Studi e Saggi Linguistici

V. 60 N. 1 (2022)
Articoli

Intensificatori e soggettificazione in latino: sulla grammaticalizzazione di maxime

Abbonamento o quota di accesso PDF (EUR 6)
  • Annamaria Bartolotta
Annamaria Bartolotta
Università di Palermo
Biografia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4454/ssl.v60i1.308

Pubblicato 2022-07-27

Parole chiave

  • intensifiers,
  • subjectification,
  • discourse markers,
  • grammaticalization,
  • Latin
Informativa sui diritti

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the grammaticalization path of the intensifying adverb maxime in Early Latin, within the perspective of the so-called subjectification theory (Traugott 1995; Traugott & Dasher 2002; Traugott 2008; Athanasiadou 2007). Despite the difficulty of drawing discrete boundaries within the multifunctional category of adverbs (cf., among others, Ramat & Ricca 1998: 206; Paradis 2003: 15; Pinkster 2004: 196; Simon-Vanderbergen & Aijmer 2007: 63; Rosén 2009: 325; Kroon 2011: 179; Fruyt 2011: 670), the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic analysis of maxime across different contexts of use allows us to identify at least three main functions of this adverb in early Latin texts, mostly in the Roman comedy of Plautus and Terence. In particular, adopting the perspective of the Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008), it is shown that maxime is used as i) degree adverb, which modifies a large range of elements acting at the word or phrase level, by adding intensification and/or emphasis, ii) modal adverb, which takes its scope over the whole proposition, expressing the speaker’s attitude or commitment toward the content of his/her utterance, iii) discourse marker, which develops interactional and textual functions at the pragmatic level of discourse (intersubjectification), by modifying the illocutionary force of the clause or marking an emphatic response in the immediate context of questions and directives (cf. Kroon 1998: 214).

Abbonamento o quota di accesso PDF (EUR 6)

