Literatura académica sobre el tema "Fourth grammatical treatise"

Medieval Icelandic grammar and poetics based their analysis, to a great extent, on traditional Nordic scholarship. In poetics, Snorra Edda was central, but insights from Classical learning were used to supplement it in the Third and the Fourth Grammatical Treatises. A comparison between Snorri’s description of metrical form in Háttatal and Latin metrics reveals fundamental differences. In the Nordic system, the emphasis is on alliteration and rhyme, but in the Latin one rhythm is central. Furthermore, there are significant differences in the kind of phonological terminology and analysis presented in the grammatical treatises respectively, the First providing the sharpest insights, but the Second perhaps being the most original, seeking inspiration from music. The Third Treatise shows input from runic learning as well as Latin doctrine in its grammatical part, and a healthy mixture of native and Classical learning in its poetics.

Many years ago Hans Bekker-Nielsen charted the influence of Caesarius of Aries on Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian religious prose in a series of groundbreaking articles. Professor Bekker-Nielsen was quick to acknowledge his debt to Dom Germain Morin, whose lifelong study of the works of Caesarius, culminating in the monumental edition of his sermons, restored to their true author a vast number of misattributed ‘pseudo-Augustinian’ homilies. In Bekker-Nielsen's words, ‘Morin's edition has restored to us an important corpus of ecclesiastical writings, and … it is our duty to tidy up the mess of references to Augustine or pseudo-Augustine in the scholarly literature wherever Caesarius is the genuine author.’ It goes without saying that, following Bekker-Nielsen's example, we should endeavour to do the same whenever someone else can be named as the genuine author of a ‘pseudo-Augustinian’ text. In this paper I should like to draw attention to two further examples of the use by medieval Icelandic authors of Latin sources mistakenly attributed to Augustine.

Referring to the reconstruction of the biography of Aelius Donatus, a Roman grammarian of the fourth century and the author of the grammatical treatise Ars Grammatica, this paper demonstrates the methods and techniques of prosopographic research. The author explains what methods to choose for a specific case and how they can work in relation to the reconstruction of Aelius Donatus’ biography. Also, the author demonstrates how with the help of such methods, a general approach and methodology, historical information can be selected, compared, and systematised; how, based on the analysis of vast prosopographic material, one can draw conclusions regarding the lifetime, activity, and occupation of a person, with no exact information preserved about their life. The author examines the importance of prosopography as a scholarly approach to the study of history, namely, social history, and the discussion about what prosopography is. The research employs and studies methods of exclusion and selection of sources, information search using electronic text databases, methods of comparative and textual analysis, interpretation of the text and relevant contexts, as well as their comparison, selection, and coordination of the information received, etc.

