V. 56 N. 2 (2018)

Gli studi sulla (s)cortesia linguistica in latino. Possibilità di analisi e proposte per il futuro

Luis Unceta Gómez
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Pubblicato 2018-12-20

Parole chiave

  • Latin,
  • Pragmatics,
  • Linguistic Politeness


In the last years, the burgeoning research field of linguistic im/politeness in Classical languages, specially in Latin, has received a great deal of attention and has become an important research area, with promising and enriching results for our knowledge of ancient languages. The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the state of the art of the research on Latin linguistic im/politeness. It offers a critical revision of its main advances, as well as perspectives for future research.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. ADAMS, J.N. (1984), Female speech in Latin comedy, in «Antichthon», 18, pp. 43-77.
  2. BARRIOS-LECH, P. (2014a), The Ist person plural ‘hortatory’ subjunctive in Plautus and Terence, «Rheinisches Museum für Philologie», 157, 3-4, pp. 272-277.
  3. BARRIOS-LECH, P. (2014), Quid ais and female speech in Roman Comedy, «Hermes», 14, 4, pp. 480-486.
  4. BARRIOS-LECH, P. (2016a), Noli + infinitive in Roman Comedy, «Glotta», 92, pp. 18-23.
  5. BARRIOS-LECH, P. (2016b), Linguistic interaction in Roman comedy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  6. BERGER, Ł. (2014), Starzec i grzeczność językowa w komediach Plauta [Old men and linguistic politeness in the comedies of Plautus], «Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae», 24, 1, pp. 53-74.
  7. BERGER, Ł. (2015a), (Meta)discoursive uses of Latin heus, «Romanica Posnaniensia», 42, 5, pp. 3-22.
  8. BERGER, Å. (2016a), Otwarcie dialogowe w komediach Plauta [Dialogue opening in the Plautine comedies], PoznaÅ„skie Studia Polonistyczne, PoznaÅ„.
  9. BERGER, Ł. (2016b), Escenas de bienvenida en las comedias de Plauto, «Scripta Classica», 13.
  10. BERGER, Ł. (2017a), Bendecir para saludar en Plauto. Redistribución de la función pragmática, «Emerita».
  11. BERGER, Ł. (2017b): Introducing the first topic slot in Plautine dialogues, «Roczniki Humanistyczne. Filologia Klasyczna», 64, 3.
  12. BROOKINS, T.A. (2010), A politeness analysis of Catullus’ polymetric poems: can Leech’s GSP cross the ancient modern divide?, «Journal of Pragmatics», 42, 5, pp. 1283-1295.
  13. BROWN, R. and GILMAN, A. (1960 ), Pronouns of power and solidarity, in SEBEOK, T.A. (1960, ed.), Style in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp. 253-276.
  14. BROWN P. and LEVINSON, S.C. (1987), Politeness. Some universals in language usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [= Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, in GOODY, E. (1978, ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56-310].
  15. CABRILLANA, C. (2016), Directives in Latin comedy: pragmatics, dramatic role and social status, «Journal of Latin Linguistics», 15, 2, pp. 179-214.
  16. CARNEY, T.F. (1964), The words sodes and quaeso in Terentian usage, «Acta Classica», 7, pp. 57-63.
  17. CORCORAN, S. (1996), The empire of the tetrarchs. Imperial pronouncements and government A.D. 284-324, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  18. CULPEPER, J. (2011), Impoliteness: using language to cause offence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  19. CULPEPER, J. and GUARDAMAGNA, C. (2016), Studying linguistic (im)politeness in the darkest recesses of time, Historical Politeness Network Symposium. University of East Anglia (Norwich, England), 17/06/2016.
  20. DICKEY, E. (2002), Latin forms of address. From Plautus to Apuleius, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  21. DICKEY, E. (2006), The use of Latin sis as a focus-marking clitic particle, «Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics», 11, pp. 21-25.
  22. DICKEY, E. (2012a), The rules of politeness and Latin request formulae, in Probert, P. and Willi, A. (2012, eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 313-328.