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. ALLAN, R. J. (2017), The grammaticalization of Greek particles, in POCCETTI, P. and LOGOZZO, F. (eds.), Ancient Greek Linguistics. New Approaches, Insights, Perspectives, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-Boston, pp. 103–118.
  2. ATHANASIADOU, A. (2007), On the subjectivity of intensifiers, in «Language Sciences» 29, pp. 554–565.
  3. BARSBY, J. A. (2001), Terence, 2 vols, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  4. BENIGNI, V. (2020), Da intensificatore assoluto a segnale discorsivo: il caso di assolutamente e dei suoi equivalenti in russo, in INKOVA O., NOWAKOWSKA, M. and SCARPEL, S. (eds.), Systèmes linguistiques et textes en contraste. Études de linguistique slavo-romane, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UP, Krakow, pp. 230–250.
  5. BIANCO, O. (1993) (a c. di), Commedie di Publio Terenzio Afro, UTET, Torino.
  6. BRINTON, L. J. (2007), The Development of I mean: Implications for the Study of Historical Pragmatics, in FITZMAURICE, S. M. and TAAVITSAINEN, I. (eds), Methods in Historical Pragmatics, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 37–80.
  7. BRINTON, L. J. and TRAUGOTT, E. C. (2005), Lexicalization and Language Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  8. CARENA, C. (1975) (a c. di), Plauto, Le Commedie, Giulio Einaudi Editore, Torino.
  9. CUYCKENS, H. (2018), Reconciling older and newer approaches to grammaticalization, in «Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association» 6 (1), pp. 183–196.
  10. CUZZOLIN, P. (2011), Comparative and superlative, in BALDI, P. and CUZZOLIN, P. (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, volume 4, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 549–659.
  11. DARDANO, M., FRENGUELLI, G. and COLELLA, G. (2018), Avverbiali di certezza in italiano antico. Funzioni pragmatico-discorsive e sintassi, in «Rivista italiana di linguistica e dialettologia» 20, pp. 97–108.
  12. DE CESARE, A.M. (2003), Una funzione del tutto particolare, quella di assolutamente e simili, in «Revue Romaine» 38 (2), pp. 179–214.
  13. DEGAND, L. and EVERS-VERMEUL, J. (2015), Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue, in «Journal of Historical Pragmatics» 16 (1), pp. 59–85.
  14. DIEWALD, G. (2011), Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions, in «Linguistics» 49 (2), pp. 365–390.
  15. ERNOUT, A. and MEILLET, A. (2001[1932]), Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Latine. Histoire des Mots, 4e éd., Klincksieck, Paris.
  16. FRUYT, M. (2011), Grammaticalization in Latin, in BALDI, P. and CUZZOLIN, P. (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, volume 4, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 661–864.
  17. GHEZZI, C. (2014), The development of discourse and pragmatic markers, in GHEZZI, C. and MOLINELLI, P. (eds.), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 10–26.
  18. HEINE, B. (2013), On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?, in «Linguistics» 51 (6), pp. 1205–1247.
  19. HEINE, B., KALTENBÖCH, G. and KUTEVA, T. (2019), On the rise of discourse markers. Preprint, giugno 2019, disponibile online su https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333783353. Accesso: 31 maggio 2021.
  20. HENGEVELD, K. (1989), Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar, in «Journal of Linguistics» 25 (1), pp. 127–157.
  21. HENGEVELD, K. (2020), Adverbs, disponibile online su https://home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp/publications/subma_hengeveld.pdf
  22. HENGEVELD, K. and MACKENZIE, J. L. (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar. A typologically–based theory of language structure, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  23. HIMMELMANN, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? in BISANG, W., HIMMELMANN, N. P. and WIEMER, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 19–40.
  24. HOPPER, P. J. (1991), On Some Principles of Grammaticization, in TRAUGOTT, E. C. and HEINE, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 17–35.
  25. KLEIN, H. (1998), Adverbs of degree in Dutch and related languages, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
  26. KROON, C. (1998), A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers, in «Journal of Pragmatics» 30, pp. 205-223.
  27. KROON, C. (2011), Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse, in CLACKSON, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 176-195.
  28. KÜHNER, R. and STEGMANN C. (1955), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 3rd edn., Vol. I: Satzlehre. Gottschalk, Leverkusen.
  29. LEHMANN, C. (2015 [1982]), Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3d edn, Language Science Press, Berlin.
  30. DE MELO, W. (2011-2013), Plautus, 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  31. MÉNDEZ-NAYA, B. (2003), On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swiþe, in «English Studies» 84 (4), pp. 372–391.
  32. NAPOLI, M. (2014), Some remarks on intensification of nouns in Latin, in «Journal of Latin Linguistics» 13 (2), pp. 243–266.
  33. PARADIS, C. (1997), Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English, Lund University Press, Lund.
  34. PARADIS, C. (2001), Adjectives and boundedness, in «Cognitive Linguistics» 12 (1), pp. 47–65.
  35. PARADIS, C. (2003), Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really, in FACCHINETTI, R. KRUG, M. and PALMER, F. (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.New York, pp. 191–220.
  36. PHI LATIN TEXTS (2015), Classical Latin Texts. A Resource Prepared by The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI), Packard Humanities Institute, http://latin.packhum.org/
  37. PIETRANDREA, P. (2005), Epistemic Modality. Functional properties and the Italian system, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
  38. PINKSTER, H. (1972 [2005]), On Latin Adverbs, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
  39. PINKSTER, H. (2004), Attitudinal and Illocutionary Satellites in Latin, in AERTSEN, H., HANNAY, M. and LYALL, R. J. (eds.), Words in Their Places. A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, pp. 191–198.
  40. PINKSTER, H. (2015), The Oxford Latin Syntax, vol. 1. The Simple Clause, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  41. PINKSTER, H. (2021), The Oxford Latin Syntax, vol. 1I. The Complex Sentence and Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  42. POKORNY, J. (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Zweiter Band, Francke Verlag, Bern-München.
  43. PULTROVÁ, L. (2018), Periphrastic comparison in Latin, in «Journal of Latin Linguistics» 17 (1), pp. 93–110.
  44. RAMAT, P. and RICCA, D. (1998), Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe, in VAN DER AUWERA, J. (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 187–275.
  45. RICCA, D. (2010), Adverbs, in BALDI, P. and CUZZOLIN, P. (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, volume 4, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 109–191.
  46. RICCA, D. and VISCONTI, J. (2014), On the development of the Italian truth adverbs davvero and veramente, in TAAVITSAINEN I., JUCKER, A. H. and TUOMINEN, J. (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 133–154.
  47. RISSELADA, R. (1998), The discourse functions of sane: Latin marker of agreement in description, interaction and concession, in «Journal of Pragmatics» 30, pp. 225–244.
  48. ROSÉN, H. (2009), Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification – the contribution of particles, in BALDI, P. and CUZZOLIN, P. (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, volume 1, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 317–441.
  49. SCHRIJVER, P. (1991), The Reflexes of the PIE Laryngeals in Latin, Rodopi, Amsterdam-Atlanta.
  50. SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A. M. and AIJMER, K. (2007), The discourse functionality of adjectival and adverbial epistemic expressions, in BUTLER, C. S., LAVID J., and HIDALGO DOWNING R. (eds.), Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Angela Downing, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 419–445.
  51. THESLEFF, H. (1960), Yes and No in Plautus and Terence, in «Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum» 26 (3), Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsingsfors.
  52. TRAUGOTT, E. C. (1995a), Subjectification in grammaticalization, in STEIN D. and WRIGHT S. (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 31–54.
  53. TRAUGOTT, E. C. (1995b), The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization, Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester, August.
  54. TRAUGOTT, E. C. (2003), From subjectification to intersubjectification, in R. Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 124–139.
  55. TRAUGOTT, E. C. (2007), Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic, in «Catalan Journal of Linguistics» 6, pp. 139–157.
  56. TRAUGOTT, E. C. (2008), Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English, in ECKARDT, R., JÄGER, G., VEENSTRA, T. (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 219–250.
  57. TRAUGOTT, E. C. and DASHER, R. B. (2002), Regularity in semantic change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  58. DE VAAN, M. (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Brill, Leiden-Boston.
  59. WALDE, A., HOFMANN, J. B. 1954, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Zweiter Band, Carl Winter Universität Verlag, Heidelberg.
  60. WU, J.-S. (2019), Intensification and Modal Necessity in Mandarin Chinese, Routledge, London-New York.