae osloenses* 91 (1), 28-80.

Galdi, G. (2018). "On the Use of *facio* as Support Verb in Late and Merovingian Latin", *Journal of Latin Linguistics* 17 (2), 231-257.

Galdi, G. (2019). "Per peccatum cecidit diabolo faciente: On the causal/instrumental uses of 'faciente + (pro)noun' in imperial and late Latin", *Philologia Classica* 14 (1), 89-106.

Galdi, G. & J. Vangaever (2018). "On the Use of the Ablative of the Gerund and of the Nominative of the Present Participle in Latin Technical Literature". In L. van Gils, C. Kroon & R. Risselada (eds), *Lemmata linguistica latina. Volume 2: Clause and Discourse*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 96-115.

Garey, H. (1957). "Verbal Aspect in French", *Language* 33 (2), 91-110.

Garner, S. (1889). "The Gerundial Construction in the Romanic Languages", *Modern Language Notes* 4, 133-145 and 258-274.

Gast, V. & H. Diessel (2012). "The Typology of Clause Linkage: Status quo, Challenges, Prospects". In V. Gast & H. Diessel (eds), *Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 1-36.
Geuder, W. (2000). *Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs*, PhD dissertation, University of Konstanz.

Geyer, P. (1898). *Itinera Hierosolymitana. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum*, Vienna, Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky.

Gil, D. (2001). "Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a Process of Unlearning.". In P. Newman & M. Ratliff (eds), *Linguistic Fieldwork*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 102-132.

Givón, T. (1985). "Iconicity, Isomorphism, and non-Arbitrary Coding in Syntax". In J. Haiman (ed.), *Iconicity in Syntax*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 187-220.

Givón, T. (1990). *Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Givón, T. (2016). "Nominalisation and Re-Finitisation". In K. M. Eide (ed.), *Finiteness Matters. On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 271-296.

Goffart, W. (1963). "The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered", *Speculum* 38 (2), 206-241.

Goldberg, A. (1995). *Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure*, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, A. (2006). *Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalisation in Language*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Gougenheim, G. (1929). *Etude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue française*, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres.

Grandsaignes d'Hauterive, R. (1947). *Dictionnaire d'ancien français*, Paris, Larousse.

Greco, P. (2013). "Latin *Accusativus cum Participio*: Syntactic Description, Evidential Values, and Diachronic Development", *Journal of Latin Linguistics* 12 (2), 173-198.

Gries, S. T. (2013). *Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Guillot-Barbance, C., B. Pincemin & A. Lavrentiev (2017). "Représentation de l'oral en français médiéval et genres textuels", *Langages* 208, 53-68.

Guiraud, P. (1963). *L'ancien français*, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Güldemann, T. (2005). "Asyndetic Subordination and Deverbal Depictive Expressions in Shona". In N. Himmelmann & E. Schultze-Berndt (eds), *Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 323-353.

Gundlach, W. (1892). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 3*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Gyselinck, E. (2018). "The Role of Expressivity and Productivity in (Re)Shaping the Constructional Network. A Corpus-Based Study into Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in the Intensifying Fake Reflexive Resultative Construction in 19th to 21st Century Dutch", PhD dissertation, Ghent University.

Hahn, A. (1943). "Voice of Non-Finite Verb Forms in Latin and English", *Transactions of the American Philological Association* 74, 269-306.
Haiman, J. (1980). "The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation", *Language* 56, 515-540.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). *Intonation and Grammar in British English*, The Hague, Mouton.

Halmøy, O. (1982). *Le gerondif: éléments pour une description syntaxique et sémantique*, PhD dissertation, University of Trondheim.

Halmøy, O. (2003). *Le gérondif en français*, Paris, Ophrys.

Halmøy, O. (2013). "Le participe présent en français moderne". In A. Ouattara (ed.), *Les fonctions grammaticales: histoire, théorie, pratiques*, Bruxelles, Peter Lang, 275-283.

Hangin, J. G. (1968). *Basic Course in Mongolian*, Bloomington, Indiana University.

Harris, A. & L. Campbell (1995). *Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Harris, M. (1978). *The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach*, London, Longman.

Haspelmath, M. (1995). "The Converb as a Cross-Linguistically Valid Category". In M. Haspelmath & E. König (eds), *Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 1-56.

Haspelmath, M. (2001). "Word Classes and Parts of Speech". In P. B. Baltes & N. J. Smelser (eds), *International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences*, Amsterdam, Pergamon, 16538-16545.

Haspelmath, M. (2007). "Pre-established Categories Don't Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology", *Linguistic Typology* 11, 119-139.

Haspelmath, M. (2010). "Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies", *Language* 86 (3), 663-687.

Haspelmath, M. (2012). "Escaping Ethnocentrism in the Study of Word-Class Universals", *Theoretical Linguistics* 38 (1-2), 91-102.

Haspelmath, M. (2014). "On System Pressure Competing with Economic Motivation". In B. MacWhinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (eds), *Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 197-208.

Haspelmath, M. (2016). "The Challenge of Making Language Description and Comparison Mutually Beneficial", *Linguistic Typology* 20 (2), 299-301.

Haug, D. (2012). "Open Verb-Based Adjuncts in New Testament Greek – with a View to the Latin Vulgate Translation". In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. Haug (eds), *Big Events, Small Clauses. The Grammar of Elaboration*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 287-321.

Haverling, G. (1988). *Studies of Symmachus' Language and Style*, Göteborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Haverling, G. (2010). "Actionality, Tense, and Viewpoint". In P. Baldi & P. Cuzzolin (eds), *New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 277-523.
Heick, O. W. (1936). *The ab urbe condita construction in Latin*, PhD dissertation, University of Nebraska.

Heine, B. (1993). *Auxiliaries, Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalisation*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Heine, B. (2002). "On the Role of Context in Grammaticalisation". In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds), *New Reflections on Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 83-101.

Heine, B. (2009). "From Nominal to Clausal Morphosyntax: Complexity via Expansion". In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (eds), *Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisisation, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 23-51.

Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer (1991). *Grammaticalisation: A Conceptual Framework*, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Hellmann, S. (1934). "Das Fredegarproblem", *Historische Vierteljahrschrift* 29, 36-92.

Hengeveld, K. (1992). *Nonverbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Hengeveld, K., J. Rijkhoff & A. Siewierska (2004). "Parts-of-Speech Systems and Word Order", *Journal of Linguistics* 40(3), 527-570.

Herman, J. (1998). "La chronologie de la transition: un essai". In J. Herman (ed.), *La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze*, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 5-26.

Herman, J. (2000). *Vulgar Latin* (translated by R. Wright), Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Herman, J. (2006). "La transition du latin aux languages romanes. Quelques problèmes de la recherché". In J. Herman (ed.), *Du latin aux langues romanes II. Nouvelles études de linguistique historique*, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 183-194.

Hetterle, K. (2015). *Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Hilpert, M. (2013). *Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Himmelmann, N. (2004). "Lexicalisation and Grammaticisation: Opposite or Orthogonal?". In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (eds), *What Makes Grammaticisation? A Look from its Fringes and its Components*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 21-42.

Himmelmann, N. (2005). "Gram, Construction, and Class Formation". In C. Knoblauch & B. Schaeder (eds), *Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung: Perspektiven in System und Erwerb*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 79-93.

Himmelmann, N. & E. Schultze-Berndt (2005). "Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Participant-Oriented Adjuncts: An Introduction". In N. Himmelmann & E. Schultze-Berndt (eds), *Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1-67.
Hintzen, B. (1993). *Das Partizip Präsens in Ciceros Reden unter Einbeziehung des Partizip Perfekt der Deponentien*, Münster, Waxmann.

Hoff, F. (1989). "Les ablatifs absolus irréguliers". In G. Calboli (ed.), *Subordination and Other Topics in Latin*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 401-423.

Hofmann, J. B. & A. Szantyr (1965). *Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik*, München, Beck.

Hoffmann, R. (1996). "Funktionsverbgefüge im Lateinischen". In A. Bammesberger & F. Heberlein (eds), *Akten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik*, Heidelberg, Winter, 200-212.

Hoffmann, R. (2015). "Sentential Complements of Latin Function Verb Constructions". In G. Haverling (ed.), *Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century*, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 362-371.

Hopper, P. (1987). "Emergent Grammar", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 13, 139-157.

Hopper, P. (1991). "On some Principles of Grammaticisation". In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds), *Approaches to Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 17-36.

Hopper, P. & E. C. Traugott (1993² [2003]). *Grammaticalisation*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Horn, F. (1918). *Zur Geschichte der absoluten Partizipialkonstruktionen im Lateinischen*, Lund, Gleerup.

Huddleston, R. & G. K. Pullum (2002). *The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ilioaia, M. (2020). "Productivity of the Romanian *mihi est* Pattern", *Revue roumaine de linguistique* 65 (1), 49-67.

Jasanoff, J. (2006). "The Origin of the Latin Gerund and Gerundive: A New Proposal", *Harvard Ukrainian Studies* 28 (1-4), 195-208.

Jensen, F. (1990). *Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax*, Tübingen, Niemeyer Verlag.

Jespersen, O. (1949). *A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII: Syntax*, Copenhagen, Ejnar Munksgaard.

Joos, M. (ed.) (1957). *Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America 1925-1956*, Washington, American Council of Learned Societies.

Keller, H.-E. (1953). *Etude descriptive sur le vocabulaire de Wace*, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.

Keydana, G. (1997). *Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen*, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Kircher-Durand, C. (2008). "Réflexions autour du gérondif latin". In C. Brunet (ed.), *Des formes et des mots chez les Anciens*, Franche-Comté, Presses de l'Université de Franche-Comté, 119-132.

Kisbye, T. (1971). *A Historical Outline of English Syntax*, Aarhus, Akademisk boghandel.

Klemenz, P. (1884). *Der syntactische Gebrauch des Participium praesentis und des Gerundiums im Altfranzösischen*, PhD dissertation, University of Breslau.
König, E. & J. van der Auwera (1990). "Adverbial Participles, Gerunds and Absolute Constructions in the Languages of Europe". In J. Bechert, G. Bernini & C. Buridant (eds), *Toward a Typology of European languages*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 337-355.

Kooreman, M. (1989). "The Historical Development of the Ablative of the Gerund". In M. Lavency & D. Longrée (eds), *Actes du 5ième colloque de linguistique latine*, Louvain, Peeters, 219-230.

Kortmann, B. (1991). *Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English*, London, Routledge.

Kranich, S. (2007). "Some Problems Connected with the Analysis of Gerunds with Direct Object in Middle English". In W. Rudolf, T. Honegger & A. J. Johnston (eds), *Clerks, Wives, and Historians: Essays on Medieval Language and Literature*, Bern, Peter Lang, 213-233.

Krisch, T. (1988). *Zur semantischen Interpretation von absoluten Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen*, Innsbruck, Scientia.

Kroeger, P. (1993). *Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog*, Stanford (CA), Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.

Kroll, W. (1915). "Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1912", *Glotta* 6 (4), 248-380.

Krueger, J. R. (1962). *Yakut manual*, Bloomington, Indiana University.

Kruijer, M. & E. la Roi (2018). "Paradigmatic Possibilities as Perspective for Absolute Constructions", *Mnemosyne* 71, 799-822.

Krusch, B. (1882). "Die *Chronicae* des sogenannten Fredegar", *Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für Ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde* 7, 247-351 and 421-516.

Krusch, B. (1888). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 2*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Krusch, B. (1902). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 4*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Kühner, R. & C. Stegmann (1914⁵ [1976]). *Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache*, Hannover, Hahn.

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). "The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax", *Foundations of Language* 9 (2), 153-185.

Labov, W. (1994). *Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors*, Oxford, Blackwell.

Labov, W. (2001). *Principles of linguistic change. Social Factors*, Oxford, Blackwell.

Lapaire, J.-R. & W. Rotgé (1998). *Linguistique et grammaire de l'anglais*, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). *Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, R. (1977). "Syntactic Reanalysis". In C. Li (ed.), *Mechanisms of Syntactic Change*, Austin, University of Texas Press, 57-139.

Lass, R. (1992). "Phonology and Morphology". In N. Blake (ed.), *The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2: 1066-1476*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 23-154.
Laughton, E. (1964). *The Participle in Cicero*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Lauwers, P. (2014). "Between Adjective and Noun: Category/Function, Mismatch, Constructional Overrides and Coercion". In R. Simone & F. Masini (eds), *Word Classes: Nature, typology and Representations*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 203-225.

Lauwers, P. & D. Willems (2011). "Coercion: Definition and Challenges, Current Approaches, and New Trends", *Linguistics* 49 (6), 1219-1235.

Lazard, G. (2006). *La quête des invariants interlangues. La linguistique est-elle une science?*, Paris, Champion.

