Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:44:26.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socially determined variation in ancient Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Brian D. Joseph  and
Rex E. Wallace
Brian D. Joseph
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Rex E. Wallace
Affiliation:
The University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonological and morphological variation in Classical Latin (e.g., diphthongs ae/au vs. monophthongs e/o, retention vs. loss of final consonants and initial h-, GEN SG -is vs. -us/-os, DAT SG in -ae vs. -a, etc.) has typically been treated as regional in nature. However, these seemingly “rural” features cannot be considered instances of purely geographically based variation, for they also occur both on inscriptions from within Rome and in Roman literary usage. Coleman (1990:14) hinted at “a social dimension” to this variation, but only for au versus o variation. We argue, however, that a distinctly social dimension must be recognized for much of this variation, based on: (a) instances of hypercorrection; (b) the observation that datives in -a occur only in private, primarily domestic, inscriptions and never in public or official inscriptions; (c) Augustus's use of “rural” domos for domus, in keeping with the populist image he cultivated upon his return to Rome. This dialectal/sociolectal situation can be best understood, we argue, in terms of the model of urbanization of Milroy (1980) and Bortoni-Ricardo (1985). The transformation of originally geographic variation into socially determined variation in an urban setting resulted from migrations into Rome and the expansion of Rome after the 4th century b.c.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 105 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, W. Sidney. (1988). Vox latina. The pronunciation of Latin. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benedetto, Rainiero (ed.). (1973). Roma media repubblicana. Aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.c. Roma: Assessorato Antichità, Belle Arti e Problemi della Cultura.Google Scholar
Bortoni-Ricardo, Stella Maris. (1985). The urbanization of rural dialect speakers: A sociolinguistic study in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campanile, Enrico. (1961). Elementi dialetti nella fonetica e nella morfologia del Latino. Studi e saggi linguistici 1:1–21.Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert. (1990). Dialectal variation in Republican Latin, with special reference to Praenestine. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 216:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (1918–1986). Vol. 12: 2.1–4: Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae ad C. Caesaris mortem, ed. by Lommatzsch, Ernest, Degrassi, Atilius, & Krummrey, Johann. Berlin: Georg Reimer & Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Degrassi, Atilius. (1957). Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Fasculus prior. Firenze: La nuova italia.Google Scholar
Degrassi, Atilius. (1963). Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Fasculus alter. Firenze: La nuova italia.Google Scholar
Degrassi, Atilius. (1965). Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Imagines. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Simone, Carlo. (1970). Die griechischen Entlehnungen im Etruskischen. Zweiter Band. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. (1909). Les éléments dialectaux du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred, & Meillet, Antoine. (1985). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. 4th ed.Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Frazer, Timothy C. (1983). Sound change and social structure in a rural community. Language in Society 12:313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, Peter, & Saller, Richard. (1987). The Roman Empire: Economy, society, culture. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriela. (1963). La lingua falisca. Firenze: Leo S. Olschka.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriela. (1973). A problem in Praenestine palaeography. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1:309–315.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Roberto. (1979). Written and spoken language in Latin-Faliscan and Greek-Messapic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 7:149–175.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., & Wallace, Rex E. (1991). Is Faliscan a local Latin patois? Diachronica 8(2):159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1988). Phonological change. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol I. Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 363–415.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. (1933). Esquisse d' une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Librairie Hachette.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oxford Latin dictionary. (1982). London: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Palmer, Leonard. (1954). The Latin language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Vetter, Emil. (1953). Handbuch der italischen Dialekte. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Wachter, Rudolf. (1987). Altlateinische Inschriften. Sprachliche und epigraphische Untersu-chungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v. Chr. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Walde, A., & Hofmann, J.B. (1965). Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Erster Band. 4th ed.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Wallace, Rex E. (1984). The deletion of s in Plautus. American Journal of Philology 105:213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Rex E. (1988). Dialectal Latin fundatid, parentatid, proiecitad. Glotta 66:211–220.Google Scholar
Wallace, Rex E., & Joseph, Brian D. (1991). On the problematic f/h variation in Faliscan. Glotta 69:84–93.Google Scholar
Warmington, E.H. (1940). Remains of Old Latin. Vol. IV. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yavetz, Z. (1969). Plebs and princeps. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar