Evolution of Direct Discourse Marking from Classical to Late Latin / / Jana Mikulová.

• Superior document: The Language of Classical Literature ; 37
• VerfasserIn: Mikulová, Jana,
• Place / Publishing House: Leiden ;, Boston : : Brill,, [2022]; ©2023
• Year of Publication: 2022
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: The Language of Classical Literature ; 37.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (157 pages)

Changes in the marking of direct discourse show us the vitality of Latin and the creativity of Late Latin authors, who were able to integrate two potentially conflicting traditions – “classical” and “biblical”.

If you read a work by Cicero or Seneca and then open The Pilgrimage of Egeria , Augustine, or Gregory of Tours, you will soon notice that Late Latin authors quote authorities differently. They provide a perfect example of synthesising two potentially conflicting traditions – “classical” and “biblical”. This book examines how the system of direct discourse marking developed over the centuries. It focuses on selecting marking means, presents the dynamics of change and suggests factors that might have been at play. The author guides the reader on the path that goes from the Classical prevalence of inquit to the Late innovative mix of marking words including the very classical inquit , an increased use of dico , the newly recruited ait , and dicens , influenced by biblical translations. The book suggests that Late authors tried to make reading and understanding easier by putting quotative words before quotations and increasing the use of redundant combinations (e.g. “he answered saying”).

Table of Contents

Intro -- ‎Contents -- ‎Figures and Tables -- ‎Acknowledgements -- ‎Chapter 1. Introduction -- ‎1.1. Corpus of Examined Texts -- ‎1.2. Data Set for the Analysis -- ‎Chapter 2. Theoretical Preliminaries -- ‎2.1. Direct Discourse -- ‎2.1.1. Deictic Centres and Deictics -- ‎2.1.2. Syntactic Characteristics -- ‎2.1.3. Compatibility with Certain Expressions -- ‎2.1.4. Literalness of Quotations -- ‎2.1.5. Number of Speech Situations -- ‎2.1.6. Summary -- ‎2.2. Structures Similar to Direct Discourse -- ‎2.2.1. Pure Quotations -- ‎2.2.2. Mixed Quotations -- ‎2.2.3. Strengthening Illocutionary Force -- ‎2.3. Direct Discourse Markers -- ‎2.3.1. Verbal Markers -- ‎2.3.2. Non-verbal Markers -- ‎2.3.3. Zero Markers -- ‎2.3.4. Punctuation -- ‎2.4. Grammaticalization: How New Quotative Markers Arise -- ‎Chapter 3. The Marking of Direct Discourse in the Examined Texts -- ‎3.1. Verbal Markers -- ‎3.1.1. Inquit -- ‎3.1.1.1. Frequency of Use -- ‎3.1.1.2. Forms -- ‎3.1.1.3. Addressees, Modifiers, Cataphoric Expressions -- ‎3.1.1.4. Position of Inquit -- ‎3.1.1.5. Expressions before Interposed Inquit and Reporting Clause Patterns -- ‎3.1.1.6. Agreement of Inquit -- ‎3.1.1.7. Generalized Interlocutor -- ‎3.1.1.8. Summary -- ‎3.1.2. Ait -- ‎3.1.2.1. Frequency of Use, Forms -- ‎3.1.2.2. Position and Adjacency -- ‎3.1.2.3. Patterns of Reporting Clause -- ‎3.1.2.4. Summary -- ‎3.1.3. Dicere -- ‎3.1.3.1. Forms -- ‎3.1.3.2. Frequency of Use -- ‎3.1.3.3. Position and Adjacency -- ‎3.1.3.4. Patterns of Reporting Clause -- ‎3.1.3.5. Dicens quia, dicens si -- ‎3.1.3.6. Summary -- ‎3.1.4. Loqui and Compounds -- ‎3.1.5. Other Verbal Markers -- ‎3.1.5.1. Respondere -- ‎3.1.5.2. Clamare and Compounds (-Clam- Verbs) -- ‎3.1.5.3. Remaining Verbal Markers -- ‎3.2. Non-verbal Markers -- ‎3.3. Zero Markers -- ‎3.4. Multiple Marking and Redundancy.

‎3.4.1. Frequency of Use and Typical Patterns -- ‎3.4.2. Degrees of Redundancy -- ‎3.4.3. Reasons for the Use of Redundant Multiple Marking -- ‎Chapter 4. Discussion -- ‎4.1. Overview of the Use and Characteristics of Direct Discourse Markers -- ‎4.2. Factors in Use and Development -- ‎4.2.1. Factors for Diachronic Trends -- ‎4.2.2. Subjective Factors -- ‎4.3. Grammaticalization -- ‎Chapter 5. Conclusions -- ‎References -- ‎Index Locorum.