Marking the end of direct speech in Late Latin

Zdrojový dokument: Graeco-Latina Brunensia. 2016, roč. 21, č. 2, s. 169-182
  • ISSN
    1803-7402 (print)
    2336-4424 (online)
Type: Článek
Licence: Neurčená licence
The present paper examines the marking of the end of direct speech in five selected Late Latin texts. It shows that a range of strategies are employed in the texts, among which it analyses the use of particles, pronouns and participle constructions in greater detail. Although the end of direct speech tended to be signalled, none of the means can be viewed as a routinized marker of the end of direct speech in Late Latin – the particle et 'and' was found 19% of instances in the examined texts. When an expression was used in a seemingly routine fashion, its higher occurrence was limited to one or two texts and attributed in the present analysis to the author's style. The most frequent expressions identified (the particles et and -que 'and', demonstrative and relative pronouns) do not carry any specific meaning with respect to direct speech but rather fulfil the function of cohesive device. The end of direct speech thus seems to be treated as a mere boundary in the discourse, lacking any specific marking in Late Latin.
[1] Die digitalen Monumenta Germaniae Historica (dMGH) [online]. Reprint. Published by Monumenta Germaniae Historica and Bayerische Staatsbibliothek [Available from:; accessed 27. 10. 2016].

[2] Jones, E. (Transl.). (1991). Gregory of Tours. Life of the Fathers (with an introd. and notes; 2nd ed.). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

[3] Plaetse, R., & Tombeur, P. (2013). The Electronic Monumenta Germaniae Historica (eMGH) [database]. 13th release. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. [Available from:; accessed 27. 10. 2016].

[4] Tombeur, P. et al. (2015). Library of Latin Texts – Series A. Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium.

[5] Turnhout: Brepols. [Available from:; accessed 27. 10. 2016].

[6] Deutscher, G. (2011). The Grammaticalization of Quotatives. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. (pp. 646–655). New York: Oxford University Press.

[7] Diewald, G. (2013). "Same same but different" – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In P. Pietrandrea, B. Cornillie, & L. Degand (Eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description (pp. 19–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[8] Dorgeloh, H. (2004). Conjunction in sentence and discourse: sentence initial and and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1761–1779. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.004]. | DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.004

[9] Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. | DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5

[10] Fruyt, M. (2011). Grammaticalization in Latin. In P. Baldi, & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 4: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology (pp. 661–864). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

[11] Gayno, M. (2015). Les modalités d'insertion du discours direct en latin tardif: bornage et redondance. Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina, 10(2). [Retrieved 27. 10. 2016 from].

[12] Ghezzi, Ch. (2014). The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Ch. Ghezzi, & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance languages (pp. 10–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[13] Golato, A. (2000). An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so 'and I'm like/and he's like'. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1), 29–54. [DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00030-2]. | DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00030-2

[14] Güldemann, T. (2008). Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[15] Kroon, C. (1995). Discourse particles in Latin. A study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.

[16] Louviot, E. (2013). Transitions from Direct Speech to Narration in Old English Poetry. Neophilologus, 97, 383–393. [DOI: 10.1007/s11061-012-9312-6]. | DOI 10.1007/s11061-012-9312-6

[17] Matras, Y., & Bolkestein, A. M. (2006). Deixis and anaphora: Some case studies. In G. Bernini, & M. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe (pp. 215–254). Berlin‒New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[18] Mikulová, J. (2015). Verbs introducing direct speech in Late Latin texts. Graeco-Latina Brunensia, 20(2), 123–143.

[19] Orlandini, A., & Poccetti, P. (2014). Polyfunctionality and transcategoriality of coordinating particles in Latin and in other ancient languages. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 13(2), 267–278. | DOI 10.1515/joll-2014-0011

[20] Rosén, H. (2009). Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification – the contribution of particles. In P. Baldi, & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1: Syntax of the Sentence (pp. 317–442). Berlin‒New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[21] Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Oxford: Blackwell.

[22] Sznajder, L. (2015). Segments introducteurs de discours direct et repérages énonciatifs en latin biblique: éléments pour une étude diastratique et diachronique. Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina, 10(2). [Retrieved 27. 10. 2016 from].

[23] Vandelanotte, L. (2012). Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. In I. van Alphen, & I. Buchstaller (Eds.), Quotative: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.