Article published In:
Lingvisticæ InvestigationesVol. 38:1 (2015) ► pp.1–12
Latin vulgaire, latin familier
Quelques aspects d’une distinction parfois difficile à saisir
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.
Keywords: sermo familiaris, diaphasic variation, diastratic variation, Literary Latin, sermo uulgaris, language change
Article language: French
References
Adams, J.N
(2007) The regional diversification of Latin 200BC–AD600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
(2013) Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auerbach, E
(1952) Sermo humilis. Romanische Forschungen, 641, 304–364.
Banniard, M
(1992) Viva voce. Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris.
Bonnet, M
(1890) Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.
Burchfield, R.W
(1998) The new Fowler’s modern English usage. Oxford.
Callebat, L
(1967) Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée. Paris: Caen Université.
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.
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.
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.
Fischer, I
(1983) Traits spécifiques du latin danubien ». Studii clasice, 211, 67–91.
GRF = Funaioli H
(1907) Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, t.1 (seul paru). Lipsiae.
Hagège, C
(2000) Halte à la mort des langues. Paris: Ed. O. Jacob.
ILBulg = Gerov, B (1989) Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae, t.1,2: Inscriptiones inter Oescum et Iatrum repertae. Serdicae.
IMS = Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure (1976—) Belgrade.
Kaster, R
(1988) Guardians of language. The Grammarian and society in Late antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kruschwitz, P.. & Halla-aho, H
(2007) The Pompeian wall inscriptions and the Latin language: A critical reappraisal. Arctos, 411, 31–49.
Leonhardt, J
(2009) Latein. Geschichte einer Weltsprache. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Marrou, H
(1969) Saint Augustin et l’augustinisme, 7e édition. Paris.
Müller, R
(2001) Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike (Zetemata, 111). München: Beck.
Nedeljković, V
(2009) The case of ILBulg 248: à la rechèrche des noms perdus. Starinar, 591, 159–173.
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.
Quicherat, Thesaurus = L. Quicherat
(1892) Thesaurus poeticus linguae Latinae, 3e édition (par É. Chatelain). Paris.
Reichenkron, G
(1965) Historische Latein-Altromanische Grammatik, t.1 (seul paru): Einleitung. Das sogenannte Vulgärlatein und das Wesen der Romanisierung. Wiesbaden.
Woolf, G
(1996) Monumental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the early empire. The Journal of Roman Studies, 861, 22–39.