Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronic Treebanks
Edited by Hanne Martine Eckhoff, Silvia Luraghi and Marco Passarotti
[Diachronica 35:3] 2018
► pp. 429–449

Spoken Latin behind written texts

Formulaicity and salience in medieval documentary texts

| University of Oslo
This study uses treebanking to investigate how spoken language infiltrated legal Latin in early medieval Italy. The documents used are always formulaic, but they also always contain a ‘free’ part where the case in question is described in free prose. This paper uses this difference to measure how ten linguistic features, representative of the evolution that took place between Classical and Late Latin, are distributed between the formulaic and free parts. Some variants are attested equally often in both parts of the documents, while perceptually or conceptually salient variants appear to be preserved in their conservative form mainly in the formulaic parts.
Keywords: treebank, salience, documentary Latin, legal Latin, Early Middle Ages, scribe, diplomatics, formulaicity, language acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and objectives
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Formulaicity
  • 4.Theoretical background and research setting
  • 5.Linguistic features
  • 6.Results and their interpretation
    • 6.1Formulaicity and salience
    • 6.2Analysis of the morphological and syntactic features
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00009.kor
References (32)
References
Adams, James Noel. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamman, David, Marco Passarotti, Gregory Crane & Savine Raynaud. 2007. Guidelines for the syntactic annotation of Latin treebanks (v. 1.3). [URL] (3 June, 2017.)
Bartoli Langeli, Attilio. 2006. Notai: scrivere documenti nell’Italia medievale. Roma: Viella.Google Scholar
Black, Robert. 2001. Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano. 2012. The syntax-lexicon continuum. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 735–747. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, Christian, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski. 2011. Introduction: Salience in linguistics and beyond. In Christian Chiarcos, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski (eds.), Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse, 1–28. Berlin: Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, Myrna C. & Nick C. Ellis. 2016. Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology 71. 1284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina K. Burt. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 231. 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, Jennifer M. & Robert M. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the ‘natural order of l2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 511. 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guyotjeannin, Olivier, Jacques Pycke & Benoît-Michel Tock. 1993. Diplomatique médiévale. Paris: Brepols.Google Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo. 2016. Subject case in the Latin of Tuscan charters of the 8th and 9th centuries. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo & Matti Lassila. 2013. Abbreviations, fragmentary words, formulaic language: Treebanking medieval charter material. In Francesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti & Caroline Sporleder (eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on annotation of corpora for research in the humanities, 61–72. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo & Marco Passarotti. 2011. Challenges in annotating Medieval Latin charters. Journal of Language Technology and Computational Linguistics 261. 103–114.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1962. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, II: Formenlehre. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LLCT = Late Latin Charter Treebank. Available in pml.xml format at DOI logo
MacKenzie, Ian & Martin A. Kayman (eds.). 2018. Formulaicity and creativity in language and literature. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1996. On the Romance inflectional endings i and e . Romance Philology 501. 147–182.Google Scholar
Pienemann, Manfred. 1999. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabatini, Francesco. 1965. Esigenze di realismo e dislocazione morfologica in testi preromanzi. Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medievale 71. 972–998.Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni & Minna Palander-Collin. 2012. The reconstruction of prestige patterns in language history. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 626–638. Chichester: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2011. Morphosyntactic persistence. In Adam Ledgeway, Martin Maiden & John C. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol. 1: Structures, 318–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiaparelli, Luigi. 1933. Note diplomatiche sulle carte longobarde II: Tracce di antichi formulari nelle carte longobarde. Archivio Storico Italiano 191. 3–34.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 2012. Bilinguismo e diglossia dei territori bizantini e longobardi del Mezzogiorno: le testimonianze dei documenti del IX e X secolo. Quaderni dell’Accademia Pontaniana 591. 1–102.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2010. Constituent order in Classical Latin prose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1981. Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Valentini, Cecilia. 2017. L’evoluzione della codifica del genitivo dal tipo sintetico al tipo analitico nelle carte del Codice diplomatico longobardo. Firenze: Università degli Studi di Firenze dissertation.Google Scholar
Weber, Shirley Howard. 1924. Anthimus, De observatio[ne] ciborum: Text, commentary, and glossary, with a study of the Latinity. Leiden: Late E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1991. The conceptual distinction between Latin and Romance: Invention or evolution. In Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance languages in the Early Middle Ages, 103–113. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 2000. Alle origini dell’italiano: dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Zobl, Helmut & Juana Liceras. 1994. Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning 441. 169–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Korkiakangas, Timo
2021. Late Latin Charter Treebank: contents and annotation. Corpora 16:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.