Lease, E. (1928). "The ablative absolute limited by conjunctions", *American Journal of Philology* 49, 348-353.

Lease, E. (1931). "Addendum", *American Journal of Philology* 51, 175.

Ledgeway, A. & M. Maiden (eds) (2016). *The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Leech, G., M. Hundt, C. Mair & N. Smith (2009). *Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Legendre, G. & A. Sorace (2003). "Auxiliaires et intransitivité en français et dans les langues romanes". In D. Godard (ed.), *Les langues romanes. Problèmes de la phrase simple*, Paris, CNRS, 185-233.

Lehmann, C. (1982³ [2015]). *Thoughts on Grammaticalisation*, Munich, LINCOM EUROPA.

Lehmann, C. (1985). "Grammaticalisation: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change", *Lingua e stile* 20, 303-318.

Lehmann, C. (1988). "Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage". In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds), *Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 181-225.

Lehmann, C. (2002). "New Reflections on Grammaticalisation and Lexicalization". In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds), *New Reflections on Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1-18.

Lehmann, C. (2005). "Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung". In C. Knobloch & B. Schaeder (eds), *Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 1-20.

Lehmann, C. (2018a). "Linguistic Concepts and Categories in Language Description and Comparison". In M. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (eds), *Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalisation studies*, Milan, FrancoAngeli, 27-50.

Lehmann, C. (2018b). "Adjective and Attribution. Category and Operation". In C. Baumann, V. Dabóczi & S. Hartlmaier (eds), *Adjektive*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 13-76.

Lerch, E. (1912). *Prädikative participia für verbalsubstantiva im französischen. C'était un rêve accompli, das war die Erfüllung ihres Traumes*, Halle, Niemeyer.

Lerch, E. (1915). "Das invariable Participium praesentis des Französischen [une femme aimant la vertu]. Ursprung und Konsequenzen eines alten Irrtums", *Romanische Forschungen* 33 (2), 369-488.

Leumann, M. (1977). *Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre*, Munich, Beck.
Levison, W. (1910). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 5*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Levison, W. (1920). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 7*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Levshina, N. (2015). *How to Do Linguistics with R*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Lieber, R. (1981). *On the Organisation of the Lexicon*, Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Lloyd, P. M. (1987). *From Latin to Spanish: Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Spanish Language*, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.

Löfstedt, E. (1911). *Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Untersuchungen zur geschichte der lateinischen sprache*, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell.

Lot, F. (1914). "Encore la chronique du Pseudo-Frédégaire", *Revue historique* 155 (2), 305-337.

Luque, J. (1978). "En torno al sintagma 'haber' impersonal + sustantivo' y sus orígenes latinos", *Revista Española de Lingüística* 8, 125-147.

Lyer, S. (1931). "Les constructions absolues romanes", *Archivum romanicum* 15, 411-428.

Lyer, S. (1932). "Le gérondif en -ndo et le participe présent latin", *Revue des études latines* 10, 222-232 and 382-399.

Lyer, S. (1934). *Syntaxe du gérondif et du participe présent dans les langues romanes*, Paris, Droz.

Maiden, M. (1995). *A Linguistic History of Italian*, London, Longman.

Maling, J. (2001). "Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles", *Lingua* 111, 419-464.

Maltby, R. (2002). "Gerund and Gerundive Usage in Isidore of Seville". In M. Bolkestein (ed.), *Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics*, Amsterdam, Gieben, 219-234.

Maraldi, M. (1980). "The Complement Structure of Perception Verbs in Latin". In G. Calboli (ed.), *Papers on grammar I*, Bologna, CLUEB, 47-79.

Maraldi, M. (1994). "Some Remarks on the Historical Development of the Gerund in Latin". In G. Calboli (ed.), *Papers on Grammar 4*, Bologna, CLUEB, 141-164.

Marchello-Nizia, C. (2007). "Le principe de surprise annoncée: grammaticalisation et pragmaticalisation de *cependant*", *Discours (en ligne)* 1, 1-12.

Marchello-Nizia, C., B. Combettes, S. Prévost & T. Scheer (eds), *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français (GGHF)*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Marouzeau, J. (1910). *L'emploi du participe présent latin à l'époque républicaine*, Paris, Champion.

Meiser, G. (1998² [2006]). *Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache*, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Ménard, P. (1973). *Syntaxe de l'ancien français*, Bordeaux, SOBODI.

Menge, H., T. Burkard, M. Schauer & F. Maier (2000). *Lehrbuch der Lateinischen Syntax und Semantik*, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mercier, A. (1879). *Histoire des participes français*, Paris, Vieweg.

Meyer-Lübke, W. (1894). *Grammatik der Romanischen Sprache. Vol. 2: Formenlehre*, Leipzig, Fues’s Verlag.

Meyer-Lübke, W. (1899). *Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen. Vol. 3: Syntax*, Leipzig, Fues’s Verlag.

Meyer-Lübke, W. (1923). *Grammaire des langues romanes*, New York, Stechert.

Miniconi, P.-J. (1951). *Causa et ses dérivés*, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

Molinier, C. (1990). "Une classification des adverbes en -ment", *Langue française* 88 (1), 28-40.

Mönch, E. (1912). *Die Verwendung des Gerundiums und des Participiums Praesentis im Französischen*, PhD dissertation, University of Göttingen.

Mondorf, B. (2011). *Gender Differences in English Syntax*, Berlin, De Gruyter.

Moussy, C. (1966). Gratia *et sa famille*, Paris, Presses Universitaires Françaises.

Müller-Lancé, J. (1994). *Absolute Konstruktionen vom Altlatein bis zum Neufranzösischen*, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag.

Nedjalkov, I. V. (1998). "Converbs in the Languages of Europe". In J. van der Auwera & D. P. Ó Baoill (eds), *Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 421-455.

Nedjalkov, V. P. (1995). "Some Typological Parameters of Converbs". In M. Haspelmath & E. König (eds), *Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 97-136.

Nedjalkov, V. P. & I. V. Nedjalkov (1987). "On the Typological Characteristics of Converbs". In T. Help (ed.), *Symposium on Language Universals*, Tallinn, Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR (Institute of Languages and Literature), 75-79.

Newmeyer, F. (2007). "Linguistic Typology Requires Crosslinguistic Formal Categories", *Linguistic Typology* 11, 133-157.

Nichols, J. (1978). "Secondary Predicates", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 4, 114-127.

Nikolaeva, I. (2007). "Introduction". In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), *Finiteness*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1-19.

Nikolaeva, I. (2010). "Finiteness in Typology", *Language and Linguistics Compass* 3 (1), 1176-1189.

Norberg, D. (1943). *Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiet des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins*, Uppsala, Lundequistska bokhandeln.

Nuyts, J. & P. Byloo (2015). "Competing Modals: Beyond (Inter)Subjectification", *Diachronica* 32, 34-68.

Odelstierna, I. (1926). "De vi futurali ac finali gerundii et gerundivi Latini observationes", Uppsala, Almqvist och Wiksell.

Önnerfors, A. (1956). *Pliniana. In Plinii Maioris Naturalem Historiam studia grammatica, semantica, critica*, Uppsala, Lundequistska bokhandeln.

Palmer, L. R. (1964). *The Latin Language*, London, Faber and Faber.
Paul, H. (1919). *Deutsche Grammatik*, Halle (Saale), Max Niemeyer.

Payne, T. E. (1997). *Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Penny, R. J. (1995² [2002]). *A History of the Spanish Language*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Perlmutter, D. (1978). "Impersonal Passive and the Unaccusative Hypothesis", *Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings* 4, 157-189.

Perrochat, P. (1932). *Recherches sur la valeur et l'emploi de l'infinitif subordonné en latin*, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

Petschenig, M. (1881). *Victoris episcopi Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae*, Vienna, Apud C. Geroldi filium.

Piccoli, F. (1972). *Participium Praesentis activi und Ablativus Gerundii. Aspekte ihrer syntaktischen Entwicklung im Latein der Kaiserzeit*, Zürich, Aku-Fotodruck.

Pincemin, B., C. Guillot-Barbance & A. Lavrentiev (2018). "Using the First Axis of a Correspondence Analysis as an Analytical Tool". In D. F. Iezzi, L. Celardo & M. Misuraca (eds), *Proceedings of 14th International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (Rome, 12-15 June 2018)*, Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia, 14-15 giugno 1996, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 229-235.

Pinkster, H. (1972). *On Latin Adverbs*, Amsterdam, North-Holland publishing.

Pinkster, H. (1984). *Latijnse syntaxis en semantiek*, Amsterdam, Grüner.

Pinkster, H. (1998). "Narrative Tenses in Merovingian Hagiographic Texts". In J. Herman (ed.), *La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze. Atti della Tavola Rotonda di Linguistica Storica. Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia, 14-15 giugno 1996*, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 229-235.

Pinkster, H. (2015). *Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume 1: The Simple Clause*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pinkster, H. (2018). "La contribution des marques casuelles à l'interprétation des propositions dans trois extraits de textes latins tardifs et médiévaux". In A. Carlier & C. Guillot-Barbance (eds), *Latin tardif, français ancien: continuités et ruptures*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 97-125.

Pinkster, H. (2021). *Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume 2: Complex Sentences and Discourse Phenomena*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pitkäranta, R. (1978). *Studien zum Latein des Victor Vitensis*, Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Plag, I. (1999). *Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivations*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Plank, F. (1985). "Prädikativ und Koprädikativ", *Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik* 13 (2), 154-185.

Poletto, C. & E. Sanfelici (2017). "Relative Clauses". In A. Dufter & E. Stark (eds), *Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 804-836.
Prévost, S. (2020). "Chapitre 3. Une grammaire fondée sur un corpus numérique". In C. Marchello-Nizia, B. Combettes, S. Prévost & T. Scheer (eds), *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français* (GGHF), Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 37-53.

Pullum, G. K. (2009). "Lexical Categorisation in English Dictionaries and Traditional Grammars", *Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik* 57 (3), 255-273.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). *A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language*, London, Longman.

Rainer, F. (1987). "Produktivitetsbegriffe in der Wortbildungstheorie". In H.-M. Gauger & W. Dietrich (eds), *Grammatik und Wortbildung romanischer Sprachen: Beiträge zum Deutschen Romanistentag*, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 187-202.

Ramstedt, G. J. (1903). *Über die Konjugation des Khalkha-Mongolischen*, Helsingfors, Société Finno-Ougrienne.

Rémi-Giraud, S. (2013). "Relations et fonctions syntaxiques. L'adjectif peut-il entrer dans le rang ?". In A. Ouattara (ed.), *Les fonctions grammaticales: histoire, théorie, pratiques*, Bruxelles, Peter Lang, 263-274.

Ribezzo, F. (1926). "Sull'origine del gerundio e del gerundivo italico", *Rivista Indo-Greco-Italica di filologia, lingua, antichita* 10, 77-94.

Riegel, M., J.-C. Pellat & R. Rioul (1994⁴ [2009]). *Grammaire méthodique du français*, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Riemann, O. (1885). *Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite-Live*, Paris, Thorin.

Riemann, O. (1867⁷ [1942]). *Syntaxe latin d'après les principes de la grammaire historique*, Paris, Klincksieck.

Rigau, G. (2000). "La estructura del sintagma nominal: los modificadores del nombre". In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), *Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española*, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 311-362.

Risch, E. (1984). *Gerundivum und Gerundium: Gebrauch im klassischen und älteren Latein: Entstehung und Vorgeschichte*, Berlin, De Gruyter.

Rose, F. (2016). "On Finitisation". In K. M. Eide (ed.), *Finiteness Matters. On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 345-370.

Rosén, H. (1981). *Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin*, Munich, Fink.

Rosenbach, A. (2010). "How Synchronic Gradience Makes Sense in the Light of Language Change (and vice versa)". In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), *Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 149-179.

Rovai, F. (2013). "The Development of Deverbal Prepositions in Latin: Morpho-Syntactic and Semantico-Pragmatic Factors", *Archivio Glottologico Italiano* 98 (2), 175-213.

Rovai, F. (2014). "Da participi presenti a preposizioni deverbali: le basi semantiche della transcategorizzazione". In P. Molinelli, P. Cuzzolin & C. Fedriani (eds), *Latin vulgaire latin tardif*
X. *Actes du 10ème colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif* (Bergamo, 5-9 septembre 2012), Bergamo, Sestante edizioni, 483-496.

Ruddimann, T. (1823). *Thomae Ruddimanni Institutiones grammaticae latinae*, Lipsiae, Hartmanni.

Sarré, N. (2000). “Morphologie des formes en -ant en moyen français”, *L’information grammaticale* 86, 40-52.

Saussure, F. de (1916). *Cours de linguistique générale* (edited by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye), Paris, Editions Payot.

Scaglione, A. (1970). *Ars grammatica*, The Hague, Mouton.

Scherer, A. (1975). *Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax*, Heidelberg, Winter.

Schøsler, L. (2004). “Grammaticalisation et dégrammaticalisation. Etude des constructions progressives en français du type *Pierre va / vient / est chantant*”. In E. Labeau, C. Vetters & P. Caudal (eds), *Sémantique et diachronie du système verbal français*, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 91-119.

Schøsler, L. (2005). “« *Tu eps l’as deit* » / « *tut s’en vat declinant*». Grammaticalisation et dégrammaticalisation dans le système verbal du français illustrées par deux évolutions, celle du passé composé et celle du progressif”, *Aemilianense* 1, 517-568.

Schøsler, L. (2007). “« *Tut s’en vat declinant*». Un cas de grammaticalisation et de dégrammaticalisation dans le système verbal du français”. In A. Schrott & H. Völker (eds), *Historische Pragmatik und historische Varietätenlinguistik in den romanischen Sprachen*, Göttingen, Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 115-135.

Schøsler, L. (2008). “L’expression des traits manière et direction des verbes de mouvement. Perspectives diachroniques et typologiques”. In E. Stark, R. Schmidt-Riese & E. Stoll (eds), *Romanische Syntax im Wandel*, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 113-132.

Schøsler, L. (2018). ““How useful is case morphology?”: From Latin to French”. In A. Carlier & C. Guillot-Barbance (eds), *Latin tardif, français ancien: continuités et ruptures*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 127-170.

Schøsler, L. (2020). “Chapitre 30.1. Les catégories nominales: noms, adjectifs et participes”. In C. Marchello-Nizia, B. Combettes, S. Prévost & T. Scheer (eds), *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français (GGHF)*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 632-663.

Schulte, K. (2007). *Prepositional Infinitives in Romance: A Usage-Based Approach to Syntactic Change*, Oxford, Lang.

Selig M. (1992). *Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Spätlatein. Romanischer Sprachwandel und lateinische Schriftlichkeit*, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag.

Selig, M., R. Eufe, & L. Linzmeier (2017). “CoLaMer (Corpus du latin mérovingien)”. In A. García Leal & C. E. Prieto Entrialgo (eds), *Latin vulgaire, latin tardif XI. (Oviedo, 1-5 September 2014)*, Hildesheim, Olms-Weidmann, 730-741.

Shallice, T. & J. McGill (1978). “The Origins of Mixed Errors”. In J. Requin (ed.), *Attention and Performance* 7, Hillsdale (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 193-208.
Sihler, A. (1995). *A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Simonenko A. & A. Carlier (2020). "Between Demonstrative and Definite: A Grammar Competition Model of the Evolution of French l-Determiners", *Canadian Journal of Linguistics* 65 (3), 1-45.

Siouffi, G. (2020). "Chapitre 9. Les genres textuels". In C. Marchello-Nizia, B. Combettes, S. Prévost & T. Scheer (eds), *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français (GGHF)*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 121-134.

Škerlj, S. (1926). *Syntaxe du participe présent et du gérondif en vieil italien*, Paris, Champion.

Spencer, A. (2005). "Towards a Typology of ‘Mixed Categories’". In C. Orhan Orgun & P. Sells (eds), *Morphology and the Web of Grammar. Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe*, Stanford (CA), Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications, 95-138.

Squartini, M. (1998). *Verbal Periphrases in Romance: Aspect, Actionality, and Grammaticalisation*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Steele, R. B. (1898). "Affirmative Final Clauses in the Latin Historians", *The American Journal of Philology* 19, 255-284.

Stempel, R. (1994). "Das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum in historischer und typologischer Perspektive", *Glotta* 72 (1-4), 235-251.

Stengaard, B. (2008). "A Semantic Study of *habere* in the *Peregrinatio Egeriae* from a Romance Perspective". In R. Wright (ed.), *Latin vulgaire, latin tardif VIII. Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Oxford, 6-9 septembre 2006)*, Hildesheim, Olms-Weidmann, 112-118.

Stimming, A. (1886). "Verwendung des Gerundiums und des Participiums Praesentis im Altfranzösischen", *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie* 10, 526-553.

Svennung, J. (1935). *Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur leteinischen Fach- und Volkssprache*, Uppsala, Almqvist och Wiksell.

Tajima, M. (1985). *The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English*, Tokyo, Nan'un-do.

Talmy, L. (1985). "Lexicalisation Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms". In T. Shopen (ed.), *Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 57-149.

Talmy, L. (2000). *Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring*, Cambridge (MA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.

Timberlake, A. (1977). "Reanalysis and Actualisation in Syntactic Change". In C. Li (ed.), *Mechanisms of Syntactic Change*, Austin, University of Texas Press, 141-177.

Torres Cacoullos, R. & J. A. Walker (2009). "The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse", *Language* 85, 321-354.

Tränkle, H. (1960). *Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache*, Wiesbaden, Steiner.
Tränkle, H. (1968). "Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache", *Wiener Studien* 2, 103-152.

Trask, L. R. (1999). 'Parts of Speech'. In K. Brown & J. Miller (eds), *Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories*, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 278-284.

Traugott, E. C. (2010). "Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification". In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds), *Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalisation*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 29-70.

Traugott, E. C. (2015). "Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical constructionalisation". In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (eds), *Diachronic Construction Grammar*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 51-79.

Traugott, E. C. & R. Dasher (2002). *Regularity in Semantic Change*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale (2013). *Constructionalisation and Constructional Changes*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Trousdale, G. & E. C. Traugott (2010). "Preface". In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), *Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1-18.

Väänänen, V. (1963³ [2006]). *Introduction au latin vulgaire*, Paris, Klincksieck.

Van Acker, M. (2004). "*Ut intelligant cuncti*: le fonctionnement de la communication verticale dans la Gallo-Romania des VIIe et VIIIe siècles: analyse (socio)linguistique de quatre Vies latines en confrontation avec l'ancien français", PhD dissertation, Ghent University.

Van de Velde, F., H. De Smet & L. Ghesquière (2015). "Introduction: On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change". In H. De Smet, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (eds), *On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1-17.

Van Valin, R. (2005). *Exploring the Syntax-Semantic Interface*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Vangaever, J. (2017). "Review of Hellqvist, Birgitta (2015). *Le gérondif en français et les structures correspondantes en suédois*, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis", *Languages in Contrast* 17 (1), 151-153.

Vangaever, J. (2018). "Le gerundium et le participe présent en latin classique: perspectives typologiques", *De lingua latina. Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout (en ligne)* 15, 1-42.

Vangaever, J. (2019). "Constructionalisation at Work: The Emergence of the Latin Progressive Present Participle/Gerund Construction", *Philologia Classica* 14 (2), 249-266.

Vangaever, J. (2021). "*On la voit se développant*: la construction progressive présentative du latin tardif à l'ancien français", *Langue française* 209, 63-82.

Vangaever, J. & A. Carlier (2020). "Cette construction qui va déclinant: changement et rémanence dans la construction *aller* + forme verbale en -ant", *Le français moderne* 88 (2), 243-260.
Veenstra, H. D. (1946). *Les formes nominales du verbe dans la prose du XIIIe siècle*, Rotterdam, Brusse.

Vendler, Z. (1957). "Verbs and Times", *The Philosophical Review* 66, 143-160.

Verroens, F. (2011). *La construction inchoative se mettre à: syntaxe, sémantique et grammaticalisation*,
PhD dissertation, Ghent University.

Vester, E. (1977). "On the So-Called 'participium coniunctum'", *Mnemosyne* 30 (3), 243-285.

Vester, E. (1983). *Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin*, Assen, Van Gorcum.

Vincent, C. (2017). "Determination and Quantification". In A. Dufter & E. Stark (eds), *Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter, 727-770.

Vincent, N. (1988). "Latin". In M. Harris & V. Nigel (eds), *The Romance languages*, London, Croom Helm, 26-78.

Vincent, N. (1998). "On the Grammar of Inflected non-Finite Forms (with Special Reference to Old Neapolitan)", *Copenhagen Studies in Language* 22, 135-158.

Vincent, N. (2016). "A Structural Comparison of Latin and Romance". In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (eds), *The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 37-49.

Wackernagel, J. & D. Langslow (2009). *Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Wagner, R.-L. & J. Pinchon (1991). *Grammaire du français classique et moderne*, Paris, Hachette.

Wallace, D. B. (1996). *Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament*,
Grand Rapids (Mich.), Zondervan.

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1958). "Fredegar and the History of France", *Bulletin of the John Rylands Library* 40 (2), 527-550.

Walvoort, H. C. (2018). "Declension of the Latin Present Participle in Connection with its Syntactico-Semantic Use", *Journal of Latin Linguistics* 17 (1), 1-22.

Weerenbeck, B. H. J. (1927). *Participe présent et gérondif*, Paris, Champion.

Wehr, B. (2008). "Spätlatein aus der Sicht der Romanistik: zu apodosis-einleitendem *et*". In R. Wright (ed.), *Latin vulgaire, latin tardif VIII. Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif* (Oxford, 6–9 septembre 2006), Hildesheim, Olms-Weidmann, 179-190.

Weihenmajer, E. (1891). *Zur Geschichte des absoluten Partizips im Lateinischen*, PhD dissertation,
University of Reutlingen.

Weisweiler, J. (1890). *Das lateinische participium futuri passivi in seiner Bedeutung und syntaktischen Verwendung: Grammatische Studie*, Paderborn, Schöningh.

Werner, E. (1980). *Die Verbalperiphrase im Mittelfranzösischen. Eine semantisch-syntaktische Analyse*, Bern, Peter Lang.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). "Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts: Polish vs. English", *Journal of Pragmatics* 9 (2-3), 145-178.

Wierzbicka, A. (1988). *The Semantics of Grammar*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Willems, D. (1983). "Regarde voir. Les verbes de perception visuelle et la complémentation verbale". In E. Roegiest & L. Tasmowski (eds), *Verbe et phrase dans les langues romanes. Mélanges offerts à Louis Mourin*, Ghent, Romanica Gandensia, 147-158.

Wilmet, M. (1997). *Grammaire critique du français*, Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve, Hachette/Duculot.

Winkler, S. (1997). *Focus and Secondary Predication*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Wischer, I. G. Diewald (eds) (2002). *New Reflections on Grammaticalisation*, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Woodcock, E. C. (1959). *A New Latin Syntax*, London, Methuen.

Ylikoski, J. (2003). "Defining Non-Finites: Action Nominals, Converbs and Infinitives", *SKY Journal of Linguistics* 16, 185-237.

Zeldes, A. (2012). *Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax*, Berlin, Mouton De Gruyter.

Zemb, J.-M. (1978). *Vergleichende Grammatik Französisch-Deutsch: comparaison de deux systèmes*. *Vol. 1*, Mannheim, Bibliographisches Institut.

Zeumer, K. (1886). *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum. Vol. 1*, Hannover/Leipzig, Hahn.

Zheltova, E. (2017). "Evidential Strategies in Latin", *Hyperboreus* 23 (2), 313-337.
# Appendices
<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>
# Appendix 1. List of quoted texts

This appendix presents all primary texts for which one or more examples have been cited in this thesis. The different sections list successively the Classical Latin (§1), Late Latin (§2), Old French (§3), and Romance texts (§4). All texts are arranged alphabetically, first on the basis of the full author name, then on the basis of the abbreviated title. Anonymous works are presented at the end of each table.

## 1. Classical Latin

The following table contains all Classical Latin texts cited in this dissertation. Recall that the Classical Latin period is defined in this thesis as the period between the 3rd c. BC and the 2nd c. AD, thus covering the following three periods distinguished by Haverling (1988: 20-23): Early Latin (240 BC – 90 BC), Classical Latin (90 BC – 14 AD), and Silver Latin (14 AD – 200 AD). The references to the texts follow the conventions of the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae*.

<table><thead><tr><th>Abbreviated author name</th><th>Full author name</th><th>Abbreviated title</th><th>Full title</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Apul.</td><td rowspan="2">Apuleius</td><td>flor.</td><td>Florida</td></tr><tr><td>met.</td><td>Metamorphoses</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Caes.</td><td rowspan="2">Caesar</td><td>Gall.</td><td>Commentarii de bello Gallico</td></tr><tr><td>civ.</td><td>Commentarii de bello civili</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Cato</td><td>agr.</td><td>De agri cultura</td></tr><tr><td>Calp.</td><td>Calpurnius</td><td>hist.</td><td>Historiae</td></tr><tr><td>Cels.</td><td>Celsus</td><td>-</td><td>De medicina</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">Cic.</td><td rowspan="15">Cicero</td><td>Att.</td><td>Epistulae ad Atticum</td></tr><tr><td>Brut.</td><td>Brutus</td></tr><tr><td>Cael.</td><td>Pro Caelio</td></tr><tr><td>de orat.</td><td>De oratore</td></tr><tr><td>dom.</td><td>De domo sua</td></tr><tr><td>fam.</td><td>Epistulae ad familiares</td></tr><tr><td>fin.</td><td>De finibus bonorum et malorum</td></tr><tr><td>har. resp.</td><td>De haruspicum responsis</td></tr><tr><td>inv.</td><td>De inventione</td></tr><tr><td>Lael.</td><td>Laelius de amicitia</td></tr><tr><td>Manil.</td><td>Pro lege Manilia</td></tr><tr><td>Mil.</td><td>Pro Milone</td></tr><tr><td>Mur.</td><td>Pro Murena</td></tr><tr><td>off.</td><td>De officiis</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1

<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Phil.</td><td>Philippica</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Pis.</td><td>In Pisonem</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>p. red. in sen.</td><td>Post reditum in senatu</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Quinct.</td><td>Pro Publio Quinctio</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>top.</td><td>Topica</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Tusc.</td><td>Tusculanae disputationes</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Vatin.</td><td>In Vatinium</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Verr.</td><td>In Verrem</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>-</td><td>Lucullus</td></tr><tr><td>Enn.</td><td>Ennius</td><td>ann.</td><td>Annales</td></tr><tr><td>Hirt.</td><td>Hirtius</td><td>Gall.</td><td>Commentarii de bello Gallico</td></tr><tr><td>Liv.</td><td>Livius</td><td>-</td><td>Ab urbe condita</td></tr><tr><td>Mela</td><td>Pomponius Mela</td><td>-</td><td>De chorographia</td></tr><tr><td>Ov.</td><td>Ovidius</td><td>rem.</td><td>Remedia amoris</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">Plaut.</td><td rowspan="15">Plautus</td><td>Amph.</td><td>Amphitryon</td></tr><tr><td>Asin.</td><td>Asinaria</td></tr><tr><td>Bacch.</td><td>Bacchides</td></tr><tr><td>Capt.</td><td>Captivi</td></tr><tr><td>Cist.</td><td>Cistellaria</td></tr><tr><td>Curc.</td><td>Curculio</td></tr><tr><td>Epid.</td><td>Epidicus</td></tr><tr><td>Men.</td><td>Menaechmi</td></tr><tr><td>Mil.</td><td>Miles gloriosus</td></tr><tr><td>Most.</td><td>Mostellaria</td></tr><tr><td>Poen.</td><td>Poenulus</td></tr><tr><td>Pseud.</td><td>Pseudulus</td></tr><tr><td>Trin.</td><td>Trinummus</td></tr><tr><td>Truc.</td><td>Truculentus</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Persa</td></tr><tr><td>Plin.</td><td>Plinius</td><td>nat.</td><td>Naturalis Historia</td></tr><tr><td>Prop.</td><td>Propertius</td><td>-</td><td>Elegiae</td></tr><tr><td>Quint.</td><td>Quintilianus</td><td>inst.</td><td>Institutio oratoria</td></tr><tr><td>Sen.</td><td>Seneca</td><td>epist.</td><td>Epistulae ad Lucilium</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Stat.</td><td rowspan="2">Statius</td><td>silv.</td><td>Silvae</td></tr><tr><td>Theb.</td><td>Thebais</td></tr><tr><td>Suet.</td><td>Suetonius</td><td>Aug.</td><td>De vita caesarum Augustus</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Tac.</td><td rowspan="2">Tacitus</td><td>hist.</td><td>Historiae</td></tr><tr><td>ann.</td><td>Annales</td></tr><tr><td>Ter.</td><td>Terentius</td><td>Ad.</td><td>Adelphoe</td></tr></table>
List of quoted texts

<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Eun.</td><td>Eunuchus</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Haut.</td><td>Heauton Timorumenos</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Hec.</td><td>Hecyra</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Phorm.</td><td>Phormio</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Varro</td><td>ling.</td><td>De lingua latina</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>rust.</td><td>De re rustica</td></tr><tr><td>Verg.</td><td>Vergilius</td><td>Aen.</td><td>Aeneis</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>georg.</td><td>Georgica</td></tr><tr><td>Vitr.</td><td>Vitruvius</td><td>-</td><td>De architectura</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Bell. Afr.</td><td>De bello Africo</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Bell. Hisp.</td><td>De bello Hispaniensi</td></tr></table>

## 2. Late Latin

The table in this section inventorises all Late Latin texts for which one or more examples are cited in this thesis. Remember that Late Latin is defined in this dissertation as the period between the 3rd and the 10th c. AD. Hence, it is larger than the period of Late Latin as defined by, e.g., Haverling (1988: 20-23), but nearly identical to that delimited by Banniard (2018: 29), covering the period between the 3rd c. and 900. The abbreviations of the author and the title of the texts follow again the conventions of the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae*. The texts that are not cited in this dictionary, but that are quoted in Blaise's (1954) *Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens* are referred to on the basis of this author's recommendations. However, these references have been aligned on the (implicit) principles adopted in the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae*, for the sake of uniformity. The texts that are cited in this thesis, but not in the *Thesaurus Linguae Latinae* nor in Blaise's (1954) *Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens* have been assigned an abbreviated title and author name (if relevant) on the basis of the same principles as for the texts quoted in these dictionaries.

<table><thead><tr><td>Abbreviated author name</td><td>Full author name</td><td>Abbreviated title</td><td>Full title</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amm.</td><td>Ammianus</td><td>-</td><td>Historiae</td></tr><tr><td>Aug.</td><td>Augustinus</td><td>serm.</td><td>Sermones</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Chiron</td><td>-</td><td>Mulomedicina Chironis</td></tr><tr><td>Clem.</td><td>Clemens</td><td>ad Cor.</td><td>Epistula ad Corinthios</td></tr><tr><td>Cypr.</td><td>Cyprianus</td><td>epist.</td><td>Epistulae</td></tr><tr><td>Donat.</td><td>Donatus</td><td>Ad. praef.</td><td>Adelphoe praefatio</td></tr><tr><td>Ven. Fort.</td><td>Venantius Fortunatus</td><td>carm.</td><td>Carmina</td></tr><tr><td>Fulg.</td><td>Fulgentius</td><td>myth.</td><td>Mythologiae</td></tr><tr><td>Fredeg.</td><td>Fredegar</td><td>chron.</td><td>Chronica</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>cont.</th><th>Continuationes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gennad.</td><td>Gennadius</td><td>vir. ill.</td><td>De viris illustribus</td></tr><tr><td>Greg. M.</td><td>Gregorius Magnus</td><td>dial.</td><td>Dialogus</td></tr><tr><td>Greg. Tur.</td><td>Gregorius Turonensis</td><td>Franc.</td><td>Historia Francorum</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Hier.</td><td rowspan="2">Hieronymus</td><td>in Matth.</td><td>Commentarii in Matthaeum</td></tr><tr><td>in Tit.</td><td>Commentarii in epistulam Pauli ad Titum</td></tr><tr><td>Hil.</td><td>Hilarius</td><td>hymn.</td><td>Tractatus de mysteriis et hymni</td></tr><tr><td>Isid.</td><td>Isidorus</td><td>synon.</td><td>Synonyma de lamentatione animae peccatricis</td></tr><tr><td>Iul. Val.</td><td>Iulius Valerius</td><td>-</td><td>Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Leo</td><td>Alex.</td><td>Vita Alexandri Magni</td></tr><tr><td>Papin.</td><td>Papinianus</td><td>dig.</td><td>Digesta</td></tr><tr><td>Sulp. Sev.</td><td>Sulpicius Severus</td><td>Mart.</td><td>Vita sancti Martini</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Veg.</td><td rowspan="2">Vegetius</td><td>mil.</td><td>De re militari</td></tr><tr><td>mulom.</td><td>Mulomedicina</td></tr><tr><td>Vict. Vit.</td><td>Victorius Vitensis</td><td>-</td><td>Historiae</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">-</td><td rowspan="15">-</td><td>Act. Andr.</td><td>Acta Andreae et Matthiae</td></tr><tr><td>Anon. Vales.</td><td>Anonymi Valesiani</td></tr><tr><td>Anton. Plac.</td><td>Itinerarium Antonini Placentini</td></tr><tr><td>Carol. capit.</td><td>Caroli Magni Capitularia</td></tr><tr><td>Chart. Merov.</td><td>Chartae aevi Merovingici</td></tr><tr><td>CIL</td><td>Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum</td></tr><tr><td>Edict. Chlot.</td><td>Edicta Chlotharii</td></tr><tr><td>Epist. Austr.</td><td>Epistulae Austrasicae</td></tr><tr><td>Epist. Desid.</td><td>Desiderii episcopi Cadurcensis epistulae</td></tr><tr><td>Epist. Merov.</td><td>Epistulae aevi Merovingici collectae</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Andec.</td><td>Formulae Andecavenses</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Bitur.</td><td>Formulae Bituricenses</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Marc.</td><td>Formulae Marculfi</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Sal. Bign.</td><td>Formulae Salicae Bignonianae</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Sal. Lind.</td><td>Formulae Salicae Lindenbrogianae</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Sal. Merk</td><td>Formulae Salicae Merkelianae</td></tr><tr><td>Form. Turun.</td><td>Formulae Turonenses vulgo Sirmondicae dictae</td></tr><tr><td>Hist. Franc.</td><td>Liber Historiae Francorum</td></tr><tr><td>Ital. Ioh.</td><td>Itala Iohannes</td></tr><tr><td>Inscr. Christ. Diehl</td><td>Inscriptiones Latinae christianae veteres Diehl</td></tr><tr><td>Lex Sal.</td><td>Pactus legis Salicae</td></tr></tbody></table>
List of quoted texts

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Agath.</td>
    <td>Passio Agathae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Bened.</td>
    <td>Passio Benedictae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Caec.</td>
    <td>Passio Caeciliae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Columb.</td>
    <td>Passio Columbae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Eustach.</td>
    <td>Passio sancti Eustachii</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Getul.</td>
    <td>Passio Getulii, Cerealis et soc.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Iul.</td>
    <td>Passio Iuliae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Pimen.</td>
    <td>Passio Pimenii</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Proc.</td>
    <td>Passio Processi et Martiniani</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Symph.</td>
    <td>Passio Symphorosae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Vict.</td>
    <td>Passio Victoris et Coronae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pass. Vit.</td>
    <td>Passio Viti</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Peregr. Aeth.</td>
    <td>Peregrinatio Aetheriae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Suppl. form. Marc.</td>
    <td>Supplementum Formulae Marculfi</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vet. Lat. Marc.</td>
    <td>Vetus Latina (Marcus)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vet. Lat. Matth.</td>
    <td>Vetus Latina (Mattheus)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Visio Bar.</td>
    <td>Visio Baronti Monachi Longoretensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Adelph.</td>
    <td>Vita Adelphii Abbatum Habendensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Amand.</td>
    <td>Vita sancti ac beatissimi Amandi<br>episcopi et confessoris</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Amat.</td>
    <td>Vita Amati</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Aud.</td>
    <td>Vita Audoini episcopi Rotomagensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Austr.</td>
    <td>Vita sancti Austrigisili episcopi et<br>confessoris</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Bonit.</td>
    <td>Vita Boniti episcopi Arverni</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Desid.</td>
    <td>Vita Desiderii Cadurcae urbis episcopi</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Elig.</td>
    <td>Vita Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Euch.</td>
    <td>Vita Eucherii episcopi Aurelianensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Furs.</td>
    <td>Vita virtutesque Fursei abbatis<br>Latiniacensis et de Fuilano<br>additamentum Nivialense</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Hugb.</td>
    <td>Vita Hugberti episcopi Traiectensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Gall. Wal.</td>
    <td>Vita Galli Walahfrido</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Gall. Wett.</td>
    <td>Vita Galli auctore Wettino cum prologo<br>metrico ad Gozbertum</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Genov.</td>
    <td>Vita Genovefae Virginis Parisiensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Madelb.</td>
    <td>Vita Madelbertae</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Pard.</td>
    <td>Vita Pardulfi abbatis Waractensis</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vit. Sadalb.</td>
    <td>Vita Sadalbergae abbatissae<br>Laudunensis</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table><tr><td>Vit. Trud.</td><td>Vita Trudonis confessoris Hasbaniensis<br>auctore Donato</td></tr><tr><td>Vit. Walb.</td><td>Vita Walberti</td></tr><tr><td>Vit. Waldedr.</td><td>Vita Waldedrudis</td></tr><tr><td>Vit. Wandr.</td><td>Vita Wandregiseli abbatis Fontanellensis</td></tr><tr><td>Vulg. Ex.</td><td>Vulgata (Exodus)</td></tr><tr><td>Vulg. Gen.</td><td>Vulgata (Genesis)</td></tr><tr><td>Vulg. Luc.</td><td>Vulgata (Lucas)</td></tr><tr><td>Vulg. Rom.</td><td>Vulgata Romana</td></tr></table>

### 3. Old French

The following table lists all Old French texts cited in this dissertation. For reasons of clarity, reference to these texts is not made according to the conventions in the *Dictionnaire Etymologique de l'Ancien Français*, which often lack transparency (e.g. *AmAmD* for *Ami et Amile*) – this strategy is followed by Buridant (2000, 2019). More transparent references are used in the *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français* (Marchello-Nizia *et al.* 2020; see pp. 46-53), but not for all texts. For the sake of uniformity, also with the references to the Latin texts, I assigned all Old French texts that are quoted in this thesis a transparent abbreviated author name and title. Whenever a transparent reference of this model is used in the *Grande Grammaire Historique du Français*, I used the reference proposed in this manual.

<table><thead><tr><th>Abbreviated author name</th><th>Full author name</th><th>Abbreviated title</th><th>Full title</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adg.</td><td>Adgar</td><td>Miracles</td><td>Collection de miracles</td></tr><tr><td>Ben.</td><td>Benedeit</td><td>Brendan</td><td>Voyage de saint Brendan</td></tr><tr><td>Bér.</td><td>Béroul</td><td>Tristan</td><td>Tristan</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Bodel</td><td>Nicolas</td><td>Le Jeu de saint Nicolas</td></tr><tr><td>Chr. de Troyes</td><td>Chrétien de Troyes</td><td>Perceval<br>Yvain</td><td>Perceval ou le Conte du Graal<br>Chevalier au Lion ou Yvain</td></tr><tr><td>Guernes</td><td>Guernes de Pont-Saint-Maxence</td><td>Becket</td><td>Vie de saint Thomas Becket</td></tr><tr><td>J. de Meun</td><td>Jean de Meun</td><td>Rose</td><td>Roman de la Rose</td></tr><tr><td>Ph. de Beau.</td><td>Philippe de Beaumanoir</td><td>Coutumes</td><td>Coutumes de Beauvaisis</td></tr><tr><td>Ph. de Thaon</td><td>Philippe de Thaon</td><td>-</td><td>Bestiaire<br>Comput</td></tr><tr><td>R. de Paris</td><td>Raimbert de Paris</td><td>Ogier</td><td>La Chevalerie Ogier de Danemarche</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Wace</td><td>-</td><td>Brut</td></tr></tbody></table>
List of quoted texts

<table><thead><tr><th>Rou</th><th>Le Roman de Rou</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alexis</td><td>Vie de saint Alexis</td></tr><tr><td>Ami</td><td>Ami et Amile</td></tr><tr><td>Bibl. Mac. Rois</td><td>La Bible de Macé de la Charité (Rois)</td></tr><tr><td>Comm. psaum.</td><td>Commentaire en prose sur les psaumes I-XXXV</td></tr><tr><td>Constantinople</td><td>Conquête de Constantinople</td></tr><tr><td>Dial. Greg.</td><td>Li Dialoge Gregoire lo Pape</td></tr><tr><td>Floire</td><td>Floire et Blanchefleur</td></tr><tr><td>Gormont</td><td>Gormont et Isembart</td></tr><tr><td>Graal</td><td>Queste del saint Graal</td></tr><tr><td>Huon</td><td>Huon de Bordeaux</td></tr><tr><td>Lapid. alphab.</td><td>Lapidaire alphabétique</td></tr><tr><td>Narbonnais</td><td>Les Narbonnais</td></tr><tr><td>Passion</td><td>Passion de Jésus-Christ ou Passion de Clermont</td></tr><tr><td>Rois</td><td>Quatre Livres des Rois</td></tr><tr><td>Roland</td><td>Chanson de Roland</td></tr><tr><td>Sages</td><td>Les Sept Sages de Rome</td></tr><tr><td>Vie de s. Eust.</td><td>Vie de saint Eustache</td></tr><tr><td>Vie de s. Genev.</td><td>Vie de sainte Geneviève (version 3)</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Eneas</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Joufrois</td></tr></tbody></table>

4. Romance

The following table contains the other texts cited in this dissertation, namely one Old Spanish text and one Old Italian text.

<table><thead><tr><th>Abbreviated author name</th><th>Full author name</th><th>Abbreviated title</th><th>Full title</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Cid</td><td>Cantar de Mio Cid / El Poema del Cid</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Fra' Guidotto</td><td>Fiore</td><td>Fiore di rettorica</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>
# Appendix 2. List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

This appendix presents all texts included in the corpus of this thesis. The following sections list the texts of respectively the Classical Latin (§1), Late Latin (§2), and Old French (§3) corpora. All texts are arranged alphabetically, first on the basis of the author name, then on the basis of the title.

## 1. Classical Latin

This section inventorises all texts of the Classical Latin corpus of this thesis (n=62). Recall that this corpus coincides with that examined by Vangaever (2018) and comprises all texts of the Caesarian and Ciceronian corpora in the LASLA database. The texts that are subsumed under the Caesarian corpus in the LASLA database, but that are not written by Caesar himself, are not listed under this author in the following table. One of these texts is attributed to Hirtius. The three remaining texts are anonymous and presented at the end of the table. For each text, I added the thematic domain and the genre.

<table><thead><tr><th>Author</th><th>Title</th><th>Domain</th><th>Genre</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Caesar</td><td>Commentarii de bello Gallico</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td>Commentarii de bello civili</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="21">Cicero</td><td>Contra Antonium et Catilinam competitores fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Contra contionem Metelli fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Cum a ludis contionem avocavit fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Cum quaestor Lilybaeo decederet fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De domo sua</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De haruspicum responso</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De lege agraria</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De natura deorum</td><td>Didactical</td><td>Dialogue</td></tr><tr><td>De officiis</td><td>Didactical</td><td>Treatise</td></tr><tr><td>De provinciis consularibus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De rege Alexandrino fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>De senectute</td><td>Didactical</td><td>Treatise</td></tr><tr><td>Divinatio in Caecilium</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>In C. Verrem actio prima</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>In Catilinam</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>In Clodium et Curionem fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>In Pisonem</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>In Vatinium</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Incertarum orationum fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Interrogatio de aere alieno Milonis fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Laelius de amicitia</td><td>Didactical</td><td>Treatise</td></tr><tr><td>Philippica</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Post reditum ad Quirites cum populo gratias egit</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Post reditum in senatu cum senatui gratias egit</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Archia</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Balbo</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro C. Fundanio fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro C. Manilio fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Caecina</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Caelio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Cluentio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Cornelio I fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Cornelio II fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Flacco</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Fonteio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro L. Vareno fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro lege Manilia</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Ligario</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Marcello</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Milone</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Murena</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro negotiatoribus Achaeis fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Oppio fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Plancio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Publio Quinctio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Q. Gallio fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Rabirio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Rabirio Postumo</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro rege Deiotario</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Roscio Amerino</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Roscio Comoedo</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Scauro fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Sestio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Sulla</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Pro Tullio</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pro Vatinio fragmenta</td><td>Legal</td><td>Speech</td></tr><tr><td>Hirtius</td><td>Commentarii de bello Gallico</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>De bello Alexandrino</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>De bello Africano</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>De bello Hispaniensi</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr></table>

## 2. Late Latin

This section presents all texts included in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis. The texts drawn from the BL2LAT corpus are listed in §2.1, while those taken from the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus are shown in §2.2.

### 2.1. Texts from the BL2LAT corpus

The following table list all texts of the BL2LAT corpus included in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis (n=30). All texts are written in prose.

<table><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Century</th><th>Text</th><th>Author</th><th>Domain</th><th>Genre</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Imperial Latin</td><td rowspan="3">4th</td><td>Peregrinatio Aetheriae</td><td>Aetheria</td><td>Religious</td><td>Itinerary</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Martini</td><td>Sulpicius<br>Severus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Agnetis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td rowspan="2">5th</td><td>Passio Saturnini</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Passio Agathae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Imperial/<br>Merovingian Latin</td><td>5th-6th</td><td>Dialogus</td><td>Gregorius<br>Magnus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Dialogue</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Merovingian Latin</td><td rowspan="7">6th</td><td>Passio Caeciliae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Marcelli et<br>Apulei</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Pimenii</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Processi et<br>Martiniani</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Symphorosae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Vincentii</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Benedicti</td><td>Gregorius<br>Magnus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tbody><tr><td>6th-7th</td><td>Dialogus<br>Passio Nazarii et Celsi</td><td>Isidorus<br>NA</td><td>Religious<br>Religious</td><td>Dialogue<br>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>7th</td><td>Chronica<br>Epistola beatissime<br>Egerie laude conscripta<br>fratrum bergidensium<br>monachorum a Valerio<br>conlata<br>Passio Getulii, Cerealis<br>et soc.</td><td>Fredegarius<br>Valerius of<br>Bierzo</td><td>Historical<br>Religious</td><td>Chronicle<br>Letter</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Merovingian/Early<br>Medieval Latin</td><td>7th-8th<br>Passio Victoris et<br>Coronae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Viti 1</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Viti 2</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Passio Viti 3</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Early Medieval Latin</td><td>8th<br>Passio Ansani et<br>Maximae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>8th-9th<br>Passio Columbae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>9th<br>Passio Benedictae<br>Vita Waldredudis</td><td>NA<br>NA</td><td>Religious<br>Religious</td><td>Hagiography<br>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>10th<br>Passio Iuliae<br>Passio sancti Eustachii<br>Vita Madelbertae<br>Vita Walberti</td><td>NA<br>NA<br>NA<br>Adson de<br>Montier-en-<br>Der</td><td>Religious<br>Religious<br>Religious<br>Religious</td><td>Hagiography<br>Hagiography<br>Hagiography<br>Hagiography</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.2. Texts from the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus

The below table lists all texts of the PALAFRALAT-V2-0 corpus included in the Late Latin corpus of this thesis (n=182). All texts are again written in prose.

