1,721,002 research outputs found
Du ‘déponent’ guillaumien à l’‘hypothèse inaccusative’. Étapes d’une notion métalinguistique.
Full text linkÎn ianuarie 1943 apăreae aarticolul lui Gustave Guillaume: „Există un deponent în limba franceză?”. Făcând apel la binomul „diateză analitică – diateză sintetică”, autorul proiectează o lumină nouă asupra transformărilor sistemului verbal latin în limba franceză: el reuşeşte, în cele din urmă, să izoleze o grupă mică de verbe intransitive (cele precum „a muri”, „a se naşte”, „a intra”, „a ieşi” ş.a.m.d.) care, în relaţie cu categoria deponentului, formează o nouă diateză mixtă sintetică franceză şi reprezintă o moştenire directă din limba latină. Alţi lingvişti s-au preocupat de comportamentul intranzitivelor (splitintransitivity). În cadrul gramaticii relaţionale, Perlmutter (1978) introduce Unaccusative Hypothesis, demonstrând că subiectul prezintă caracteristici tipice ale obiectului. Pe de altă parte, abordările semantice, referindu-se la anumite criterii, printre care cel al agentivităţii şi cel „télique” sau perfectiv, au subliniat fundamental semantic al sintaxei verbelor inacuzative.In January 1943, Gustave Guillaume published an article entitled: “Is there a deponent in French?”. By using the binomial “analytical voice – synthetic voice”, the author sheds new light on the transformation of the Latin verbal system in French: he isolates a small group of intransitive verbs (such as ‘mourir’, ‘naître’, ‘entrer’, ‘sortir’ etc.) pertaining to the category of Latin deponents, which have formed in French a new synthetic mixed voice, and are a direct legacy of Latin. Since then, the behaviour of intransitive verbs has been an area of some interest for other linguists (cf. split intransitivity). Within the framework of relational grammar, Perlmutter (1978) introduced the Unaccusative Hypothesis, showing that the subject of these verbs has the typical characteristics of an object. On the other hand, semantic approaches have put forward a set of criteria like agentivity and telicity in order to stress the semantic basis of the syntax of unaccusative verbs.En janvier 1943, paraissait l’article de Gustave Guillaume : « Existe-t-il un déponent en français ?». En faisant appel au binôme ‘voix analytique - voix synthétique’, l’auteur jette une lumière nouvelle sur les transformations du système verbal latin en français : il parvient enfin à isoler un petit groupe de verbes intransitifs (tels que ‘mourir’, ‘naître’, ‘entrer’, ‘sortir’ etc.) qui, relevant de la catégorie du déponent, forment une nouvelle voix mixte synthétique française et représentent un héritage direct du latin. D’autres linguistes se sont ensuite intéressés au comportement des intransitifs (cf. split intransitivity). Dans le cadre de la grammaire relationnelle, Perlmutter (1978) introduit la UnaccusativeHypothesis, montrant que le sujet présente des caractéristiques typiques de l’objet. D’autre part, les approches sémantiques se référant à certains critères dont l’agentivité et la télicité, ont souligné le fondement sémantique de la syntaxe des verbes inaccusatifs
Hellenismos e variazione dialettale.
No full textBy the term hellenismós the Greeks primarily referred to “Greek-speak- ing” people, contrasting them with those who spoke “Barbarian” languages. Moreover, hellenismós specifically denoted speaking and, importantly, writing in proficient Greek, adhering to grammatical correctness and stylistic appropri- ateness. This contribution aims to delve into the definitions of hellenismós by examining its contrasts with other linguistic terms and concepts. Additionally, it explores the issue of dialectal variation from the viewpoint of ancient gram- marians, incorporating modern discussions on the status of Greek dialects. Such an approach challenges the notion of a monolithic and unchanging Greek language, as would be inferred from a certain idea of the Byzantine koiné, and scrutinizes the Greeks’ awareness of linguistic variation and multilingualism
The origins of ‘anaphora’ and ‘deixis’. Ancient theories on articles and pronouns.
