Studi e Saggi Linguistici

V. 56 N. 1 (2018)
Articoli

Verso l'analisi della transitività dei generi testuali latini: il caso del latino notarile

PDF
  • Timo Korkiakangas
Timo Korkiakangas
University of Oslo
Biografia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4454/ssl.v56i1.183

Pubblicato 2018-04-06

Parole chiave

  • Late Latin,
  • transitivity,
  • genre,
  • corpus linguistics
Informativa sui diritti

Abstract

This paper presents an attempt to establish qualitative and quantitative methods for measuring the transitivity of Latin textual genres. Traditionally defined as the capacity of a verb to pass the action from the subject to the object, transitivity is recognised as a descriptive feature of genres by modern-language studies. This study is based on a syntactically annotated corpus of documentary Latin (XXXX). Transitivity is first approached in terms of a classificatory analysis of the most common verbs of the corpus, which is then followed by a functionally-inspired transitivity component analysis of a sample (N = 810). The Latin documentary genre appears to have a bipolar transitivity profile symptomatic of its dual communicative function: the performative verbs typical of the dispositive legal language are high in transitivity, whereas the frequent relational verbs which connect concepts and properties are low. The method is expected to be extendible to other Latin genres, such as narrative and oratory.

PDF

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. ANSANI, M. (2007), Appunti sui brevia di XI e XII secolo, in «Scrineum rivista», 4, pp. 107-152 (http://www.fupress.net/index.php/scrineum/article/view/12113).
  2. AUSTIN, J.L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  3. AUTHOR (2011)
  4. AUTHOR (2013)
  5. AUTHOR (2016)
  6. BENTIVOGLIO, P. (1992), Linguistic correlations between subjects of one-argument verbs and subjects of more-than-one-argument verbs in spoken Spanish, in HIRSCHBÜHLER, P. KOERNER, K. (1992, eds.), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 11-25.
  7. CDL = Codice diplomatico longobardo 1–2. A cura di SCHIAPARELLI, L. Tipografia del Senato, Roma, 1929–1933.
  8. CHLA = Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters Prior to the Ninth Century. Edited by BRUCKNER, A. e MARICHAL, R., Urs Graf Verlag, Olten, Dietikon, Zürich, 1954-2001.
  9. CHLA2 = Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters. 2nd Series: Ninth Century. Edited by Cavallo, G. and Nicolaj, G., Urs Graf Verlag, Dietikon, Zürich, 1997-.
  10. CUZZOLIN, P. (2010), Evidentialitätsstrategien im Lateinischen: vorläufige Bemerkungen, in ANREITER, P. E KIENPOINTNER, M. (2010, eds.), Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, IBS, Innsbruck, pp. 247-256.
  11. DIXON, R. (1994), Ergativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  12. DONADIO, P. (2005), Il partito globale: la nuova lingua del neolaburismo britannico, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  13. GARCÍA-MIGUEL, J. E VÁZQUEZ ROZAS, V. (2009), Transitivity, subjectivity and discourse: a corpus analysis of Spanish argument structure, presentazione a Fillmore Fest, Berkeley, 2009 (http://gramatica.usc.es/~vvazq/pdf_pres/Garcia_Vazquez_FillmoreFest_2009.pdf).
  14. HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (2014), Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed., revised by Christian M. Matthiessen, Routledge, London e New York.
  15. HOPPER, P.J. E THOMPSON, S.A. (1980), Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse, in «Language», 56, pp. 251-299 (http://latina.phil2.uni-freiburg.de/raible/Lehre/2006/Materialien/Hopper_Thompson. pdf).
  16. IWAMOTO, N. (2007), Stylistic and Linguistic Analysis of a Literary Text Using Systemic Functional Grammar, in «Kanagawa University Departmental Bulletin», pp. 61-96 (http://human.kanagawa-u.ac.jp/gakkai/publ/pdf/no162/16209.pdf).
  17. KÄRKKÄINEN, E. (2003), Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: a description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
  18. LEHTO, A. (2013), Complexity and genre conventions: text structure and coordination in Early Modern English proclamations, in JUCKER, A. H., LANDERT, D., SEILER, A. E STUDER-JOHO, N. (2013, eds.), Meaning in the History of English: words and texts in context, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 233-256.
  19. MUNRO, P. (1982), On the transitivity of "Say" verbs, in HOPPER, P. E THOMPSON, S. A. (1982, eds.). Studies in Transitivity, Academic Press, New York, pp. 301-318.
  20. NAESS, Å. (2007), Prototypical transitivity, John Benjamins, Amsterdam e Philadelphia.
  21. NICOLAJ, G. (2003), Lineamenti di diplomatica generale, in «Scrineum rivista», 1, PP. 1-85 (http://scrineum.unipv.it/rivista/1-2003/nicolaj.pdf).
  22. OOSTDIJK, N. E DE HAAN, P. (1994), Clause patterns in Modern British English: a corpus-based (quantitative) study, in «ICAME journal», 18, pp. 41-79.
  23. PINKSTER, H. (2015), The Oxford Latin Syntax, volume I, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  24. PRATESI, A. (1979), Genesi e forme del documento medievale, Jouvence, Roma.
  25. ROVAI, F. (2005) , L'estensione dell'accusativo in latino tardo e medievale, in «Archivio glottologico italiano», 90, pp. 54-89.
  26. SCHIAPARELLI, L. (1933), Note diplomatiche sulle carte longobarde, in «Archivio storico italiano», 19, pp. 3-66.
  27. SEARLE, J.R. (1976), A Classification of Illocutionary Acts, in «Language in Society», 5, pp. 1-23.
  28. TAAVITSAINEN, I. (2001), Changing conventions of writing: the dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions, in «European Journal of English Studies», 5, pp. 139-150.
  29. THOMPSON, S.A. E HOPPER, P.J. (2001), Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation, in BYBEE, J. E HOPPER, P. (2001, eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, John Benjamins, Amsterdam e Philadelphia, pp. 27-60.
  30. THOMPSON, S.A. (2002), "Object complements" and conversation: towards a realistic account, in «Studies in Language», 26, pp. 125-164.
  31. TRAUGOTT, E. (1989), On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change, in «Language», 65, pp. 31-55.
  32. UNGER, C. (2006), Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: the Pragmatics of Discourse Type, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
  33. VAN VALIN, R. (2001), Introduction to Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  34. VAN VALIN, R. (2005), Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  35. VÁZQUEZ ROZAS, V. E GARCÍA-MIGUEL, J. (2006), Transitividad, subjetividad y frecuencia de uso en español, in Actes del VII Congrés de Lingüística General, Barcelona, pubblicazione solamente on-line (http://weba575.webs.uvigo.es/jmgm/public/VazquezRozas-GarciaMiguel_CLG7.pdf).