  23. DICKEY, E. (2012b), How to say ‘please’ in Classical Latin, «Classical Quarterly», 62, 2, pp. 731-748.
  24. DICKEY, E. (2015), How to say ‘please’ in post-Classical Latin: Fronto and the importance of archaism, «Journal of Latin Linguistics», 14, pp. 17-31.
  25. DICKEY, E. (2016a), Politeness in ancient Rome: can it help us evaluate modern politeness theories?, «Journal of Politeness Research», 12, 2, pp. 197-220.
  26. DICKEY, E. (2016b), When ‘please’ ceases to be polite: the use of sis in Early Latin, Historical Politeness Network Symposium. University of East Anglia (Norwich, England), 17/06/2016.
  27. DUBREUIL, Ph. (2013), Le marché aux injures à Rome. Injures et insultes dans la littérature latine, L’Harmattan, Paris.
  28. ECHOLS, E.C. (1950), The quid-greeting in Plautus and Terence, «Classical Journal», 45, 4, pp. 188-190.
  29. FERRI, R. (2008), Politeness in Latin comedy. Some preliminary thoughts, «Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici» 61, pp. 15-28.
  30. FERRI, R. (2012), How to say ‘no’ in Latin: negative turns, politeness and pragmatic variation, in LEIWO, M., HALLA-AHO, H. and VIERROS, M. (2012, eds.), Variation and change in Greek and Latin, Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, Helsinki, pp. 105-127.
  31. FERRI, R. (2016), An ancient grammarian’s view of how the spoken language works. Pragmalinguistic observations in Donatus’ Commentum Terentii, in FERRI, R. and ZAGO, A. (2016, eds.), The Latin of the grammarians. Reflections about language in the Roman world, Brepols, Turnhout, pp. 237-275.
  32. FREI-STOLBA, R. (1969), Inoffizielle Kaisertitulaturen im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., «Museum Helveticum», 26, pp. 18-39.
  33. GARCÉS-CONEJOS BLITVICH, P. (2010), A genre approach to the study of im-politeness, «International Review of Pragmatics», 2, 1, pp. 46-94.
  34. GHEZZI, C. (2016), Marcatori interazionali di cortesia dal latino alle lingue romanze: nomi e verbi tra morfosintassi e contesto discorsivo, in FRUYT, M., HAVERLING, G. and SORNICOLA, R. (2016, eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15-20 juillet 2013), Section 2: Linguistique latine/ Linguistique romane, Nancy, ATILF, <http://www.atilf.fr/cilpr2013/actes/section-2/CILPR-2013-2-Ghezzi.pdf> [03/01/2017].
  35. GHEZZI, C. and MOLINELLI, P. (2014), Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): the cyclic nature of functional developments, in GHEZZI, C. and MOLINELLI, P. (2014, eds.), Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 61-85.
  36. GHEZZI, C. and MOLINELLI, P. (2015), Segnali allocutivi di richiamo: percorsi pragmatici e sviluppi diacronici tra latino e italiano, «Cuadernos de Filología Italiana», 22, pp. 21-47.
  37. GOFFMAN, E. (1967), Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior, Doubleday, New York.
  38. GÓMEZ SANTAMARÍA, M.ªI. (2003), Cortesía verbal y citas de scripta imperatoris en el panegírico latino, «Voces», 14, pp. 145-154.
  39. GRICE, H.P. (1989), Studies in the way of words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
  40. HALLA-AHO, H. (2010), Requesting in a letter: context, syntax and the choice between complements in the letters of Cicero and Pliny the Younger, «Transactions of the Philological Society», 108, 3, pp. 232-247.
  41. HALL, J. (1996), Cicero Fam. 5.8 and Fam. 15.5 in the light of modern politeness theory, «Antichthon», 30, pp. 19-33.
  42. HALL, J. (2005a), Politeness and formality in Cicero’s Letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27), «Museum Helveticum», 62, pp. 193-213.
  43. HALL, J. (2005b), Roman politeness and the socialization of Marcus Cicero the Younger, in WELCH, K. and HILLARD, T. (2005, eds.), Roman crossings. Theory and practice in the Roman Republic, The Classical Press of Wales, Swansea, pp. 263-282.
  44. HALL, J. (2009), Politeness and politics in Cicero’s letters, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  45. HALL, J. (2016), Seneca on verbal and non verbal politeness, Historical Politeness Network Symposium. University of East Anglia (Norwich, England), 17/06/2016.
  46. HAVERLING, G. (1995), Illogical uos in Late Latin, CALLEBAT, L. (1995, ed.), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif IV. Actes du 4eme Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Caen, 2-5 septembre 1994), Olms-Weidmann, Hildesheim, pp. 337-353.
  47. HOFFMANN, M.E. (1983), Conversational openings in the comedies of Plautus, in PINKSTER, H. (1983, ed.), Latin linguistics and linguistic theory: Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Amsterdam, April 1981), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 217-228.
  48. HOFMANN, J.B. (1951), Lateinische Umgangssprache, Carl Winter, Heidelber; trad. it. RICOTTILLI, L. (32003), La lingua d’uso latina, Pàtron, Bologna.
  49. HOUGH, J.N. (1945), The numquid uis formula in Roman Comedy, «American Journal of Philology», 66, pp. 282-302.
  50. HUMMEL, P. (2008), Mala dicta. Essai sur la malédiction et la calomnie dans l’antiquité classique, Philologicum, Paris.
  51. IURESCIA, F. (2016), Credo iam ut solet iurgabit: Pragmatica della lite a Roma, Tesi di Dottorato, Università di Pisa.
  52. JACOBS, A. and JUCKER, A.H. (1995), The historical perspective in Pragmatics, in JUCKER, A.H. (1995, ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 3-33.
  53. KIENPOINTNER, M. (1997), Varieties of rudeness. Types and functions of impolite utterances, «Functions of Language», 4, 2, pp. 251-287.
  54. KIENPOINTNER, M. (2008), Cortesía, emociones y argumentación, in BRIZ, A. et al. (2008, eds.), Cortesía y conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral. III Coloquio internacional del programa EDICE, Universidad de Valencia-Programa EDICE, Valencia-Estocolmo, pp. 25-52.
  55. KOCHOVSKA, S. (2013), Expressing congratulations in Latin: the case of Cicero’s correspondence, «Literatūra», 55, 3, pp. 27-37.
  56. KRILOVÀ, B. (2004), Consensus suggested and demanded: the use and role of enim and ergo in conflict management, «Graecolatina Pragensia», 20, pp. 95-107.
  57. KRILOVÀ, B. (2005), Competitive and cooperative use of rudeness in Latin comedy, XIII Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, Bruxelles (Belgique), 05/04/2005.
  58. KRYLOVÀ, B. (2015), Latin directives and (im)politeness: how do modifications of illocutionary force (not) modify the (im)politeness status of directives. 18th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Université de Toulouse (France), 10/06/2015.
  59. KRUSCHWITZ, P. (2013), Memento mori: the use(s) of the future imperative in the Carmina Latina Epigraphica, in Fernández Martínez, C. et al. (2013, eds.), Ex officina. Literatura epigráfica en verso, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, pp. 193-216.
  60. KRUSCHWITZ, P. and CLARY-VENABLES, A. (2013), How to apologise in Latin: a case study, in MOORE, T.J. and POLLEICHTNER, W. (2013, eds.), Form und Bedeutung im lateinischen Drama/Form and meaning in Latin drama, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, Trier, pp. 53-86.
  61. LAKOFF, R. (1973), The logic of politeness: or, minding your p’s and q’s, in Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 292-305.
  62. LATEINER, D. (2013), Gendered and gendering insults and compliments in the Latin novels, «Eugesta», 3, pp. 303-351.
  63. LEECH, G.N. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London-New York.
  64. LEECH, G.N. (2007), Politeness: is there an East-West divide?, «Journal of Politeness Research», 3, 2, pp. 167-206.
  65. LETESSIER, P. (2000), La salutatio chez Plaute: adaptation ludique d’un rituel social, «Lalies», 20, pp. 151-163.
  66. LILJA, S. (1965), Terms of abuse in Roman Comedy, Finnish Academy, Helsinki.
  67. LOCHER, M.A. and WATTS, R.J. (2005), Politeness theory and relational work, «Journal of Politeness Research», 1, pp. 9-33.
