Cover not available

Article published In: Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 38:1 (2015) ► pp.1–12

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Latin vulgaire, latin familier

Quelques aspects d’une distinction parfois difficile à saisir

 | Université de Belgrade, Faculté de Philosophie

Article language: French

Published online: 18 September 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.38.1.01ned
The author examines the scope and interrelation of two traditional notions concerning non-literary Latin: sermo uulgaris, or plebeius, and sermo familiaris, or cotidianus. While these are really disparate terms, the one designating a sociolect and the other a language register, the author maintains that the old confusion between Colloquial and Vulgar Latin is not merely due to flawed reasoning within an insufficient model of linguistic variation, but rather reflects a fundamental development that took place in the social history of Latin.
References (25)
Adams, J.N. (2007). The regional diversification of Latin 200BC–AD600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auerbach, E. (1952). Sermo humilis. Romanische Forschungen, 641, 304–364.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banniard, M. (1992). Viva voce. Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnet, M. (1890). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burchfield, R.W. (1998). The new Fowler’s modern English usage. Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callebat, L. (1967). Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée. Paris: Caen Université.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2010). Idiom(s) and literariness in classical literary critisicm. In D.E. Dickey & A. Chahoud (éds.), Colloquial and literary Latin (pp. 42–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. (2002). Patterns of variation including change. In D.J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (éds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 349–372). Malden (Mass.), Oxford & Carlton (Victoria): Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferri, R., & Probert, P. (2010). Roman authors on colloquial language. In D. E. Dickey & A. Chahoud (éds.), Colloquial and literary Latin (pp. 12–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, I. (1983). Traits spécifiques du latin  danubien ». Studii clasice, 211, 67–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
GRF = Funaioli H. (1907). Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, t.1 (seul paru). Lipsiae.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagège, C. (2000). Halte à la mort des langues. Paris: Ed. O. Jacob.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ILBulg = Gerov, B. (1989). Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae, t.1,2: Inscriptiones inter Oescum et Iatrum repertae. Serdicae.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IMS = Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. (1976—). Belgrade.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaster, R. (1988). Guardians of language. The Grammarian and society in Late antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P.. & Halla-aho, H. (2007). The Pompeian wall inscriptions and the Latin language: A critical reappraisal. Arctos, 411, 31–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonhardt, J. (2009). Latein. Geschichte einer Weltsprache. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marrou, H. (1969). Saint Augustin et l’augustinisme, 7e édition. Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, R. (2001). Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike (Zetemata, 111). München: Beck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nedeljković, V. (2009). The case of ILBulg 248: à la rechèrche des noms perdus. Starinar, 591, 159–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, J.G.F. (2011). The Appendix Probi as linguistic evidence: A reassessment. In D.R. Ferri (éd.), The Latin of Roman lexicography (pp. 75–119). Pisa & Roma: Fabrizio Serra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quicherat, Thesaurus = L. Quicherat (1892). Thesaurus poeticus linguae Latinae, 3e édition (par É. Chatelain). Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenkron, G. (1965). Historische Latein-Altromanische Grammatik, t.1 (seul paru): Einleitung. Das sogenannte Vulgärlatein und das Wesen der Romanisierung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolf, G. (1996). Monumental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the early empire. The Journal of Roman Studies, 861, 22–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue