33. Comparative, Structural and Sociolinguistic Analyses of the History of the Romance Languages

1999 ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Roger Wright
Keyword(s):  
Romance Languages ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals {Tener/llevar} + participio en el castellano de los Siglos de Oro y algunas notas interlingüísticas

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (16) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Patricia Fernández Martín
Keyword(s):  
Golden Age ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Chronicles Of The Indies ◽  
History Of

El objetivo del presente trabajo es profundizar en la historia del funcionamiento de las construcciones castellanas {tener/llevar} + participio, tomando como centro de estudio la lengua de los siglos xvi y xvii y estableciendo ciertas comparaciones, a lo largo del texto, con otras lenguas romances, en especial el asturiano. El punto de partida se encuentra en la idea de que los problemas que crean estas construccionesse deben esencialmente a la doble naturaleza del participio (adjetival y verbal), solo comprensible inserta en un continuum entre el puro adjetivo y el puro verbo. Para ello, comenzaremos estableciendo, en el marco teórico, nuestro concepto de perífrasis verbal de participio y su aplicación a las construcciones que nos ocupan en el español de los Siglos de Oro. En una segunda parte, analizaremos el funcionamiento de dichas estructuras en el español clásico, empleando un corpus formado por tres génerosdiscursivos, escritos entre 1519 y 1656, que componen sendos subapartados (novelas picarescas, epístolas y crónicas de Indias). La principal conclusión es que los géneros discursivos no afectan a las construcciones de participio en la misma medida en que puede afectar a otros fenómenos gramaticales, como los pronombres personales.The aim of this work is to deepen in the history of the Spanish structures{tener/llevar} + participle, taking into account the language of the 16th and 17th centuries and offering certain comparisons with other Romance languages, specially Asturian. The starting point lies in the idea that the problems that create these constructions are essentially due to the dual nature of the participle (between a verb and an adjective), which can be only understood into a continuum, whose ends are the pure adjective and the pure verb. For that, we will start setting our concept of participial periphrases in the theoretical framework, as well as its applicationto the Spanish language spoken in the Golden Age. Then, we analyze how these structures work in that Spanish, using a corpus formed by three discourse genres (picaresque novels, letters and chronicles of the Indies), whose texts were written between 1519 and 1656. Finally, all of which allows to conclude that the discourse genres do not affect the appearance of the constructions of participle in the same extent that it may affect other grammatical phenomena, such as personal pronouns.

Diachronic features of Romanian in a broader comparative setting

2019 ◽  
pp. 217-222
Author(s):  
Alexandru Nicolae
Keyword(s):  
Structural Properties ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Romance Language ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Syntactic Change ◽  
History Of ◽  
Diachronic Development

Chapter 6 highlights the novel theoretical and empirical facts brought about by the word order changes that occurring in the passage from old to modern Romanian, showing how the diachrony of Romanian may contribute to a better understanding of the history of the Romance languages and of the Balkan Sprachbund, as well as to syntactic theory and syntactic change in general. One important dimension of diachronic variation and change is the height of nouns and verbs along their extended projections (lower vs higher V- and N-movement). The two perspectives from which language contact proves relevant in the diachronic development of word order in Romanian, language contact by means of translation and areal language contact, are discussed. The chapter also addresses the issue of surface analogy vs deep structural properties; once again, Romanian emerges as a Romance language in a Balkan suit, as Romance deep structural properties are instantiated by means of Balkan word order patterns.

External History of the Romance Languages

Language ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Jerry R. Craddock ◽  
Robert A. Hall Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Romance Languages ◽  
History Of

Constructions of uncontrolled state or event

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Elvira
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
General Sense ◽  
Old Spanish ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Construction ◽  
Semantic Values

Spanish and other Romance languages inherited from Latin the seeds of a new construction that is common to the syntax of some verbs belonging to the field of emotions, feelings, pain or modality. The semantic values of this construction are strange to prototypical transitivity and are coupled with a marked argument structure, compared with the more common transitive sentence. In the early centuries of the history of Spanish only a few verbs were integrated in the new scheme, which could receive an experience, modal or quantitative meaning, depending on an analogical association with certain frequent verbs. As the construction gained productivity, the importance of these few specific verbs as models for the newly integrated ones was reduced and the construction as a whole was understood in a more general sense of uncontrolled state or event. This paper provides a history of the construction in its different stages and tries to uncover the mechanism and factors that favored the increase in its productivity over the centuries. It also attempts to understand these facts from a typological standpoint, as an effect of some kind of a transitivity split that took place in Old Spanish, which gave rise to a type of marked construction, associated to some specific verbs.

scholarly journals The extent to which inscriptional evidence may serve as a source of "vulgar," i.e. spoken Latin

Linguistica ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Paul A. Gaeng
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Future Evolution ◽  
American Scholar ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of ◽  
Real Language ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The One ◽  
And Training

"Itis incumbent on Romance scholars to analyze and interpret their exceptionally full stock of linguistic material, using all methods of study at their disposal, working both backward and forward in time. Only thus will Romance linguistics be enabled to do what others expect of it: to serve not only as an end in itself but as a model and training-ground for workers in all fields of historical linguistics." Thus wrote the American scholar, Robert A. Hall, jr. some forty years ago in an essay on the recon­ struction of Proto-Romance. 1 Indeed, the researcher into the history of the Romance languages is faced with, on the one hand, the schemes of reconstruction (essentially based on the principles of the historical comparative method) and the often puzzling testimonies of reality found in the sources. Put in other terms, he has the choice of working with an abstract system represented by starred Latin forms that do not belong to any real language or the reality of the mass of postclassical written records that have come down to us to be analyzed and sifted through with a view to discovering evidences of trends toward Romance in phonology, morpho-syntax, and vocabulary. And while there are, no doubt, materials whose meaning in terms of future evolution of the Romance languages is difficult, if not impossible to discover, there is an abun­ dance of those that prelude the future. It is the attention to the future that, I believe, can give reality and life to the large number of forms collected from inscriptions, late writers, and other sources of so-called "Vulgar", i. e. non-literary Latin.

scholarly journals Profesor Witold Mańczak – dydaktyk

LingVaria ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (spec) ◽  
pp. 45-49
Author(s):  
Anna Bochnakowa
Keyword(s):  
Academic Staff ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historical Grammar ◽  
Academic Teacher ◽  
Romance Philology

This memoir on Professor Witold Mańczak as an academic teacher opens with a list of grammars and textbooks of the history of Romance languages which he wrote for students of Romance philology. This is followed by a description of Professor’s lectures in historical grammar of Romance languages – erudite but clear, with multiple examples and digressions which widened the scrutinized topic. Also his manner of examining is mentioned, known and strictly defined criteria of evaluation, and its objectivity. Professor’s colleagues from the Institute of Romance Philology like to reminisce his friendly and selfless help and cordiality towards students – beside his attributed severity. Lastly, we emphasize the importance of Professor’s scientific views and methodology in the shaping of academic staff.

Language Contact and the Lexicon of Romance Languages

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Thibault ◽  
Nicholas LoVecchio
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Linguistic Community ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Rigorous Approach ◽  
Historical Factors ◽  
Physical Presence ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Theoretical Issues

The Romance languages have been involved in many situations of language contact. While language contact is evident at all levels, the most visible effects on the system of the recipient language concern the lexicon. The relationship between language contact and the lexicon raises some theoretical issues that are not always adequately addressed, including in etymological lexicography. First is the very notion of what constitutes “language contact.” Contrary to a somewhat dated view, language contact does not necessarily imply physical presence, contemporaneity, and orality: as far as the lexicon is concerned, contact can happen over time and space, particularly through written media. Depending on the kind of extralinguistic circumstances at stake, language contact can be induced by diverse factors, leading to different forms of borrowing. The misleading terms borrowings or loans mask the reality that these are actually adapted imitations—whether formal, semantic, or both—of a foreign model. Likewise, the common Latin or Greek origins of a huge proportion of the Romance lexicon often obscure the real history of words. As these classical languages have contributed numerous technical and scientific terms, as well as a series of “roots,” words coined in one Romance language can easily be reproduced in any other. However, simply reducing a word’s etymology to the origin of its components (classic or otherwise), ignoring intermediate stages and possibly intermediating languages in the borrowing process, is a distortion of word history. To the extent that it is useful to refer to “internationalisms,” related words in different Romance languages merit careful, often arduous research in the process of identifying the actual origin of a given coining. From a methodological point of view, it is crucial to distinguish between the immediate lending language and the oldest stage that can be identified, with the former being more relevant in a rigorous approach to comparative historical lexicology. Concrete examples from Ibero-Romania, Gallo-Romania, Italo-Romania, and Balkan-Romania highlight the variety of different Romance loans and reflect the diverse historical factors particular to each linguistic community in which borrowing occurred.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document