  68. LÓPEZ LÓPEZ, M. (2012), El preludio de la risa o el llanto (I): expresiones de halago y requiebro en los tragediógrafos y comediógrafos fragmentarios latinos, in LÓPEZ GREGORIS, R. (2012, ed.), Estudios sobre teatro romano. El mundo de los sentimientos y su expresión, Pórtico, Zaragoza, pp. 243-275.
  69. MARRÓN, G. (2011), ¿Cuándo tutear al emperador? Pronombres TU (T)/VOS (V) en las cartas de Quinto Aurelio Símaco, «Revista Española de Lingüística», 41, 1, pp. 59-72.
  70. MENCACCI, F. (2012), La voce del banditore. Performance vocale e stili di comunicazione a Roma, in SCHETTINO, M.T. and PITTIA, S. (2012, eds.), Les sons du pouvoir dans les mondes anciens (Actes du colloque international de l’Université de La Rochelle), Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, Besançon, pp. 329-348.
  71. MENCACCI, F. (2016), Praeter consuetudinem. (Im)politeness e stili comunicativi a Roma, «Studi e Saggi Linguistici», 54, 2, pp. 91-115.
  72. MILLER, A.B. (1914), Roman etiquette of the late Republic as revealed by the correspondence of Cicero, Press of the New Era Printing Company, Lancaster (PA).
  73. MINICONI, P.J. (1958), Les termes d
  74. MOLINELLI, P. (2010), From verbs to interactional discourse markers: The pragmaticalization of Latin rogo and quaeso, «Journal of Latin Linguistics», 11, 1, pp. 181-192.
  75. MOLINELLI, P. (2016), Cicli di pragmaticalizzazione tra latino e lingue romanze: la formazione di marcatori interazionali, in FRUYT, M., HAVERLING, G. and SORNICOLA, R. (2016, eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15-20 juillet 2013), Section 2: Linguistique latine / Linguistique romane, Nancy, ATILF, <http://www.atilf.fr/cilpr2013/actes/section-2/CILPR-2013-2-Molinelli.pdf> [03/01/2017].
  76. MOLINELLI, P. (2015), Plural pronouns and social deixis in Latin: a pragmatic development, «Studi e Saggi Linguistici», 53, 2, pp. 65-88.
  77. MOLINELLI, P. (2017), Sociocultural and linguistic constraints in address choice from Latin to Italian, in BEECHING, K., GHEZZI, C. and MOLINELLI, P. (2017, eds.), Positioning the self and others: social indexicality and identity construction, Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
  78. MONTSERRAT ROIG, C. (2013), Los vocativos despectivos en Plauto: análisis de los insultos en la reacción interaccional, «Anuari d Filologia. Antiqua et Mediaevalia», 3, pp. 79-96.
  79. MONTSERRAT ROIG, C. (2015), Otras perspectivas para el análisis lingüístico de Plauto: los vocativos insultantes en la reacción conversacional, «Minerva», 28, pp. 133-161.
  80. MÜLLER, R. (1997), Sprechen und Sprache: dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz, Carl Winter, Heidelberg.
  81. NÚÑEZ, S. (1991), Hacia una tipología de los actos de habla directivos en latín, «Florentia Iliberritana», 2, pp. 357-375.
  82. NÚÑEZ, S. (1995), Materiales para una sociología de la lengua latina: Terencio y los modificadores del imperativo, «Florentia Iliberritana», 6, pp. 347-366.
  83. OLIENSIS, E. (1998), Horace and the rhetoric of authority, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  84. PANAGL, O. (2003), ‘Danke ja!’ und ‘danke nein!’ im Lateinischen, in HELD, G. (2003, ed.), Partikeln und Höflichkeit, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 239-246.
  85. PASETTI, L. (2015), L’arte di ingiuriare: stilistica e retorica dell’insulto in Apuleio, «Lexis», 22, pp. 363-399.
  86. POCCETTI, P. (2010), Greeting and farewell expressions as evidence for colloquial language: between literary and epigraphical texts, in DICKEY, E. and CHAHOUD, A. (2010, eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 100-126.