<table><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Century</th><th>Text</th><th>Author</th><th>Domain</th><th>Genre</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imperial Latin</td><td>5th</td><td>Epistula Auspici<br>episcopi ecclesiae<br>Tullensis ad<br>Arbogastem comitem<br>Treferorum</td><td>Auspicus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></tbody></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td>Epistula domni Remedii<br>episcopi ad domnum<br>Cholodveum regem</td><td>Remegius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula domni<br>Remedii episcopi ad<br>domnum Chlodoveum<br>regem</td><td>Remegius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian Latin<br>6th</td><td>Ad patriarcham<br>Constantinopolitanum<br>Epistula<br>Epistula<br>Epistula ad imperatore<br>de domno nomine<br>Epistula ad patriarcam<br>Laurentio de domini<br>nomen<br>Epistula Brunihildae ad<br>Anastasiam augustam<br>Epistula Brunihildae ad<br>Anastasiam augustam<br>Epistula Brunihildae<br>reginę ad Athanagildo<br>regi nepoti<br>Epistula Brunihildis<br>reginę ad Mauricium<br>imperatorem<br>Epistula Caesarii ad<br>Richildem et<br>Radegundem<br>Epistula Cypriani<br>episcopi ad Maximum<br>Genavensem episcopum<br>Epistula Dinamii ad<br>amicum<br>Epistula Dinamii ad<br>domnum Vilicum<br>papam<br>Epistula directa ad<br>domnum Nicetium<br>episcopum</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mauritius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NA</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Brunhildis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Brunhildis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Brunhildis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Brunhildis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Caesaria</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cyprianus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dinamius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dinamius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NA</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tr><td>Epistula domni Aureliani episcopi ad domnum Theodebertum regem</td><td>Aurelianus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Mapini episcopi ad domnum Nicetium episcopum</td><td>Mapinius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Mapini episcopi ad domnum Vilicum episcopum</td><td>Mapinius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Nicetii episcopi ad Hlodosvindam reginam</td><td>Nicetius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Nicetii episcopi ad Iustinianum imperatorem</td><td>Nicetius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Remedii episcopi ad Falconem episcopum</td><td>Remegius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Remedii episcopi ad Heraclium, Leonem et Theodosium episcopos</td><td>Remegius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Rufi episcopi ad domnum Nicetium episcopum</td><td>Rufus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula domni Theodeberti regis ad Iustinianum imperatorem</td><td>Theodebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Floriani ex monasterio Romeno ad domnum Nicecium episcopum</td><td>Florianus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Floriani servi Christi ad Nicecium archiepiscopum</td><td>Florianus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Furtunati ad domnum Magnericum episcopum</td><td>Furtunatus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td>Epistula Germani<br>episcopi ad domnam<br>Brune hildam reginam</td><td>Germanus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Gogoni ad<br>Chamingum ducem</td><td>Gogonus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Gogonis ad<br>Petrum papam</td><td>Gogonus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Gogonis ad<br>Trasericum</td><td>Gogonus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis ad Honoratum<br>appocrisiarium</td><td>Hildebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis ad Johannem<br>episcopum</td><td>Hildebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis ad Mauricium<br>imperatorem</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis Athanagildo regi</td><td>Hildebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis Domitiano<br>episcopo</td><td>Hildebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis Italicae patriciae</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Hildiberti<br>regis Theodorom<br>magistro</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Leo episcopi<br>ad Childebertum I.<br>regem</td><td>Leo</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Pelagii I. ad<br>Sapaudum Arelatensis<br>episcopum</td><td>Pelagius I</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Pelagii I. ad<br>Valerianum patricium</td><td>Pelagius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Pelagii II. ad<br>Aunarium episcopum<br>Autissiodorensis</td><td>Pelagius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tr><td>Epistula Pelagii II. ad Aunarium episcopum Autissiodorensis</td><td>Pelagius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Romani ad Hildibertum regem</td><td>Romanus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Theodobaldi regis ad Iustinianum imperatorem</td><td>Theodebaldus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Troiani episcopi ad Eumerium Namnetensem episcopum</td><td>Troianus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Formulae Andecavenses</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulae</td></tr><tr><td>Historiarum liber sextus</td><td>Gregory Turonensis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td>Item ad imperatorem epistula</td><td>Gogonus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item ad Johannem questorem</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item ad Megatam curatorem</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item dicta Furtuna ad filium imperatoris</td><td>Furtuna</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula ad augustam de nomine Hildiberti</td><td>Brunhildis</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula domni Theodoberti regis ad Iustinianum imperatorem</td><td>Theodebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula Hildiberti regis Paulo patrem imperatoris</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula Hildiberti regis Venantio patricio</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Item epistula imperatoris ad Hildibertum regem</td><td>Imperator</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Lex Ribuaria</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Legislative</td></tr></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td></td><td>Merovingian charter 28</td><td>Chlothachari-<br>us</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pactus legis Salicae</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Legislative</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Genovefae Virginis<br>Parisiensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>6th-7th</td><td>Epistula Stephani<br>presbyteri ad Aunarium<br>episcopum<br>Autissiodorensis</td><td>Stephanus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Aunarii<br>episcopi ad Stephanum<br>presbyterum</td><td>Aunarius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Merovingian charter 22</td><td>Chlothachari-<br>us</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>7th</td><td>Chaenulfus, Epistula<br>Chaenulfi ad<br>Desiderium episcopum<br>Carducensem.</td><td>Chaenulfus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Abbi episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Abbo</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Aviulfi<br>episcopi ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Aviulfus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Bertegyseli<br>abbatis ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Bertegyselus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Bonifatii IV.<br>episcopi ad Florianum<br>Arelatensem episcopum</td><td>Bonifatius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Bonifatii IV.<br>episcopi ad<br>Theodericum II. regem</td><td>Bonifatius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Chrodeberti</td><td>Chrodobertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Epistula Constantii<br>episcopi ad Desiderium</td><td>Constantius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Epistula Constantii et Dadi episcoporum ad Desiderium episcopum</td><td>Constancius et Dado</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi ad diversos</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Abbonem episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Aspasiam abbatissam</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Caesarium episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Chlodulfum episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Dadonem episcopum.</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Dagobertum I. regem</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad domnum Grimoaldum maiorem</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii</td><td>episcopi Cadurcensis ad Felicem episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Grimoaldum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Modoaldum<br>episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Paulum episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Salustinum<br>episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Sigibertem III regem</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Sigibertem III regem<br>6</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Desiderii<br>episcopi Cadurcensis<br>ad Sulpicium<br>episcopum</td><td>Desiderius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Elegii episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Elegius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula episcopi</td><td>NA</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Felicis<br>episcopi ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Felex</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Galli episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Gallus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Leodegarii ad<br>Sigradem matrem suam</td><td>Leudegarius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tr><td>Epistula Palladii<br>episcopi ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Palladius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Pauli episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Paulus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Pauli episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Paulus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Rauracii<br>episcopi ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Rauracius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Sigeberti III<br>regis ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Siggebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Sigeberti regi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Siggebertus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Sulpicii ad<br>Desiderium</td><td>Sulpicius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Sulpicii<br>episcopi Bituricensis ad<br>Desiderium episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Sulpicius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Veri episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Sulpicius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Veri episcopi<br>ad Desiderium<br>episcopum<br>Carducensem</td><td>Verus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Veri episcopi<br>ad Desiderium</td><td>Verus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td>episcopum</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Carducensem</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Warnecarii ad Ceraunium Pariensi episcopum</td><td>Warnecarius</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Formulae Pithoei</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulae</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 121</td><td>Theudericus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 122</td><td>Theudericus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 123</td><td>Theudericus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 126</td><td>Theudericus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 131</td><td>Theudericus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 135</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 136</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 137</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 138</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 141</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 142</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 143</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 147</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 149</td><td>Chyldeberchus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 150</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 32</td><td>Dagobertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 41</td><td>Dagobertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 72</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 74</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tr><td>Merovingian charter 75</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 85</td><td>Chlodovius</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 88</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 89</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 93</td><td>Chlothachari-<br/>us</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 94</td><td>Chlothachari-<br/>us</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter 95</td><td>Chlothachari-<br/>us</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Visio Baronti Monachi<br/>Longoretensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Eligii episcopi<br/>Noviomagensis</td><td>Audoinus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Galli Vetustissima<br/>fragmentum</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Gaugerici episcopi<br/>Camaracensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Sadalbergae<br/>abbatissae Laudunensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Sulpicii episcopi<br/>Biturigi (A)</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita virtutesque Fursei<br/>abbatis Latiniacensis et<br/>de Fuilano<br/>additamentum<br/>Nivialense</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Merovingian /Early<br/>Medieval Latin</td><td>7th-8th</td><td>Formulae Marculfi</td><td>Marculfus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulae</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Merovingian charter<br/>144</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Supplementum<br/>formulae Marculfi</td><td>Marculfus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulae</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Amati</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Wandregiseli<br/>abbatis Fontanellensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Early Medieval Latin</td><td rowspan="2">8th</td><td>Charter of the<br/>Arnulfings n22</td><td>Pippinus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Charter of the<br/>Arnulfings n23</td><td>Pippinus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr></table>
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><tr><td>Epistula Pippini<br/>Gayroino abbati</td><td>Pippinus</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Epistula Zachariae<br/>papae ad omnes</td><td>Zacharias</td><td>Historical</td><td>Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Francorum episcopos et<br/>presbyteros</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Formulae Salicae<br/>Bignonianae</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulary</td></tr><tr><td>Liber Historiae<br/>Francorum</td><td>NA</td><td>Historical</td><td>Historiography</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>153</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>155</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>156</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>157</td><td>Childebertus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>166</td><td>Chilperichus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>167</td><td>Chilperichus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>168</td><td>Chilperichus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>170</td><td>Chilperichus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Merovingian charter<br/>173</td><td>Chilperichus</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Adelphii Abbatum<br/>Habendensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Amandi episcopi I</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Audoini episcopi<br/>rotomagensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Boniti episcopi<br/>Arverni</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Eucherii episcopi<br/>Aurelianensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Vita Filiberti abbatis<br/>Gemeticensis et<br/>Heriensis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Vita Hugberti episcopi</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Traiectensis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Pardulfi abbatis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Waractensis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Richarii</td><td>Alcuinus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>confessoris Centulensis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Romarici abbatis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Habendensis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Trudonis</td><td>Donatus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>confessoris</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hasbaniensis auctore</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Donato</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">8th-9th</td><td>Formulae Bituricenses</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulary</td></tr><tr><td>Formulae Salicae</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulary</td></tr><tr><td>Lindenbrogianae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Formulae Turonenses</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulary</td></tr><tr><td>vulgo Sirmondicae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>dictae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Bertilae abbatissae</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Calensis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Desiderii</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cadurcae urbis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>episcopi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8th-10th</td><td>Formulae Salicae</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Formulary</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Merkelianae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">9th</td><td>Vita Austrigisili</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>episcopi Biturigi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vita Galli auctore</td><td>Wettino</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr><tr><td>Wettino cum prologo metrico ad Gozbertum</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vita Galli Walahfrido</td><td>Walhafridus</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3. Old French

The following table lists all texts from the PALAFRAFRO-V2-2 corpus included in the Old French corpus of this thesis (n=34).
List of texts included in the corpus of this thesis

<table><thead><tr><th>Period</th><th>Century</th><th>Text</th><th>Author</th><th>Domain</th><th>Genre</th><th>Form</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Early Old French</td><td>9th</td><td>Séquence de sainte Eulalie<br/>Serments de Strasbourg</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>10th-11th</td><td>Passion de Jésus-Christ ou<br/>Passion de Clermont</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Drama</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>11th</td><td>Vie de saint Léger</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>11th</td><td>Vie de saint Alexis</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>Early Old French/<br/>12th-13th c.</td><td>11th-12th</td><td>Chanson de Roland</td><td>NA</td><td>Literary</td><td>Epic</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th c.</td><td>12th</td><td>Bestiaire<br/>Brut<br/>Chevalier au Lion ou Yvain<br/>Collection de miracles<br/>Commentaire en prose sur les psaumes I-XXXV<br/>Comput<br/>Description d'Engleterre<br/>Eneas<br/>Gormont et Isembart<br/>Lapidaire alphabétique<br/>Lapidaire en prose<br/>Le Voyage de Saint Brendan</td><td>Philippe de Thaon<br/>Wace<br/>Chrétien de Troyes<br/>Adgar (or Guillaume)<br/>NA<br/>Philippe de Thaon<br/>NA<br/>NA<br/>Philippe de Thaon<br/>NA<br/>NA<br/>Benedeit</td><td>Didactical<br/>Historical<br/>Literary<br/>Religious<br/>Religious<br/>Didactical<br/>Historical<br/>Literary<br/>Didactical<br/>Lapidary<br/>Religious</td><td>Bestiary<br/>Chronicle<br/>Novel<br/>Miracle<br/>Commentary<br/>Comput<br/>Historiography<br/>Novel<br/>Epic<br/>Lapidary<br/>Hagiography</td><td>Verse<br/>Verse<br/>Verse<br/>Verse<br/>Prose<br/>Verse<br/>Verse<br/>Verse<br/>Prose<br/>Verse</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 2

<table><tr><td>Quatre fragments de miracles de la Vierge</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Miracle</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>Quatre Livres des Rois</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>History</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td>Tristan</td><td>Béroul</td><td>Literary</td><td>Novel</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>Vie de saint Thomas Becket</td><td>Guernes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>12th-13th</td><td>Ami et Amile</td><td>NA</td><td>Literary</td><td>Epic</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td>13th</td><td>Aucassin et Nicolette</td><td>NA</td><td>Literary</td><td>Short novel</td><td>Verse/prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Chartes de l'Aube</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Chartes du Hainaut</td><td>NA</td><td>Legal</td><td>Charter</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Conquête de Constantinople</td><td>Robert de Clari</td><td>Historical</td><td>Chronicle</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Coutumes de Beauvaisis</td><td>Philippe de Beaumanoir</td><td>Legal</td><td>Treaty</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Queste del saint Graal</td><td>NA</td><td>Literary</td><td>Novel</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Roman de la Rose</td><td>Jean de Meung</td><td>Didactical</td><td>Novel</td><td>Verse</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vie de saint Eustache</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vie de sainte Bathilde</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vie de sainte Geneviève (version I)</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Prose</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Vie de sainte Geneviève (version III)</td><td>NA</td><td>Religious</td><td>Hagiography</td><td>Prose</td></tr></table>
# Résumé substantiel en français

## 1. Objet d'étude

Cette thèse est consacrée à l'étude des formes verbales non finies communément identifiées comme des « gérondifs » et des « participes présents ». Elle cherche à examiner empiriquement l'évolution de ces formes dans le passage du latin tardif à l'ancien français, afin de rendre compte des différences crucales entre ces deux catégories de formes verbales en latin classique et en français moderne.

