{"title":"新拉丁语语言学研究的悖论。症状和原因","authors":"Šime Demo","doi":"10.22210/suvlin.2022.093.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A vast majority of Latin texts available to us have been written after the Middle Ages. Th ese writings are very diverse, culturally relevant, and interesting for linguistic research. Yet, this is not refl ected in the scholarly attention given to post–medieval Latin. Th e research dealing with it is neither systematic nor up to date with the modern theoretical and methodological advances in linguistics. As nearly all linguists interested in Latin limit their investigations to the classical and medieval periods, the vast bulk of the texts written in Latin is severely under–researched. In this paper it is argued that the marginal position of post–medieval Latin in the research is caused by the preservation of traditional paths of work and that it is not tenable on the grounds of valid scientifi c reasoning. First, a defi nition of Neo–Latin is presented and the quantity of its texts is compared to the size of the ancient Latin literature. Th en, a quantitative meta–analysis of several major publications in the fi elds of Latin linguistics and Neo–Latin studies is performed in order to determine the presence of linguistic research of Neo–Latin in them. In the following section, some important reasons why it is under–represented are singled out and contextualised within linguistic methodology and the history of the classical studies. By questioning their validity, a case is made for a full and consistent integration of the linguistic research of Neo–Latin into Latin linguistics. zastupljenost nesrazmjerno niska u odnosu na broj članaka koji se bave antičkim latinskim. Budući da gotovo svi lingvisti koji se bave latinskim jezikom ograničavaju svoja istraživanja na antiku i srednji vijek, većina onoga što je napisano na latinskome ostaje bez odgovarajuće znanstvene obrade. analiziraju jezikoslovne očuvanja naslijeđenoga znanstvenog rasuđivanja. Slijedom toga, poziva potpunu sustavnu integraciju jezičnoga proučavanja","PeriodicalId":40950,"journal":{"name":"Suvremena Lingvistika","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A paradox of the linguistic research of Neo–Latin. Symptoms and causes\",\"authors\":\"Šime Demo\",\"doi\":\"10.22210/suvlin.2022.093.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A vast majority of Latin texts available to us have been written after the Middle Ages. Th ese writings are very diverse, culturally relevant, and interesting for linguistic research. Yet, this is not refl ected in the scholarly attention given to post–medieval Latin. Th e research dealing with it is neither systematic nor up to date with the modern theoretical and methodological advances in linguistics. As nearly all linguists interested in Latin limit their investigations to the classical and medieval periods, the vast bulk of the texts written in Latin is severely under–researched. In this paper it is argued that the marginal position of post–medieval Latin in the research is caused by the preservation of traditional paths of work and that it is not tenable on the grounds of valid scientifi c reasoning. First, a defi nition of Neo–Latin is presented and the quantity of its texts is compared to the size of the ancient Latin literature. Th en, a quantitative meta–analysis of several major publications in the fi elds of Latin linguistics and Neo–Latin studies is performed in order to determine the presence of linguistic research of Neo–Latin in them. In the following section, some important reasons why it is under–represented are singled out and contextualised within linguistic methodology and the history of the classical studies. By questioning their validity, a case is made for a full and consistent integration of the linguistic research of Neo–Latin into Latin linguistics. zastupljenost nesrazmjerno niska u odnosu na broj članaka koji se bave antičkim latinskim. Budući da gotovo svi lingvisti koji se bave latinskim jezikom ograničavaju svoja istraživanja na antiku i srednji vijek, većina onoga što je napisano na latinskome ostaje bez odgovarajuće znanstvene obrade. analiziraju jezikoslovne očuvanja naslijeđenoga znanstvenog rasuđivanja. Slijedom toga, poziva potpunu sustavnu integraciju jezičnoga proučavanja\",\"PeriodicalId\":40950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suvremena Lingvistika\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suvremena Lingvistika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2022.093.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suvremena Lingvistika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2022.093.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们可以获得的绝大多数拉丁语文本都是在中世纪之后写成的。这些作品非常多样化,与文化相关,对语言学研究也很有意思。然而,这并没有反映在对后中世纪拉丁语的学术关注中。对它的研究既不系统,也不符合语言学现代理论和方法的进步。由于几乎所有对拉丁语感兴趣的语言学家都将他们的研究局限于古典和中世纪时期,因此绝大多数用拉丁语写成的文本都严重缺乏研究。本文认为,后中世纪拉丁语在研究中的边缘地位是由于保留了传统的工作方式造成的,并且基于有效的科学推理是站不住脚的。首先,对新拉丁语进行了定义,并将其文本数量与古代拉丁文学的规模进行了比较。因此,对拉丁语言学和新拉丁语研究领域的几篇主要出版物进行了定量元分析,以确定其中是否存在新拉丁语的语言学研究。在下一节中,在语言学方法论和古典研究史中,它被低估的一些重要原因被挑出来并置于语境中。通过质疑它们的有效性,我们有理由将新拉丁语的语言学研究充分而一致地融入拉丁语语言学。扎斯图尔杰诺斯特·内斯拉兹姆杰诺·尼斯卡和奥德诺苏·纳·布罗奇·拉纳卡·科吉是反金的。Budući da gotovo svi lingvisti koji se bave latinskim jezikom ograničavaju svoja istraživanja na antiku i srednji vijek,većina onogašto je napisano na latinskome ostaje bez odgovarajuće znanstvene obrade。analiziraju jezikoslovne očuvanja naslijeÇenoga znanstvenog rasuÇivanja。Slijedom toga,poziva potpunu sustavnu integraciju jezičnoga proučavanja
A paradox of the linguistic research of Neo–Latin. Symptoms and causes
A vast majority of Latin texts available to us have been written after the Middle Ages. Th ese writings are very diverse, culturally relevant, and interesting for linguistic research. Yet, this is not refl ected in the scholarly attention given to post–medieval Latin. Th e research dealing with it is neither systematic nor up to date with the modern theoretical and methodological advances in linguistics. As nearly all linguists interested in Latin limit their investigations to the classical and medieval periods, the vast bulk of the texts written in Latin is severely under–researched. In this paper it is argued that the marginal position of post–medieval Latin in the research is caused by the preservation of traditional paths of work and that it is not tenable on the grounds of valid scientifi c reasoning. First, a defi nition of Neo–Latin is presented and the quantity of its texts is compared to the size of the ancient Latin literature. Th en, a quantitative meta–analysis of several major publications in the fi elds of Latin linguistics and Neo–Latin studies is performed in order to determine the presence of linguistic research of Neo–Latin in them. In the following section, some important reasons why it is under–represented are singled out and contextualised within linguistic methodology and the history of the classical studies. By questioning their validity, a case is made for a full and consistent integration of the linguistic research of Neo–Latin into Latin linguistics. zastupljenost nesrazmjerno niska u odnosu na broj članaka koji se bave antičkim latinskim. Budući da gotovo svi lingvisti koji se bave latinskim jezikom ograničavaju svoja istraživanja na antiku i srednji vijek, većina onoga što je napisano na latinskome ostaje bez odgovarajuće znanstvene obrade. analiziraju jezikoslovne očuvanja naslijeđenoga znanstvenog rasuđivanja. Slijedom toga, poziva potpunu sustavnu integraciju jezičnoga proučavanja