  87. QUINTILLÀ ZANUY, M.ªT. (2012), Diferencias discursivas de género en la expresión de los sentimientos: Plauto vs Séneca, in LÓPEZ GREGORIS, R. (2012, ed.), Estudios sobre teatro romano. El mundo de los sentimientos y su expresión, Pórtico, Zaragoza, pp. 277-309.
  88. REES, R. (2003), Talking to the tetrarchs: The dynamics of vocative address, in Deroux, C. (2003, ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history XI, Latomus, Bruxelles, pp. 447-492.
  89. RISSELADA, R. (1989), Latin illocutionary parentheticals, in LAVENCY, M. and LONGRÉE, D. (1989, eds.), Actes du Ve Colloque de Linguistique Latine (CILL 15), pp. 367-378.
  90. RISSELADA, R. (1993), Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. A study in the pragmatics of a dead language, Brill, Amsterdam.
  91. RISSELADA, R. (1994), Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives, in HERMAN, J. (1994, ed.), Linguistic studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 319-343.
  92. RISSELADA, R. (2004), Actes de langage et rapports sociaux: les directifs dans Plaute, Asinaria 649-732, in LÓPEZ EIRE, A. and RAMOS GUERREIRA, A. (2004, eds.), Registros lingüísticos en las lenguas clásicas, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, pp. 269-290.
  93. REINHARDT, T. (2010), Syntactic colloquialism in Lucretius, in DICKEY, E. and CHAHOUD, A. (2010, eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 203-228.
  94. RICOTTILLI, L. (1982), Tra filologia e semiotica: ripristino e interpretazione di una formula allocutiva (quid tu? quid uos?), «Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici», 9, pp. 107-151.
  95. ROESCH, S. (2002), Les stratégies de clôture du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute, in BOLKESTEIN, M. et al. (2002, eds.), Theory and description in Latin linguistics, Brill, Amsterdam, pp. 317-332.
  96. ROESCH, S. (2004), La politesse dans la correspondance de Cicéron, in NADJO, L. and GAVOILLE, G. (2004, eds.), Epistulae Antiquae III. Actes du IIIe Colloque international «L’épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens» (Université François-Rabelais, Tours, 25-27 septembre 2002), Peeters, Louvain-Paris-Dudley (MA), pp. 139-152.
  97. ROESCH, S. (2005), L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute, «Journal of Latin Linguistics», 9, 2, pp. 921-932.
  98. ROESCH, S. (2008), Les débuts des dialogues dans la comédie et la tragédie latines, in BUREAU, B. and NICOLAS, Ch. (2008, eds.), Commencer et finir: débuts et fins dans les littératures grecque, latin et néolatin, CERGR, Lyon, pp. 207-222.
  99. ROESCH, S. (2010), Interpellation et enjeux de pouvoir dans les comédies et tragédies latines, «CORELA» (Numéros thématiques| L'interpellation) <http://corela.revues.org/1632> [03/01/2017].
  100. ROSEN, H. (2009), Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification: the contribution of particles, in BALDI, P. and CUZZOLIN, P. (2009, eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. I: Syntax of the sentence, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 317-441.
  101. SCHRIJVERS, P.H. (1993), Amicus liber et dulcis. Horace moraliste, in Ludwig, W. (1993, ed.), Horace. L’œuvre et les imitations. Un siècle d’interprétation, Fondation Hardt, Genève, pp. 41-94.
  102. SEARLE, J. (1969), Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  103. SPENCER, D. and THEODORAKOPOULOS, E. (2006), ‘Good men who have skill in speaking’: performing advice in Rome, in SPENCER, D. and THEODORAKOPOULOS, E. (2006, eds.), Advice and its rhetoric in Greece and Rome, Levante, Bari, pp. 1-29.
  104. TERKOURAFI, M. (2005), Beyond the micro-level in politeness research, «Journal of Politeness Research», 1, pp. 237-262.
  105. TERKOURAFI, M. (2008), Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness, in BOUSFIELD, D. and LOCHER, M.A. (2008, eds.), Impoliteness in language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 45-74.
