Rethinking subjecthood: non-canonical subjects in impersonal predicates in early Latin

Abstract This article investigates the notion of grammatical subject in impersonal predicates with non-canonical subjects in Early Latin. Impersonal constructions challenge traditional subject definitions, which typically emphasize verb agreement control, nominative case marking, and a preference for the Agent role. The aim of this research is to evaluate the subjecthood of accusative and dative arguments in impersonal predicates through syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-referential tests applied to emotion and modal verbs in archaic Latin texts. The findings reveal that only the accusative argument in pudet -type constructions consistently fulfills the criteria for subjecthood across syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions, qualifying it as the (non-canonical) subject of the clause. In contrast, in placet -type constructions, dative and nominative arguments compete for subject status syntactically, suggesting that both can be considered potential subjects. This aligns with approaches in which predicates alternate between Dat-Nom and Nom-Dat frames. From a semantic and pragmatic perspective, however, the dative argument is more animate, definite, and topical than the nominative argument – hallmarks of prototypical subjects cross-linguistically. These findings underscore the importance of the semantic-cognitive component in Latin, where sentential topics are prioritized as potential subjects. This perspective highlights Latin’s sensitivity to animacy, definiteness, and topicality in argument selection, expanding our understanding of subjecthood in non-canonical constructions.