<p><strong>1. Introduction. </strong>There exists an interesting paradox: English-speaking learners of Mandarin tend to significantly underuse the Resultative Verb Compounds in speech production tasks (Wen 1995 and 1997, Christensen 1997, Duff &amp; Li 2002) but at the same time demonstrate understanding of the compositional nature – and therefore, the meaning – of RVCs in sentence acceptability judgment tasks (Qiao 2008, Yuan &amp; Zhao 2011). In addition, learners significantly overuse the perfective aspect marker<em> –le.</em> The main goal of this study is to investigate this discrepancy and effect of <em>–le </em>on understanding of change-of-state events. Theoretical evidence suggests that speakers of two languages construe change of state in general and result specifically differently. I adapt the cognitive linguistics framework and specifically Talmy’s (1991, 2000) conceptual approach: namely, event conflation and crosslinguistic analysis of verbal patterns of how change-of-state is conceived and habitually expressed in English and Mandarin. </p><p> Following Talmy, I view both languages as belonging to a satellite-framed group of languages. However, there are several points in which English and Mandarin differ significantly with respect to understanding and thus linguistically expressing change of state. English speakers mainly use resultative verbs (<em>break</em>) and the resultative construction (<em>wipe the table dry</em>). And thus, in English, both the Resultative Construction and monomorphemic resultative verbs are habitually used to express change of state. With respect to Mandarin, it is commonly asserted that in order to convey change of state an RVC must be used. However, Mandarin also has a list of single-root verbs carrying resultative meaning. The perfective aspect marker <em>-le</em> is affixed to these verbs. For example, <em>zou-le </em>(leave-PFV) means ‘leave’ and <em>guan-le </em>(close-PFV) means ‘turn off’. Even thoughMandarin has a very limited number of monomorphemic resultatives, the most common way of expressing change-of-state situation is to use an RVC. One of the typical examples of RVCs is <em>ku-shi </em>(cry-wet):</p><p>(1) Ta <strong>ku- shi</strong> le shoujuan<em>. </em> <br /> He cry-wet PFV handkerchief<br /> ‘He cried the handkerchief wet.’</p><p> Lexically, RVCs are a combination of two or more morphemes (verbs or adjectives) forming a single verb (among many others, Chao 1968, Thompson 1973, Li &amp; Thompson 1981). The components of the RVC can be either transitive or intransitive with V₁ expressing a cause and V₂ expressing result. Syntactically, RVCs involve two or sometimes three verbs forming a construction that schematically looks like V₁+V₂. RVC acts like a single verb meaning that (1) nothing can be inserted between its constituents, (2) the aspect marker, which often accompanies RVCs, follows the compound treating it as one unit, and (3) arguments follow the entire RVC rather than being inserted between the action and result predicates (Chao 1968, Li &amp; Thompson 1981, Chen 2008). </p><p> Leonard Talmy’s (1991 and 2000) classification of English and Mandarin Resultatives shows that speakers of these two languages construe change-of-state events differently. It also provides the key-explanation of why there should be a problem with English speakers using Mandarin RVCs. First of all, English speakers view many change-of-state events as consisting of a single vent, where two subevents are conflated in such a way that speakers do not necessarily view this event as consisting of two subevents (take <em>kick</em>, for example). As a result, in addition to having a wide array of resultative constructions, English is rich in monomorphemic resultatives. Chinese speakers, on the other hand, for the vast majority of cases view resultative events as clearly consisting of two subevents. In order to say that Actor kicked Patient, an RVC <em>ti-zhao </em>(propel.the.foot.as.to.kick-come.into.contact.with) has to be used. An important factor that plays a role here is that Mandarin is rich in verbs with what Koenig and Chief (2008) call an <em>incompleteness effect</em> which is based on Talmy’s idea of <em>strength of implicature</em>. Secondly, if we look at classification of resultatives based on how speakers understand change of state events, we will find how exactly they differ. Talmy identified four patterns: (1) attainment fulfillment (<em>kick </em>something<em> flat</em>); (2) moot fulfillment (<em>hunt </em>somebody <em>down</em>); (3) implied fulfillment (<em>wash </em>something <em>clean</em>); (4) intrinsic fulfillment (<em>drown </em>as opposed to *<em>drown </em>somebody <em>dead</em>). English is rich in the first and fourth patterns when it comes to expressing change of state. It only has a few instances of the third pattern. Mandarin, however, has an extensively developed third pattern when if V₁is taken in isolation, it only implies that an action that took place with certain intention of a result and the implicature that the intention was realized. A V₂has to be used in order for an RVC to actually express realized change of state. In addition to this, in Mandarin a number of subtypes has developed where V₂ in addition to fulfillment and confirmation, also has ‘underfulfilment’, ‘overfulfilment’, ‘antifulfilment’, and ‘other event’ types of results. </p><p> What also has great influence on ability to use RVCs by English speakers is the perfective aspect marker <em>–le</em>, L2 acquisition of which is a widely acknowledged problem of its own. Both RVC and <em>–le </em>contribute to the aspectual properties of a sentence (Xiao &amp; McEnery 2004, Christensen 1997, Smith 1991). RVCs exemplify a lexical aspect and <em>–le </em>– a grammatical aspect. The fact that verb-final <em>–le </em>is used to perfectivise situations is a well-known and accepted phenomenon; however, RVCs function to perfectivise situations as well. The evidence yielded in the experiment discussed further suggests that there is a transfer of association from past tense marker <em>–ed </em>in English to the perfective aspect marker <em>–le </em>in Mandarin: possibly because English speakers correlate it with a past tense marker, or possibly because of the fact that simple past in English is the most common indicator of perfectivity. Thus, because of this strong L1 transfer, English speakers are strongly predisposed to use the verb-final <em>–le </em>with resultatives, whether it be RVCs or monomorphemic verbs which are treated as resultative in learners’ interlanguage.</p><p><strong>2. Experiment description and findings.