Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek
Edited by Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 190] 2017
► pp. 63–82

Chapter 4
Discursive and pragmatic functions of Latin em

Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization… interjectionalization?

| Autonomous University of Madrid
The Latin particle em, mainly attested in Archaic Latin, is the apocopated form of eme, the imperative of the verb emere ‘to take, acquire, purchase’. The traditional understanding of this element has been that of a secondary interjection. This interpretation, however, presents a number of problems that can be traced to the lack of a pragmatic perspective. In a corpus as old as the comedies of Plautus (c. 254–184 bc), em seems completely grammaticalized and paired with procedural meanings. This paper offers an in-depth analysis of the various discursive and pragmatic functions of em, mainly addressee-oriented and used to regulate the communicative exchange, and compares this Latin unit with similar ones in certain modern languages. In this way, this study not only helps us better understand the procedural meanings of this particular unit, but also offers a diachronic perspective of pragmaticalization phenomena.
Keywords: em , discourse and pragmatic marker, grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, subjectification
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Data and methods
  • 2.Etymological content: em imperative of emere
  • 3.Grammaticalization: Presentative function
  • 4.Pragmaticalization: em as a discourse and pragmatic marker
    • 4.1Reference to one’s own discourse
    • 4.2Reference to the interlocutor’s discourse
  • 5.Expression of the speaker’s subjectivity: Interjectionalization?
  • 6.The diachronic axis
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.190.04unc
References (39)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think: An English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 99], Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbini, Maria Antonietta. 1966. Interferenze fra imperativi ed interiezioni. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 19: 357–363.Google Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 2004. ¿Gramaticalización o desgramaticalización? Reanálisis y subjetivación de verbos como marcadores discursivos en la historia del español. Revista de Filología Española 84(1): 29–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Gobbo, Francesca, Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2015. On sentential particles: A cross linguistic study. In Final Particles [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 284], Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds), 359–386. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Meillet, Antoine. 1985. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, 3rd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Ghezzi, Chiara. 2013. Marcatori funzionali deverbali in greco, latino e italiano: Sviluppi paralleli e natura della convergenza. In Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti, Marco Mancini & Luca Lorenzetti (eds), 151–180. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
. 2014. The pragmaticalization of verbs of movement and exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of development from lexicon to Pragmatics. In Studia Linguistica et Philologica in Honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Mihaela Livescu, Ilona Bădescu & Mihaela Popescu (eds), 116–139. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara. 2014. The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 10–26. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Molinelli, Piera. 2015. Segnali allocutivi di richiamo: Percorsi pragmatici e sviluppi diacronici tra latino e italiano. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 22: 21–47.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 116–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hand, Ferdinand G. 1836. Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii, Vol. 3. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist. 2003. La lingua d’uso latina. Introduction, translation and notes by Licinia Ricottili, 3rd edn. Bologne: Pàtron (= Lateinische Umgangssprache, Heidelberg, 1951, 3rd edn).Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2013. Deixis and person in the development of Greek personal pronominal paradigms. In Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 136], Kirsten J. Kragh & Jan Lindschouw (eds), 19–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Albrecht. 1889. Die Partikel en (em). Archiv für Lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 6: 25–40.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Liana Garcea, Erica. 2008. Aspects of Sequence and Preference Organization in Romanian Telephone Conversations. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Leena. 1966. Les expressions du commandement et de la défense en latin et leur survie dans les langues romanes. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Luck, Georg. 1964. Über einige Interjektionen der lateinischen Umgangsprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 1965. Elemente der Umgangssprache bei Menander und Terenz. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 108(3): 269–277.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2006. On Romanian imperatives. Philologica Jassyensia 2(1): 47–59.Google Scholar
McGlynn, Patrick. 1963. Lexicon Terentianum, volumen prius, A-O. Glasgow: Blackie & Son.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia: Rivista Internazionale di Sintesi Scientifica 12: 384–400 (reprint in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale . Paris: Champion, 1948, 130–148).Google Scholar
Müller, Roman. 1997. Sprechen und Sprache. Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
OLD=P. G. W. Glare (ed.). 1996. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Poggi, Isabella. 2009. The language of interjections. In Multimodal Signals: Cognitive and Algorithmic Issues [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5398], Anna Esposito, Amir Hussain, Maria Marinaro & Raffaele Martone (eds), 170–186. Berlin: Springer. <[URL]> (15 December 2015). DOI logo
Richter, Paul. 1873. De usu particularum exclamativarum apud priscos scriptores Latinos. In Studien auf dem Gebiete des archaichen Lateins, Vol. I, Wilhelm Studemund (ed.), 387–642. Berlin: Wiedmannsche (reprint 1972, Hildesheim: Georg Olms).Google Scholar
Rosén, Hanna. 2015. The Latin “ethical” dative. A distinct category. In Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century, Gerd Haverling (ed.), 240–263. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [Topics in English Linguistics 66], Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
ThLL = Thesaurus linguae Latinae, 1900… Leipzig: Teubner/De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, Luis. 2012. Cuando los sentimientos irrumpen: Valores expresivos de las interjecciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto. In Estudios sobre teatro romano: El mundo de los sentimientos y su expresión, Rosario López Gregoris (ed.), 347–395. Zaragoza: Pórtico.Google Scholar
. 2016. Cuando los sentimientos irrumpen (II): Análisis de las interjecciones secundarias en las comedias de Plauto. In Semántica latina y románica: Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental, Benjamín García-Hernández & Azucena Penas (eds), 213–241. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vaan, Michiel de. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zamora Muñoz, Pablo. 2000. Usos de ecco en el italiano hablado contemporáneo. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, special edition, 949–966.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bonilla Carvajal, Camilo Andrés
2020. The syntax of the Latin presentative adverbecce: Relation to focus phrase. Journal of Latin Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.