Volume 35, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study uses treebanking to investigate how spoken language infiltrated legal Latin in early medieval Italy. The documents used are always formulaic, but they also always contain a ‘free’ part where the case in question is described in free prose. This paper uses this difference to measure how ten linguistic features, representative of the evolution that took place between Classical and Late Latin, are distributed between the formulaic and free parts. Some variants are attested equally often in both parts of the documents, while perceptually or conceptually salient variants appear to be preserved in their conservative form mainly in the formulaic parts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, James Noel
    2013Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511843433
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843433 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bamman, David, Marco Passarotti, Gregory Crane & Savine Raynaud
    2007Guidelines for the syntactic annotation of Latin treebanks (v. 1.3). nlp.perseus.tufts.edu/syntax/treebank/ldt/1.5/docs/guidelines.pdf (3 June, 2017.)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartoli Langeli, Attilio
    2006Notai: scrivere documenti nell’Italia medievale. Roma: Viella.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, Robert
    2001Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511496684
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511496684 [Google Scholar]
  5. Broccias, Cristiano
    2012 The syntax-lexicon continuum. InTerttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 735–747. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chiarcos, Christian, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski
    2011 Introduction: Salience in linguistics and beyond. InChristian Chiarcos, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski (eds.), Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse, 1–28. Berlin: Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110241020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241020 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cintrón-Valentín, Myrna C. & Nick C. Ellis
    2016 Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology7. 1284. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01284
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01284 [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse
    2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina K. Burt
    1973 Should we teach children syntax?Language Learning23. 245–258. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1973.tb00659.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldschneider, Jennifer M. & Robert M. DeKeyser
    2001 Explaining the ‘natural order of l2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning51. 1–50. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00147
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147 [Google Scholar]
  11. Guyotjeannin, Olivier, Jacques Pycke & Benoît-Michel Tock
    1993Diplomatique médiévale. Paris: Brepols.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Korkiakangas, Timo
    2016Subject case in the Latin of Tuscan charters of the 8th and 9th centuries. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Korkiakangas, Timo & Matti Lassila
    2013 Abbreviations, fragmentary words, formulaic language: Treebanking medieval charter material. InFrancesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti & Caroline Sporleder (eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on annotation of corpora for research in the humanities, 61–72. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Korkiakangas, Timo & Marco Passarotti
    2011 Challenges in annotating Medieval Latin charters. Journal of Language Technology and Computational Linguistics26. 103–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lausberg, Heinrich
    1962Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, II: Formenlehre. Berlin: Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ledgeway, Adam
    2012From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. LLCT = Late Latin Charter Treebank. Available in pml.xml format at doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1197357
  18. MacKenzie, Ian & Martin A. Kayman
    (eds.) 2018Formulaicity and creativity in language and literature. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Maiden, Martin
    1996 On the Romance inflectional endings i and e. Romance Philology50. 147–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Pienemann, Manfred
    1999Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sabatini, Francesco
    1965 Esigenze di realismo e dislocazione morfologica in testi preromanzi. Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medievale7. 972–998.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sairio, Anni & Minna Palander-Collin
    2012 The reconstruction of prestige patterns in language history. InJuan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 626–638. Chichester: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118257227.ch34
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118257227.ch34 [Google Scholar]
  23. Salvi, Giampaolo
    2011 Morphosyntactic persistence. InAdam Ledgeway, Martin Maiden & John C. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol. 1: Structures, 318–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Schiaparelli, Luigi
    1933 Note diplomatiche sulle carte longobarde II: Tracce di antichi formulari nelle carte longobarde. Archivio Storico Italiano19. 3–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sornicola, Rosanna
    2012 Bilinguismo e diglossia dei territori bizantini e longobardi del Mezzogiorno: le testimonianze dei documenti del IX e X secolo. Quaderni dell’Accademia Pontaniana59. 1–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Spevak, Olga
    2010Constituent order in Classical Latin prose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.117
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.117 [Google Scholar]
  27. Väänänen, Veikko
    1981Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Valentini, Cecilia
    2017 L’evoluzione della codifica del genitivo dal tipo sintetico al tipo analitico nelle carte del Codice diplomatico longobardo. Firenze: Università degli Studi di Firenze dissertation.
  29. Weber, Shirley Howard
    1924Anthimus, De observatio[ne] ciborum: Text, commentary, and glossary, with a study of the Latinity. Leiden: Late E.J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wright, Roger
    1991 The conceptual distinction between Latin and Romance: Invention or evolution. InRoger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance languages in the Early Middle Ages, 103–113. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zamboni, Alberto
    2000Alle origini dell’italiano: dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zobl, Helmut & Juana Liceras
    1994 Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning44. 169–180. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01452.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01452.x [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error