</strong> In response, I conducted an experiment, which included 16 target video clips ranging from 5 to 25 seconds long. Video clips depicted an actor or actors performing certain actions. These 16 clips consisted of 8 pairs of clips where one clip showed an action where a result took place and another clip showed the same action but with no result achieved. No subject (48 L1 English speakers) watched both members of a pair. Each subject watched 8 target video clips (4 depicting change-of-state and 4 depicting no-change-of-state events) and performed 2 tasks: (1) a description task (where each participant described the clips in English) and (2) an acceptability judgment task with 2 sentences for each clip. Both sentences in each pair were the same except the first sentence contained an RVC plus <em>-le</em> and in the second sentence contained V₁ of an RVC plus <em>-le</em>. The acceptability judgment task was performed using a continuum scale where answers ranged in the following fashion: ‘completely unacceptable’, ‘probably unacceptable’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘probably acceptable’, and ‘completely acceptable.’ In the analysis the following scores were assigned to each value: ‘-2’, ‘-1’, ‘0’, ‘+1’, and ‘+2.’ Statistical analysis (ANOVA) was applied in evaluating outcomes of the experiment. Subjects’ description of the video clips in English showed that they treated change-of-state events and no-change-of-state as such and that with change-of-state events used in the experiment they would not use monomorphemic resultatives with two subevents conflated. </p><p> I used 8 RVCs which were divided into four groups depending on how V₁<em>-le </em>was related to V₁ of an RVC in meaning: (1) RVCs where V₁<em>-le </em>has the same meaning as V₁ of an RVC<em>-le</em>; (2) RVCs where V₁<em>-le </em>does not have the same meaning as V₁ of an RVC<em>-le</em> and at the same time may have some resultative meaning but different from the meaning expressed by the RVC<em>-le</em>; (3) RVCs where V₁<em>-le </em>has the same meaning as RVC<em>-le</em>; and (4) RVCs where V₁<em>-le </em>has ambiguous meaning as it may or may not be interpreted as having the same meaning as RVC<em>-le</em>. The overall goal of this experiment was to see whether English speakers would favor Mandarin single-root verbs along with <em>–le </em>in describing change-of-state events. Specific questions addressed were: (1) whether English-speaking learners of Mandarin understand that a two-constituent RVC must be used to express a change-of-state event and (2) whether they equate the V₁<em>-le </em>combination with RVC thus taking the perfective aspect marker <em>–le </em>as having resultative connotation.</p><p> The outcomes show that both advanced and intermediate groups of learners understand that RVCs have to be used to describe change-of-state events. I conclude this based on the data that show that learners assigned high scores to RVCs in those situations where change of state took place and low scores in those situations where no change of state occurred. This happened with all RVC types except RVC Type (4), but the RVC belonging to this type have an ambiguous meaning and is not treated as decisive for this conclusion. </p><p> The data show that learners do not treat the aspect marker <em>–le </em>as carrying resultative meaning in those situations where in their L1 they would not use monomorphemic resultatives. If they were to treat the verb-final –<em>le </em>as such, we would see that non-native speakers assigned high scores to V₁<em>-le </em>in change-of-state situations and low scores in no-change-of-state situations. In other words, they would treat these V₁<em>-le </em>combinations as RVCs. This was not the case. With the RVC Type (1) advanced learners behaved like native speakers. Intermediate learners behaved in a similar fashion as well with the exception of two situations both occurring with no-change-of-state events. In one situation the data barely showed significant difference (p&lt;0.05) between V₁V₂<em>-le </em>and V₁<em>-le </em>and in another situation there was no significant difference at all even though there should be <ins cite="mailto:Katinka" datetime="2014-05-06T08:53">a </ins>clear gap and, therefore, significant difference. With the RVC Type (2), learners’ reaction is not as clear as with the RVC Type (1) because of the individual meanings of the V₁<em>-le </em>combinations. RVC’s V₁<em>-le </em>counterparts proved to be more challenging for learners. Learners did not behave differently from native speakers in treating RVCs, but in most cases both groups of learners showed misunderstanding of the V₁<em>-le </em>combinations. However, no matter how both groups of learners interpreted these structures, they reacted to them differently than to RVCs thus indicating that they do not equate V₁<em>-le </em>with RVC<em>-le</em>. RVC Type (3) shows that advanced learners reacted in the same way as native speakers did. Namely, they treated the V₁<em>-le </em>combination the same as V₁V₂<em>-le</em>. This is the only case when this kind of reaction is expected. Intermediate learners, on the other hand, did not produce such a response because they treated these two structures differently in the no-change-of-state situation. With the RVC Type (4) both V₁<em>-le </em>combination and RVC<em>-le </em>have ambiguous meaning as the data indicate that each was understood as expressing a result and action. In short, in this experiment there was some inconsistency in learners’ reaction to the target sentences, especially by intermediate learners. Their reaction was similar to that of native speakers in situations when V₁<em>-le </em>did not have the same meaning as V₁of RVC<ins cite="mailto:Katinka" datetime="2014-05-06T08:55">,</ins> but they produced inconsistent results when V₁<em>-le </em>was equal to V₁V₂<em>-le </em>or had some other resultative meaning. However, no matter how they interpreted V₁<em>-le </em>combinations, in no-change-of-state situations, learners had a gap between V₁<em>-le </em>and RVC<em>-le</em>. This fact supports the conclusion that learners do not take <em>–le </em>as having resultative meaning.</p><p> In this study, I conducted an experiment containing Mandarin RVCs that do not correspond to English monomorphemic resultative verbs in which two subevetns are conflated. And the outcomes clearly indicate that English speakers do not treat the V₁<em>-le </em>combination as consistently carrying resultative meaning. This is to be expected since the video clips depicted such situations where English speakers would not use monomorphemic resultatives. The next step is to see if they would take the V₁<em>-le </em>combination as resultative in those situations where in their L1 a monomorphemic resultativ verb would be used. Given the evidence briefly presented here, English speakers should not decline the V₁<em>-le </em>combination in change-of-state events as opposed to only accepting RVC. This is only one of the first steps in proving experimentally that English speakers and Chinese speakers construe the change-of-state events differently. </p>