  106. TORREGO SALCEDO, M.E. (2013), Iubeo saluere: una forma de saludo con directivo léxico, in BELTRÁN, J.A. et al. (2013, eds.), Otium cum dignitate. Estudios en homenaje al profesor J.J. Iso Echegoyen, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, pp. 173-184.
  107. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2008), Incidencia de factores pragmáticos en la evolución semántica del verbo rogare, in VIRÉ, G. (2008, ed.), Autour du lexique latin. Communications faites lors du XIIIe Colloque international de Linguistique Latine (Bruxelles-Liège, 4 au 9 avril 2005), Latomus, Bruxelles, pp. 244-255
  108. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2009a), La petición verbal en latín. Estudio léxico, semántico y pragmático, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid.
  109. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2009b): Elementos parentéticos en la organización discursiva de la oratoria de Cicerón, in ARCOS PEREIRA, T. et al. (2009, eds.), Pectora mulcet. Estudios de Retórica y Oratoria latinas, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, Logroño, pp. 247-258.
  110. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2010), La expresión del agradecimiento en la comedia latina, in ANREITER, P. and KIENPOINTNER, M. (2010, eds.), Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik (Innsbruck, 4-9 April 2009), Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck, pp. 625-637.
  111. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2012), Cuando los sentimientos irrumpen. Valores expresivos de las interjecciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto, in LÓPEZ GREGORIS, R. (2012, ed.), Estudios sobre teatro romano. El mundo de los sentimientos y su expresión, Pórtico, Zaragoza, pp. 347-395.
  112. UNCETA GOMEZ, L. (2014a), La politesse linguistique en latin: bilan d’une étude en cours, in Dictionnaire Historique et Encyclopédie Linguistique du Latin, Paris-Sorbonne: <http://www.linglat.paris-sorbonne.fr/encyclopedie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:syntaxe:formules_de_politesse> [03/01/2017].
  113. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2014b), Pedir perdón en latín. El acto de habla de la disculpa en las obras de Plauto y Terencio, «Emerita», 82, 1, pp. 69-97.
  114. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2015), Sobre el proceso de subjetivación de algunas formas verbales en la lengua de la comedia romana, in HAVERLING, G. (2015, ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century. Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Uppsala, June 6th–11th, 2011), Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, pp. 468-479.
  115. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2016a), Congratulations in Latin Comedy: types and functions, «Journal of Politeness Research», 12, 2, pp. 267-290.
  116. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2016b), La respuesta al
  117. agradecimiento en la comedia de Plauto y Terencio, «Pallas. Revue d’Études Antiques» 102/1 (Études de Linguistique Latine I), pp. 229-236.
  118. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2016c), Cuando los sentimientos irrumpen (2). Análisis de las interjecciones secundarias en las comedias de Plauto, in PENAS IBÁÑEZ, A. and GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ, B. (2016, eds.), Semántica latina y románica. Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental, Peter Lang, Berna, pp. 213-241.
  119. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2016d), Conceptualizations of linguistic politeness in Latin: the emic perspective, Historical Politeness Network Symposium. University of East Anglia (Norwich, England), 17/06/2016.
  120. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2017a), Cuando las emociones irrumpen: análisis comparativo del empleo de las interjecciones en las comedias de Terencio y las tragedias de Séneca, «Onomázein».
  121. UNCETA GÓMEZ, L. (2017b), Estrategias de cortesía lingüística en Querolus, «Latomus», 76.
  122. URÍA, J. (2007), The semantics and pragmatics of Ciceronian invective, in BOOTH, J. (2007, ed.), Cicero on the attack. Invective and subversion in the orations and beyond, The Classical Press of Wales, Swansea, pp. 47-70.
  123. WATT, W.S. (1963), Heus, «Glotta», 41, pp. 138-143.
  124. WATTS, R.J. (1992), Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality, in WATTS, R.J., IDE, S. and EHLICH, K. (1992, eds.), Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and practice, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 43-69.
  125. WATTS, R.J. (2003), Politeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  126. WEAIRE, G. (2010-2011), How to talk to a Roman student. The teacher’s authority in Dionysus of Halicarnassus’s De compositione uerborum, «Illinois Classical Studies», 35-36, pp. 43-68.