En latin classique, défini dans cette thèse comme la période entre le IIIe siècle avant J.-C. et le IIe siècle après J.-C., le gérondif et le participe présent sont deux catégories distinctes de formes verbales non finies. D'un point de vue morphologique, ils sont tous deux formés à partir du radical présent d'un verbe, mais à ce radical sont attachés des morphèmes bien différents : le gérondif présente l'infixe -nd- et une terminaison nominale (p. ex. lege-nd-i '(de) lire'), tandis que le participe présent contient l'infixe -nt- et une terminaison adjectivale (p. ex. lege-nt-es 'lisant') (Meiser 1998² : 226, 228 ; Pinkster 2015 : 58, 60). Conformément à leur terminaison nominale vs adjectivale, le gérondif reçoit sa forme casuelle sur la base de sa fonction ou de la préposition qui le régit, alors que le participe présent se voit attribuer sa forme casuelle (ainsi que son genre et son nombre) par accord avec un nom. Par exemple, dans (1), le gérondif defendendi 'de défendre' est au génitif, parce qu'il fonctionne comme l'argument adnominal de potestatem 'opportunité'. Dans (2), au contraire, le participe présent ardentes 'flamboyant' est fléchi au nominatif (féminin pluriel) par accord avec le nom laminae 'plaques de métal'.

(1) [...] *dat*      *ipsa*      *lex*      *potestatem*      **defende-nd-i**      [...].
donner.PRS.3SG INTENS.NOM.F.SG loi.NOM.F.SG opportunité.ACC.F.SG défendre-GER-GEN

'La loi elle-même donne la possibilité de se défendre.' (Cic. *Mil*. 11.4)

(2) *Cum ignes*      **arde-nt-es=que**      *laminae*      [...]
quand feu.NOM.M.PL flamboyer-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL=et plaque_de_métal.NOM.F.PL
*admovebantur*      [...].
apporter.PST.PASS.3PL

'Quand le feu et les plaques de métal flamboyant ont été apportés (...).' (Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.163.8)

En lien avec leurs propriétés morphologiques, le gérondif peut remplir une fonction caractéristique d'un nom, alors que le participe présent peut assurer une fonction typique d'un adjectif (Palmer 1964 : 320-321, 325 ; Pinkster 2015 : 58, 60). Par exemple, les deux formes connaissent un emploi adnominal, avec cette différence que cet emploi fait intervenir une forme prépositionnelle ou génitive dans le cas d'un gérondif (p. ex. *defendendi* 'défendre' (1)), mais une forme en accord avec un nom dans le cas d'un participe présent (p. ex. *ardentes* 'flamboyant' (2)). Cependant, les deux formes peuvent également être utilisées de manière adverbiale, à savoir dans des adjoints ou compléments circonstanciels (Kühner &
Stegmann 19145 : 731-754, 771-792 ; Palmer 1964 : 322-324, 326 ; Pinkster 2021 : §16.87-§16.104, §21.7). Le gérondif *pultando* '(en) frappant' (3) et le participe présent *pugnans* ‘combattre’ (4) en sont des exemples nets.

(3) **Pulta-nd-o** *pedibus* *paene* *confregi* *has=ce* [...] *fores.*
*frapper-GER-ABL* *pied.ABL.M.PL* *presque* *casser.PST.1SG* *DEM.ACC.F.PL=DEM* *porte.ACC.F.PL*  
‘J’ai presque cassé ces portes ici en donnant des coups de pieds (dessus).’ (Pl. *Mos.* 453)

(4) *Ibi L. Cotta* **pugna-ns** *interficitur* [...].

là L. Cotta.NOM.M.SG combattre-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG tuer.PRS.PASS.3SG

‘L. Cotta est tué là, alors qu’il combattait.’ (Caes. *Gall.* 5.37.4)

Ainsi, le gérondif et le participe présent se chevauchent partiellement en ce qui concerne leur emploi syntaxique. Fait important, ce chevauchement fonctionnel ne soulève pas de problème catégoriel, parce que les formes présentant la syntaxe externe de l’adverbe (p. ex. (3-4)) peuvent toujours être catégorisées comme des gérondifs ou des participes présents sur la base de critères morphologiques.

En français moderne, les étiquettes « gérondif » et « participe présent » sont également utilisées pour désigner deux catégories distinctes de formes verbales non finies. En termes morphologiques, les deux types de formes sont construites du radical présent d’un verbe et de la terminaison invariable *-ant*, mais alors que le participe présent est une forme nue (p. ex. *dans-ant*), le gérondif est toujours précédé du morphème *en* (p. ex. *en dans-ant*) (Riegel *et al.* 1994⁴ : 587-588). Sur le plan syntaxique, le participe présent peut s’utiliser dans des configurations adjectivales et adverbiales, comme la forme adnominale *donnant* (5) et la forme *sortant* (6) utilisée dans un adjoint, respectivement. Le gérondif, en revanche, a toujours la syntaxe externe de l’adverbe, et apparaît à ce titre exclusivement dans des adjoints (p. ex. *en chantant* (7)).

(5) Pierre ouvre la fenêtre **donnant** sur la rue.

(6) **Sortant** du métro, Pierre est tombé.

(7) Pierre est arrivé en chantant.

Comme en latin classique, les propriétés fonctionnelles du gérondif et du participe présent en français moderne présentent donc un chevauchement partiel. Ici encore, ce chevauchement ne soulève pas de problème catégoriel en raison de leur distinction morphologique. En d'autres mots, toutes les « formes (verbales) en -ant » figurant dans des adjoints peuvent être catégorisées comme soit des gérondifs, soit des participes présents sur la base de la présence ou de l'absence du morphème *en*.

Une comparaison rapide des propriétés morphologiques et syntaxiques du gérondif et du participe présent en latin classique et en français moderne permet de formuler l'hypothèse suivante par rapport à leur évolution entre les deux langues : (i) d'un point de vue morphologique, le gérondif et le participe présent en viennent à se ressembler tout en restant distincts en raison de la présence vs absence de *en*.
devant respectivement le gérondif et le participe présent ; (ii) d'un point de vue syntaxique, le gérondif se spécialise dans la syntaxe externe de l'adverbe au détriment de sa syntaxe externe nominale, alors que le participe présent conserve à la fois sa syntaxe externe adjectivale et adverbiale ; (iii) d'un point de vue morphosyntaxique, le gérondif se transforme en une forme adverbiale du verbe, tandis que le participe présent retient son statut ambivalent de forme à la fois adjectivale et adverbiale du verbe ; (iv) d'un point de vue catégoriel, le gérondif et le participe présent restent distincts.

Bien que convaincante au premier abord, cette hypothèse soulève une question fondamentale, à savoir comment expliquer l'emploi systématique, en français moderne, de *en* devant les gérondifs, mais pas devant les participes présents. En effet, comme la présence *vs* l'absence de ce morphème constitue la seule différence morphologique entre les deux types de formes verbales, l'émergence de son emploi systématique devant le gérondif joue un rôle crucial dans l'évolution globale du gérondif et du participe présent. Car sans cette évolution, le gérondif et le participe présent seraient formellement identiques. En raison de leur chevauchement fonctionnel, à savoir leur emploi commun dans des adjoints, il serait alors impossible de catégoriser les formes ayant la syntaxe externe de l'adverbe comme des gérondifs ou des participes présents avec certitude. Le résultat serait une situation de « indétermination catégorielle » (cf. Aarts 2007 : 4), *i.e.* une situation dans laquelle la frontière entre les catégories du gérondif et du participe présent sont floues. Les implications pour la description grammaticale de ces formes seraient drastiques.

Curieusement, la question de l'origine de l'emploi systématique de *en* devant le gérondif soulève plus de questions qu'elle n'apporte de réponses. En effet, bien que le gérondif puisse être introduit par *en* dès l'ancien français (p. ex. *en plorant* (8)), la présence de ce morphème devant le gérondif ne devient plus systématique qu'au courant du XVIIᵉ s. (Sarré 2000 : 51 ; Bazin-Tacchella 2020 : 852). C'est ainsi qu'en 1679, l'Académie française prescrit l'emploi de *en* devant le gérondif, cristallisant de cette façon, comme le montre Sarré (2000 : 51), la tendance généralisante dans cette période d'utiliser ce morphème devant les formes en *-ant* figurant dans des adjoints, mais pas devant celles ayant une autre fonction, p. ex. une fonction adnominale.

(8) [...] *sospira et en plor-ant li demanda [...].*
soupirer.PST.3SG et en pleurer-GER il.OBJ.M.SG demander.PST.3SG
'Elle soupirait et lui demandait en pleurant (...).' (Eneas 1676)

Pourtant, la généralisation de *en* devant les formes en *-ant* figurant dans des adjoints ne s'est pas achevée, car de nombreuses formes intervenant dans ce type de constituants restent nues, *i.e.* non introduites par *en*, et ce même en français moderne, dont témoigne la forme *sortant* (6). La question qui se pose est de savoir si ces formes nues apparaissant des adjoints doivent être prises comme des participes présents ou comme des gérondifs. Dans la tradition grammaticale du français, il existe un consensus frappant pour l'analyse participiale de ces formes. Ainsi, la prescription des Remarqueurs de l'Académie française est
censée avoir été méticuleusement suivie et standardisée, menant au final à la distinction morphologique nette entre le gérondif et le participe présent caractéristique du français moderne.

Cependant, il est peu probable – ou du moins fort douteux – que la prescription de l'Académie française soit suivie méticuleusement et sans exception à partir de 1689. Ainsi, la question de savoir si les formes en -ant nues figurant dans des adjoints instancient des participes présents ou des gérondifs reste ouverte. Autrement dit, certaines formes en -ant sont toutefois catégoriellement indéterminées, ce qui rend impossible l'établissement d'une frontière nette entre les catégories du gérondif et du participe présent.

Ce problème catégoriel de la forme en -ant en français moderne ne peut être résolu que par une étude empirique de l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin classique au français moderne. Néanmoins, une étude de corpus approfondie sur les deux types de formes verbales non finies couvrant toute cette période de plus de 2 000 ans n'est pas réalisable dans les limites de cette thèse. Aussi, je me suis concentré sur la période la plus cruciale dans ce laps de temps, à savoir le passage du latin tardif à l'ancien français.

## 2. Questions de recherche

Afin d'examiner l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif à l'ancien français à la lumière de leur distinction catégorielle, j'ai étudié les changements morphologiques et syntaxiques de ces formes et analysé dans quelle mesure ces changements conduisent à des changements au niveau de leur catégorisation morphosyntaxique. En adhérant au principe amplement reconnu que les catégories morphosyntaxiques sont le mieux définies sur la base de critères morphologiques et syntaxiques (Trask 1999 : 281 ; Aarts 2007 : 2 ; Pullum 2009 : 257), j'ai mesuré l'impact de la fusion morphologique du gérondif et du participe présent en ancien français sur leur distinction catégorielle. Cette fusion brouille-t-elle la distinction catégorielle entre ces deux types de formes verbales, conduisant à une sorte de blend catégoriel ? Ou bien la distinction entre ces formes se maintient-elle sur la base de critères syntaxiques, menant à une relation d'homonymie ?

Ces questions ont été abordées au moyen d'une étude de corpus à orientation quantitative. Cette thèse fournit la première étude quantitative de l'évolution en question et est donc pionnière pour faire le pont concerné entre le latin tardif et l'ancien français.
### 3. Structure de la thèse

L'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif à l'ancien français a été examinée en deux étapes. Dans une première partie, j'ai examiné comment cette évolution a été traitée dans la littérature existante (Part 1. State of the art). Dans la deuxième partie, j'ai étudié cette évolution empiriquement dans un vaste corpus de latin tardif et d'ancien français (Part 2. Empirical investigation).

La première partie est sous-divisée en deux chapitres. Le premier chapitre examine les propriétés morphologiques et syntaxiques du gérondif et du participe présent en latin classique (Chapter 1. The gerund and the present participle in Classical Latin), alors que le deuxième chapitre se concentre sur l'évolution des deux formes en latin tardif et dans le passage du latin tardif à l'ancien français (Chapter 2. The gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French). Le premier chapitre sur le gérondif et le participe présent en latin classique constitue le point de départ indispensable pour l'étude de leur évolution en latin tardif et dans la période de transition entre le latin tardif et l'ancien français.

La deuxième partie est consacrée à l'étude empirique du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif à l'ancien français. Cette partie est subdivisée en quatre chapitres. Le chapitre 3 présente le corpus et les données, et décrit la méthodologie utilisée (Chapter 3. Corpus, dataset, and methodology). Les deux chapitres suivants sont voués successivement à l'examination empirique de l'évolution du gérondif (Chapter 4. The gerund in Late Latin) et du participe présent (Chapter 5. The present participle in Late Latin) en latin tardif. Le dernier chapitre étudie empiriquement le statut catégoriel de la forme en -ant en ancien français (Chapter 6. The -ant form in Old French). En accord avec l'objectif de cette thèse, les chapitres 4 et 5 explorent dans quelle mesure l'hypothèse traditionnelle de la spécialisation du gérondif et du participe présent en latin tardif dans la syntaxe externe de respectivement l'adverbe et l'adjectif est corroborée par des données empiriques, tandis que le chapitre 6 examine, sur la base de ces résultats, l'impact de la fusion morphologique du gérondif et du participe présent en ancien français sur leur distinction catégorielle.