This chapter treats two imperial Greek phenomena that have often been paired, usually in opposition: Atticism and Asianism. It first describes the theory, practice, and development of Atticism, the attempt by imperial Greeks to write in the language of the fifth and fourth century bce, treating its stylistic and grammatical variants and outlining its relation to imperial classicism. The second part treats the so-called “Asian” prose style associated primarily with the Hellenistic writer Hegesias of Magnesia and reminiscent of Gorgias and the first sophistic. The term itself is not current in the Second Sophistic, but the chapter argues that the style and aesthetic to which it refers are not only present in the work of many writers, but are also portrayed in a positive light by Philostratus. The tension between the classicizing tendencies of Atticism and the unclassical flavor of Asianism is an essential component of imperial Greek culture.

This chapter focuses on phrase structure, whose discussion in the eighteenth century was subsumed under the theory of melody and based on the parallel between music and language. The first part is devoted to classification of caesuras and melodic sections contained by them. Since the former were equivalent to punctuation marks (period, colon, semicolon, comma) and the latter to grammatical units (sentences, clauses), the musical terminology adopted by eighteenth-century authors (Johann Mattheson, Joseph Riepel, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Johann Philipp Kirnberger, and Heinrich Christoph Koch) was influenced by linguistic terminology and it developed for decades, with meanings of individual terms changing from author to author. The second part of the chapter treats the different lengths of phrases. It links the preference for four-measure phrases to regular hypermeter and it presents a classification of four-measure phrase rhythms.

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to provide practice in reading scholarly Greek. In order to derive maximum benefit from it, readers are advised to work systematically through one or more of the four sections, writing out a translation of each selection and checking it against the key in 5.2 before proceeding to the next selection. Extracts are arranged here by the type of skills required to read them, not by the criteria governing the arrangement of Chapters 2 and 3, and the sections have been arranged in ascending order of difficulty: lexica are on the whole the easiest ancient scholarship to read, while grammatical treatises are the most difficult. Further selections from each group, without key, are provided in 5.3 for use as class assignments or for extra practice. Not all texts discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 are represented here. Owing to space limitations, all that has been attempted is inclusion of some selections from each major type of scholarly material. Some classes of material, however, have been systematically excluded: in addition to fragmentary, lacunose, or corrupt texts, commentary that is primarily philosophical, mathematical, or scientific in nature has been omitted, on the grounds that reading such material requires different skills from the ones it is the purpose of this book to provide. Metrical commentary is likewise omitted, because Hephaestion’s treatise and Van Ophuijsen’s translation of it (1987) already offer a good introduction to reading Greek metrical work. The selections presented here aim to provide a representative view of the type of material found in each category, and therefore some of them contain ancient scholars’ errors. No attempt has been made to select the most important or profound passages from each text; these are rarely self-explanatory enough to be appropriate here and have in any case usually been discussed and translated elsewhere. Examples are presented in exactly the form in which they appear in the editions cited, and there is consequently no consistency in the use of symbols, abbreviations, types of sigma, etc. Any symbols or notations the editors added to the text itself have been included, although those in the margins and apparatus.