A Linguistic Analysis of Demonstratives in Genres of Early Latin Fragments Erica L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Graduate Capstone Projects 2016 Haec fortis sequitur illam indocti possident: A linguistic analysis of demonstratives in genres of early Latin fragments Erica L. Meszaros Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Meszaros, Erica L., "Haec fortis sequitur illam indocti possident: A linguistic analysis of demonstratives in genres of early Latin fragments" (2016). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 847. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/847 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Haec Fortis Sequitur Illam Indocti Possident: A Linguistic Analysis of Demonstratives in Genres of Early Latin Fragments by Erica L. Meszaros Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Language and Literature Eastern Michigan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in English Linguistics Thesis Committee: Eric Acton Ph.D., Chair Veronica Grondona, Ph.D. July 1, 2016 Ypsilanti, Michigan In memoriam Chloes ii Acknowledgments I am forever indebted to the ceaseless effort of my advisor, Dr. Eric Acton, who accepted me as an advisee though I had never been his student and had, in fact, not been anyone's student for more than three years. Without his guidance and judgment, I am confident that I would never have made it past my initial thesis proposal, and it should be a testament to his skill, patience, and dedication that this thesis was completed. I would also like to acknowledge my mother, who hand-delivered this thesis; my brother, who sent me enough cat pictures to persevere through the thesis-writing process; and my husband, who tackled copyediting, emotional support, and seltzer buying. Our family may be small and, thanks to me, geographically spread, but I could not ask for better humans to share genes and names with. For continuing to engage my creativity, and allowing me to afford rent and food, I am grateful for the community at NASA's Langley Research Center, in particular Lisa Le Vie, Stephanie Harrison, Anna Trujillo, Kevin French, Michael Janov, Spencer Watza, Leonardo Herrera, and the members of the Autonomy incubator. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge those professors and peers who have inspired me over the years, in particular Megan Grundtisch, Elyssa Winzeler, Emily Wilson, Sarah Dreher, Terence Vogel, Matthew McGowan, Edith Foster, and the Paideia Institute. I hope this thesis stands as a testament to their passion and compassion. iii Abstract This study examines the claim that demonstratives are used more frequently in Latin comedies than in other genres (Karakasis, 2014; Palmer, 1975), as well as additional hypotheses regarding the use of demonstratives within this language. To examine these claims, I created a corpus composed of fragments of Early Latin authors of comedic, tragic, and non-dramatic works. I examined demonstratives within this corpus for frequency, form, syntactic role, affective force, co-occurrence with personal pronouns, and use in multimembral demonstrative sets. This study provides the first quantitative evaluation of demonstrative use for often neglected authors of Early Latin. It also identifies those theories regarding demonstrative use that have more support within this time and suggests why these theories might hold true and how they might impact the overall demonstrative count for comedy, tragedy, non-dramatic works, or Latin as a whole. Works Cited Karakasis, E. (2014). The language of the palliata. In Fontaine, M. & Scafuro, A.C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (pp. 555-579). Oxford University Press. Palmer, L. R. (1988). The Latin language. University of Oklahoma Press. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................... xii Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of this Study............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Outline ................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter Two: Background .............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Introduction to Demonstratives ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Exophora and deixis ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Endophora, Anaphora, and Cataphora ............................................................................ 8 2.1.3 Discourse deixis ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1.4 Characteristics of demonstratives ................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Parts of speech .............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Introduction to Demonstratives in Latin ............................................................................. 14 2.2.1 Personal force ............................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Genre ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.2.3 Affective force .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.4 Forms and syntactic categories ..................................................................................... 26 2.2.5 Multimembral sets ........................................................................................................ 26 2.2.6 Endophora ..................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 29 2.3 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 30 v Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32 3.1 Corpus Composition ............................................................................................................ 32 3.1.1 Excluded authors .......................................................................................................... 37 3.1.2 Livius Andronicus.. ...................................................................................................... 38 3.1.3 Gnaeus Naevius ............................................................................................................ 40 3.1.4 Caecilius Statius ........................................................................................................... 40 3.1.5 Marcus Pacuvius ........................................................................................................... 42 3.1.6 Quintus Ennius ............................................................................................................. 43 3.1.7 Lucius Accius. .............................................................................................................. 46 3.1.8 Summary. ...................................................................................................................... 47 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 48 3.3 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 51 Chapter Four: Analysis ................................................................................................................. 53 4.1 Genre ................................................................................................................................... 53 4.1.1 Caecilius. ...................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.2 Naevius ......................................................................................................................... 56 4.1.3 Ennius ........................................................................................................................... 57 4.1.4 Accius ..........................................................................................................................