No full textAnafora e deissi sono nozioni diffuse e di uso comune nell’odierna analisi linguistica. Tradizionalmente considerate e discusse in relazione una con l’altra, indicano il processo secondo cui un’unità linguistica è interpretata sulla base di un elemento, nel caso dell’anafora, già menzionato nel discorso, mentre invece, nel caso della deissi, presente nel contesto extra-linguistico. Tuttavia la definizione di tali termini non è univoca se si considera il fatto che essi descrivono strategie linguistiche diverse, collocate a livelli diversi di analisi: il livello morfo-sintattico, quello semantico e quello pragmatico. Fin dagli inizi della linguistica moderna verso la metà dell’Ottocento, lo studio delle due nozioni di anafora e deissi è connesso, all’interno del quadro tradizionale delle parti del discorso, alla classe degli articoli e a quella dei pronomi e, secondo studi più recenti, alla classe dei determinanti. Ma quali sono le origini metalinguistiche delle due denominazioni di anafora e deissi? In quale fase dell’organizzazione del pensiero linguistico occidentale furono introdotte e in quali contesti furono usate? La risposta deve essere cercata nella lingua greca e nel pensiero greco antico, a cominciare da Platone e dalle riflessioni linguistiche in ambito filosofico. In questa tesi si è esplorato il campo d’uso dei due termini di anafora e deissi nei testi antichi, in particolare Platone, Aristotele, gli Stoici e i grammatici rappresentati da Apollonio Discolo, la Tékhne Grammatiké dello Pseudo-Dionisio Trace e gli scolii alla Tékhne. L’analisi ha mostrato come Apollonio sia stato il primo ad avvalersi di una opposizione teorica tra le due dimensioni, sviluppando, in particolare nei due trattati dedicati al pronome e alla sintassi, una teoria sistematica dell’anafora e della deissi basata sul tratto semantico comune della definitezza e su opposizioni sintattiche (per es. all’interno del sintagma nominale, l’impossibilità di avere un pronome deittico determinato dall’articolo). La riflessione di Apollonio influenzò moltissimo la tradizione grammaticale seguente non soltanto greca ma anche latina: Prisciano nelle Institutiones, riprendendo la medesima opposizione, introdusse i termini relatio e demonstratio e ne ricollocò la descrizione all’interno di una lingua dalle caratteristiche diverse, dal momento che il latino non presenta la classe degli articoli. Tale innovazione permeò la tradizione grammaticale fino ai nostri giorni, delineando un quadro metalinguistico complesso in cui trovano spazio entrambe le tradizioni, sia greca che latina.Anaphora and deixis are widespread notions in linguistic analysis. Traditionally considered to be related to each other, they indicate the processes according to which a linguistic unit derive its interpretation from, respectively, something that was mentioned earlier and the situational context. But there is no agreement as regards the definition of such terms as they describe linguistic strategies at different levels: morpho-syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Since the beginning of modern linguistics in the middle of 19th century the study of anaphora and deixis is strongly related, following the traditional part-of-speech system, to the classes of pronouns and articles and, according to more recent studies, of determiners. But what are their origins from a metalinguistic point of view? In what stages of Western linguistic thought were they created? In which contexts have they been used? The answer must to be sought into the Ancient Greek language and linguistic thought, starting with the philosophical perspective on language introduced by Plato. The present dissertation has investigated the domain of use of anaphora and deixis in ancient texts, especially Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the grammarians, i.e. Apollonius Dyscolus, the text of Tékhne Grammatiké by Pseudo-Dionysius Thrax and the scholia to the Tékhne. Such analysis highlighted that Apollonius was the first who intentionally used anaphora and deixis in a theoretical opposition. In particular in the two treatises on pronouns and on syntax he developed a systematic theory of anaphora and deixis based on the common semantic feature of definiteness and different syntactic constraints (e.g. NP constraints like the impossibility for a deictic pronoun – but not for an anaphoric one – to be determined by an article). Apollonius’s work greatly influenced not only the later Greek grammarians, but also the Latin grammatical tradition: thanks to Priscian’s Institutiones the Greek dichotomy of anaphora and deixis was re-interpreted in the light of the Latin language and explained by the new terms of relatio and demonstratio, producing a complex metalanguage which will be transmitted to modern times throughout the centuries
Innovazioni lessicali della Rivoluzione francese: il caso di 'progrès'.
