S. Also-thim-mabrey, who discusses the German conjunctions, weil, denn and da. Note that central adverbial clauses differ from their peripheral counterparts in more ways than hinted at in the main text. One important thing to mention is the relative independence of the latter with respect to the superordinate clause. For instance, peripheral adverbial clauses are often said to have illocutionary force of their own (see, e.g, 1982.

. Tellingly, only central adverbial clauses can be clefted or appear as the nuclear scope of focus-sensitive particles like even and only, 1994.

R. Adams and J. , Wackernagel's Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin, 1994.

M. Ariel, Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.12, issue.5-6, pp.567-600, 1989.
DOI : 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90049-5

M. Ariel, Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents, 1990.

A. Bassarak, Parenthesen als illokutive Handlungen, pp.163-178, 1987.

B. Birner, The linguistic realization of inferrable information, Language & Communication, vol.17, issue.2, pp.133-147, 1997.
DOI : 10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00005-0

B. Birner and G. Ward, Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English, 1998.
DOI : 10.1075/slcs.40

B. Birner, Semantic and pragmatic contributions to information status, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, vol.7, issue.1, pp.14-32, 2006.
DOI : 10.3115/1218955.1218974

B. Birner, Inferential Relations and Noncanonical Word Order In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of, pp.31-51, 2006.

M. Bolkestein, Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis and hypotaxis in Latin, New Studies in Latin Linguistics, pp.427-451, 1991.
DOI : 10.1075/slcs.21.32bol

G. Cinque, Mica: note di sintassi e pragmatica Teoria linguistica e sintassi italiana, Bologna: Il Mulino (originally published in Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, pp.311-323, 1976.

L. Danckaert, Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery, 2012.
DOI : 10.1075/la.184

L. Danckaert, Quidem as a Marker of Emphatic Polarity, Transactions of the Philological Society, 2013.

R. Declerck and S. Reed, Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis, 2001.
DOI : 10.1515/9783110851748

M. Dryer, Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.26, issue.4, pp.475-523, 1996.
DOI : 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00059-3

O. Ducrot, La preuve et le dire, 1973.

A. Fetzer and K. Fischer, Introduction, Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, pp.1-13, 2007.

H. Fugier, Quod, quia, quoniam et leurs effets textuels chez Cicéron, Subordination and other Topics in Latin, pp.91-119, 1989.
DOI : 10.1075/slcs.17.07fug

T. Givón, Negation in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology, Pragmatics, pp.69-112, 1978.

H. Grice, Logic and Conversation, Speech Acts, pp.41-58, 1975.

L. Haegeman, The internal syntax of adverbial clauses, Lingua, vol.120, issue.3, pp.628-648, 2010.
DOI : 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.007

M. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English, 1976.

M. Hernanz and . Lluïsa, From Polarity to Modality: Some (A)symmetries between bien and sí in Spanish, Coreference, Modality and Focus, pp.133-169, 2007.

M. Hernanz and . Lluïsa, Assertive Bien in Spanish and the Left Periphery, Mapping the Left Periphery, pp.19-62, 2011.
DOI : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.003.0002

L. Horn, A Natural History of Negation. 2 nd ed, 2001.

J. Jacobs, I-Topikalisierung, Linguistische Berichte, vol.169, pp.91-133, 1997.

M. Johnston, The Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Adjuncts, 1994.

E. Kaiser, Negation and the left periphery in Finnish, Lingua, vol.116, issue.3, pp.314-350, 2004.
DOI : 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.008

C. Kroon, Discourse Particles in Latin: a Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at, 1995.

C. Kroon, Latin quidem and the Structure of the Move In Words in their Places: A Festschrift for, pp.199-209, 2004.

C. Kroon, Summary, Papers on Grammar IX, pp.577-590, 2005.
DOI : 10.1515/joll.2005.9.2.577

C. Kroon, Latin Linguistics between Grammar and Discourse: Units of Analysis, Levels of Analysis, Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie, pp.143-158, 2009.

C. Kroon, Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse, A Companion to the Latin Language, pp.176-195, 2011.
DOI : 10.1002/9781444343397.ch12

K. Lindner, Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte': The Use of German ja and doch as Modal Particles, Discourse Particles, pp.163-201, 1991.

S. Mellet, Quando, quia, quod, quoniam: analyse énonciative et syntaxique des conjonctions de cause en latin, De usu: études de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à Marius Lavency, pp.211-228, 1995.

J. Merchant, Remarks on Stripping, Ms. University of Chicago, 2003.

R. Pasch, Illokutionsstruktururtypen und Typen der Verknüpfung von Inhalten illokutiver Handlungen, pp.119-61, 1987.

H. Pinkster, On Latin Adverbs, 1972.
DOI : 10.5117/9053568433

H. Pinkster, Latin Syntax and Semantics, 1990.

H. Pinkster, De Latijnse voegwoorden quia en quoniam (en Nederlands aangezien), Fons Verborum: feestbundel Fons Moerdijk, pp.313-320, 2009.

H. Pinkster, The Use Of Quia And Quoniam In Cicero, Seneca, And Tertullian, Studies in Classical Linguistics in Honor of Philip Baldi, pp.81-95, 2010.
DOI : 10.1163/ej.9789004188662.i-168.46

C. Potts, The Lexical Semantics of Parenthical-as and Appositive-which, Syntax, vol.5, issue.1, pp.55-88, 2002.
DOI : 10.1111/1467-9612.00047

C. Potts, The Logic of Conventional Implicatures, 2005.

E. Prince, Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information, Radical Pragmatics, pp.223-256, 1981.

E. Prince, On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions, Chicago Linguistic Society, vol.22, pp.208-222, 1986.

E. Prince, The ZPG Letter, Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fundraising Text, pp.295-325, 1992.
DOI : 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri

R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 1985.

H. Rosén, Lat??n epitaxis in historical and typological view, Herder. Spelling out the Obvious: Latin quidem and Presuppositional Polarity 33, pp.205-242, 2008.
DOI : 10.1515/joll.2008.10.1.205

S. Schwenter, No and tampoco: a pragmatic distinction in Spanish negation, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.35, issue.7, pp.999-1030, 2003.
DOI : 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00057-2

S. Schwenter, The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese, Lingua, vol.115, issue.10, pp.1427-1456, 2005.
DOI : 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.006

J. Solodow, The Latin Particle quidem, 1978.

O. Spevak, Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose, 2010.
DOI : 10.1075/slcs.117

C. Thim-mabrey, Zur Syntax der kausalen Konjunktionen weil, da und denn, Sprachwissenschaft, vol.7, pp.197-219, 1982.

M. Thurmair, Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen, 1989.
DOI : 10.1515/9783111354569
URL : https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/25039/1/ubr13058_ocr.pdf

J. Verstraete, Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English, 2007.
DOI : 10.1515/9783110918199

S. Winkler, Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar, 2005.
DOI : 10.1515/9783110890426

R. Zanuttini, Negation and Clausal Structure: a Comparative Study of Romance Languages, 1997.

M. Zimmerman, Discourse Particles, Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, pp.2012-2038, 2011.

B. Lieven, Danckaert@UGent.be About the author Trained as a classical philologist at Ghent University, Lieven Danckaert obtained his Ph.D. at the same institute with a dissertation on Latin word order. His main research interest is in Latin linguistics, with a special focus on syntax, his current postdoctoral research project, he carries out a corpus based study of the