La conclusion présente et discute les principaux résultats de l'étude empirique et fournit des pistes pour des études postérieures.

### 4. Objectif de ce résumé

L'objectif de ce résumé est de synthétiser les résultats essentiels de cette thèse. Pour ce faire, je résumerai successivement l'état de l'art de l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif à l'ancien (§5), le corpus et les données de cette étude ainsi que la méthodologie utilisée (§6) et, enfin, les résultats majeurs de l'examen empirique (§7). Cette structure reflète celle la thèse.
## 5. Etat de l'art

Avant de présenter l'hypothèse standard sur l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif à l'ancien français (§5.2 et §5.3), il convient de positionner ces deux formes dans le système global des formes verbales non finies en latin classique (§5.1).

### 5.1. Le gérondif et le participe présent en latin classique

Outre le gérondif et le participe présent, le système des formes verbales non finies en latin classique comprend sept autres types, à savoir le participe passé, le participe futur, l'infinitif présent, l'infinitif passé, l'infinitif futur, le *gerundivum* et le supin (Kühner & Stegmann 19145 : 662-792 ; Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 255-287 ; Palmer 1964 : 317-327 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 341-395 ; Menge *et al.* 2000 : 661-751 ; Pinkster 2015 : 57-64). En fonction de leurs propriétés morphologiques et syntaxiques, ces formes sont typiquement divisées en deux groupes : des formes nominales et des formes adjectivales. Les formes nominales incluent le gérondif, le supin et les trois types d'infinitifs, tandis que les formes adjectivales comprennent le *gerundivum* et les trois types de participes.

En latin classique, ce système des formes verbales non finies est organisé relativement étroitement, car chaque type de formes est spécialisé dans des domaines fonctionnels distincts (Kühner & Stegmann 19145 : 662-792 ; Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 255-287 ; Palmer 1964 : 317-327 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 341-395 ; Menge *et al.* 2000 : 661-751 ; Pinkster 2015 : 57-64). Par exemple, dans le groupe des formes nominales du verbe, (i) le gérondif apparaît majoritairement dans des constituants adnominaux et dans des adjoints exprimant la manière, l'instrument ou la cause, (ii) l'infinitif dans des compléments du verbe, et (iii) le supin dans des adjoints ayant une valeur finale et dans des compléments de l'adjectif. Cependant, cette division du travail fonctionnelle est une tendance plutôt qu'une règle : plusieurs formes présentent un chevauchement de leur(s) domaine(s) fonctionnel(s) et sont ainsi en concurrence (Kühner & Stegmann 19145 : 662-792 ; Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 255-287 ; Palmer 1964 : 317-327 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 341-395 ; Menge *et al.* 2000 : 661-751 ; Pinkster 2015 : 57-64, 2021 : Ch. 15-17, 21 *passim*). Par exemple, l'infinitif est en concurrence avec le gérondif dans certains types de constituants adnominaux (Kühner & Stegmann 19145 : 742-744 ; Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 269 ; Palmer 1964 : 320 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 350-351, 376 ; Menge *et al.* 2000 : 746 ; Pinkster 2021 : §17.13, §17.15), et le gérondif et l'infinitif sont tous deux en concurrence avec le supin dans les adjoints exprimant le but, du moins lorsque le verbe principal dénote un mouvement ou un transfert (Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 260-262 ; Väänänen 19633 : 139 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 344-345, 378, 381 ; Stempel 1994 : 236 ; Pinkster 2021 : §16.86, §16.103, §16.112).
Un autre exemple de concurrence concerne les deux formes au centre de cette thèse, à savoir le gérondif et le participe présent. En emploi adverbial, *i.e.* dans des adjoints, ces formes sont spécialisées dans des valeurs sémantiques différentes, ce qui donne lieu à une sorte de distribution complémentaire sémantique, mais parfois, le gérondif a une valeur caractéristique du participe présent, et inversement (Marouzeau 1910 : 27, 79 ; Kühner & Stegmann 19145 : 751-752 ; Lyer 1932 : 384-389 ; Aalto 1949 : 65-70 ; Ernout & Thomas 1951 : 266-267 ; Laughton 1964 : 21, 25-26 ; Palmer 1964 : 324 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 379-380 ; Vester 1983 : 101-125, 134-135 ; Menge *et al.* 2000 : 740-741 ; Adams 2013 : 725-740 ; Galdi & Vangaever 2019 : 100-106 ; Pinkster 2021 : §21.14). Par exemple, les adjoints exprimant un procès verbal concomitant avec celui dénoté par le verbe principal sont typiquement font typiquement intervenir un participe présent (p. ex. *flens* ‘pleurant’ (9)), mais parfois un gérondif ablatif s’utilise à sa place (p. ex. *ornando* ‘acclamant’ et *celebrando* ‘fêtant’ (10)).

(9) [...]fle-ns Petreius manipulos circumit [...]
pleurer-PTCP.PRS.NOM.M.SG Pétreius.NOM.M.SG manipule.ACC.M.PL contourner.PRS.3SG
‘Pétreius contourne les manipules en pleurant.’ (Caes. *civ.* 1.76)

(10)[...]vestrum egressum orna-nd-o atque celebra-nd-o [...]
votre.ACC.N.SG départ.ACC.N.SG acclamer-GER-ABL et fêter-GER-ABL
prosequebantur.
escorter.PST.3PL
‘Ils ont escorté votre départ en applaudissant et en célébrant.’ (Cic. *Pis.* 3)

## 5.2. L’évolution du gérondif et du participe présent en latin tardif

En latin tardif, défini dans cette étude comme la période entre le IIIe et le Xe s. après J.-C., le système des formes verbales non finies est censé être progressivement restructuré (Elcock 1960 : 110-119 ; Harris 1978 : 195-203 ; Bauer 1993a : 59, 2005). Dans cette restructuration, un rôle central est dit être joué par l’évolution du gérondif et du participe présent, déclenchée par leur compétition fonctionnelle entre eux et avec d’autres types de formes verbales non finies. En général, le gérondif est considéré comme étant graduellement remplacé par l’infinitif dans des configurations syntaxiques nominales (p. ex. dans des constituants adnominaux, pour se spécialiser, indirectement, dans la syntaxe externe de l’adverbe, c’est-à-dire son emploi dans des adjoints.

Il est également prétendu que, durant la période du latin tardif, le gérondif se spécialise dans cette syntaxe externe adverbiale de manière directe, notamment en remplaçant progressivement le participe présent dans des adjoints. Corollairement, le participe présent est censé devenir complètement dépendant de son emploi dans des configurations syntaxiques adjectives (p. ex. dans des constituants adnominaux).
En raison de ce processus de substitution, le participe présent est communément tenu de se spécialiser, du moins indirectement, dans la syntaxe externe de l'adjectif.

Il importe de noter que le participe présent est également considéré comme étant progressivement remplacé par le gérondif dans des constructions progressives (Aalto 1949 : 75 ; Dietrich 1973 : 305, 307 ; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965 : 380). Cette hypothèse de substitution n’est pas surprenant, car l’emploi du gérondif et du participe présent dans cette construction est dérivé historiquement de leur emploi dans un type particulier d’adjoints. Les participes présents tel accusantes ‘accusant’ (11) sont donc réputés être graduellement remplacés par des gérondifs comme mentiendo ‘mentant’ (12).

(11) Stabant etiam principes sacerdotum et scribae
se_tenir_debout.PST.3PL car principal.NOM.M.SG prêtre.GEN.M.PL et scribe.NOM.M.PL
constanter accusa-nt-es eum.
constamment accuser-PTCP.PRS-NOM.M.PL DEM.ACC.M.SG
‘Car les grands prêtres et les scribes l’accusaient constamment.’ (Vulg. Luc. 23.9-10)

(12) [...] contra illos qui mentie-nd-o vadunt [...].
contre DEM.ACC.M.PL REL.NOM.M.SG mentir-GER-ABL aller.PRS.3PL
‘(...) contre ceux qui vont mentant.’ (Carol. capit. 1a.810)

En raison de ces évolutions, le système des formes verbales non finies est censé développer un degré plus élevé d’isomorphisme : l’infinitif se spécialise dans la syntaxe externe nominale, le gérondif dans la syntaxe externe adverbiale et le participe présent dans la syntaxe externe adjectivale.

Bien que démarrant en latin tardif, ces processus de spécialisation ne sont présumées s’achever que dans le passage aux langues romanes, conformément à la tendance évolutive plus générale vers la spécialisation morphosyntaxique dans cette période (cf. Carlier & Combettes 2015). Notons en passant que ces processus de spécialisation sont considérées avoir abouti dans la plupart des langues romanes, mais que certaines langues présentent toutefois un résultat légèrement différent pour une ou plusieurs formes (cf. les différents chapitres dans Ledgeway & Maiden 2016). Pour des raisons de simplicité, je parlerai cependant des langues romanes en général.

Les développements décrits ci-dessus résument l'hypothèse standard sur l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent en latin tardif et du latin tardif aux langues romanes. Néanmoins, cette hypothèse n'a pas encore été examinée dans des études de corpus quantitatives. Ainsi, il reste incertain dans quelle mesure les présumés changements morphosyntaxiques sont confirmées par des données empiriques. En effet, l'hypothèse standard a été formulée principalement sur la base des deux types de données suivants.

(i) Etant donné que les langues romanes se développent à partir de différentes variétés substandard du latin tardif, l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent en latin tardif et dans le passage du latin tardif aux langues romanes a été établie sur la base de données aussi représentatives que possible
de ce que l'on appelle le « latin vulgaire », à savoir « the set of all those innovations and trends that turned up in the usage, particularly but not exclusively spoken, of the Latin-speaking population who were little or not at all influenced by school education and by literary models » (Herman 2000 : 7 ; voir aussi Väänänen 1963³ : 3-6 ; Adams 2013 : 10). Cependant, les données étudiées à cet égard sont éparses et ont presque exclusivement été explorées d'une perspective qualitative (p. ex. Lyer 1932 et Adams 2013 : 725-740 pour les gérondifs ablatifs nus et les participes présents nominatifs utilisés dans des adjoints). De plus, la plupart des études se concentrent sur l'évolution d'emplois et de formes spécifiques du gérondif ou du participe présent séparément (p. ex. Lyer 1932 sur les gérondifs ablatifs nus figurant dans des adjoints), ou bien sur l'évolution d'un seul de leurs emplois concurrents (p. ex. Vester 1983 : 135-136, Adams 2013 : 725-740 et Galdi & Vangaever 2019 sur la concurrence entre le gérondif ablatif nu et le participe présent nominatif dans les adjoints). Or, comme l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent est censée faire partie de la restructuration du système des formes verbales non finies dans sa globalité, elle ne peut pas être évaluée de manière appropriée sans étudier l'évolution des paradigmes du gérondif et du participe présent dans leur ensemble. Vu l'absence actuelle d'études portant sur l'évolution de toutes les formes et de tous les emplois du gérondif et du participe présent, la question de savoir dans quelle mesure la présumée spécialisation du gérondif dans la syntaxe externe de l'adverbe et du participe présent dans celle de l'adjectif est étayée par des données empiriques reste ouverte.

(ii) L'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent du latin tardif aux langues romanes a en outre été reconstruite à la lumière de données empiriques tirées des langues romanes. Dans la plupart de ces langues, le gérondif ne peut figurer que dans des adjoints et dans des constructions progressives, tandis que le participe présent ne peut avoir que la syntaxe externe de l'adjectif (Aalto 1949 : 73 ; Elcock 1960 : 110-111 ; Väänänen 1963³ : 140-141 ; voir aussi les différents articles dans Ledgeway & Maiden 2016). Cette répartition fonctionnelle dans les langues romanes a été analysée comme le résultat de changements en cours en latin vulgaire, et donc comme une preuve indirecte en faveur de la spécialisation du gérondif et du participe présent dans la syntaxe externe de respectivement l'adverbe et l'adjectif. Toutefois, la question reste de savoir dans quelle mesure ces spécialisations se manifestent de manière directe, c'est-à-dire dans des textes authentiques rédigés en latin tardif.

La question fondamentale qui se dégage de (i-ii) est de savoir dans quelle mesure l'hypothèse standard sur l'évolution du gérondif et du participe présent en latin tardif est corroborée par des changements quantitativement significatifs dans leur syntaxe externe et dans leur catégorisation morphosyntaxique.