No full textWhat are the origins of 'progrès', that is the word which means ‘progress’ in French? What is its history? What are its semantic vicissitudes? Finally, which notions are linked to it? In order to try to find out an answer, we must, first of all, trace the history of the word 'progrès' in French dictionaries of XVII and XVIII centuries. This analysis will lead to discover a “parabola of sense”: from a primary concrete and physical meaning of ‘advancement, putting forward’ to a metaphorical meaning, first in military sphere (‘advancement in hostile territory’), then affective (‘advancement in the heart [of someone]’, or ‘conquest’), up to a specialized use – which appears however, not without reason, only at the end of XVIII century – that means ‘progress of civilization’. In a second time, the idea of “progress” will be shown by some authors of Enlightenment who associate to the term a specific value judgment in accordance with their own thought. 'Progrès' takes part, certainly, in lexicon of French Revolution: nevertheless is not a new word (like 'capitalisme' or 'guillotine'), but is a preexistent term that assumes, in a such particular historical conjuncture, some accepted meanings before unknown referring to the “theory of progress”, the dominant ideology in Europe until the present time
A contact-based study of the languages and cultures of Pre-Classical Anatolia: the project PALaC
No full textAbstract: this short paper will offer a preliminary presentation of the methods, aims and early results of the European research project PALaC, Pre-classical Anatolian Languages in Contact, that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 757299)
Preface
No full textthis is the preface to a monographic volume of teh journal News from the Lands of the Hittite
IL PROGETTO PALAC: PRE-CLASSICAL ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES IN CONTACT
No full textDescrizione delle attività del progetto PALaC, Pre-Classical Anatolian Languages in Contac
Phraseology and literary topoi between Anatolia, the Aegean and the ancient Near East
No full textThis paper deals with the topic of phraseological correspondences between the Hittite corpus and the corpora of neighboring cultures, most notably the Greek and the Mesopotamian ones. More specifically it will propose a methodological framework, a reassessment of a putative case of phraseological translation, and a possible new case identified based on the outlined framework of analysis
Lycian Ἐρευάτης in Stephanus of Byzantium
No full textThis paper deals with the Lycian toponym Ἐρευάτης, attested in the epit- ome of the Ethnica by Stephanus of Byzantium, from a linguistic point of view. First, it is argued that, despite Meinekius’s suppositions, which have affected the text of the most recent edition of Stephanus’ work, no lacuna should be assumed in the text, which clearly includes a gloss explaining the Lycian name of the nymph Ereua. An etymological analysis of the different Lycian forms potentially underlying the Greek rendering Ἐρευάτης is then provided. Finally, a discussion on Stephanus’ sources on Lycia is offered, and the issue of the reliability of the Lycian glosses found in Stephanus’ work is briefly addressed
Le domaine de la deixis entre les yeux et l’esprit.
No full textIn Institutiones, XVII (De Constructione), devoted to the syntax, the distinction between the field of demonstratio ad oculos and that of demonstratio ad intellectum is mentioned. The Greek model for Priscian is the passage from the Syntax in which Apollonius exposes the difference between the forms of deixis of sight (δείξεις τῆς ὄψεως) and the forms of deixis of thought, intellect, or spirit (δείξεις τοῦ νοῦ) that a part of contemporary linguistics has wanted, not without reason, to bring closer to the anaphora. The integrated study of the two texts, enriched by those of the commentators, seems to show, on the contrary, that the process of deixis-demonstratio is always the same, moving towards the reality of extra-linguistic objects, both real and imagined.Dans le livre XVII des Institutiones consacré à la construction Priscien évoque la distinction entre le domaine de la demonstratio ad oculos et celui de la demonstratio ad intellectum. Le modèle grec est le passage de la Syntaxe dans lequel Apollonius expose la différence entre les formes de deixis de la vue (δείξεις τῆς ὄψεως) et les formes de deixis de la pensée, de l’intellect, ou de l’esprit (δείξεις τοῦ νοῦ) qu’une partie de la linguis- tique contemporaine a voulu, non sans raison, rapprocher de l’anaphore. L’étude intégrée des deux textes, enrichis par ceux des commentateurs, semble bien montrer, au contraire, que le processus de deixis-demonstratio est toujours le même, se dirigeant vers la réalité des objets extra-linguis- tiques, tant réels qu’imaginés
- …
