Romanization and Latinization of the Roman Empire in the light of data in the Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age

visibility

294

views

Abstract

The present study demonstrates that the process of linguistic Romanization, i.e. Latinization of the Roman Empire, is traceable by the data of the Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age (LLDB). A multi-level analysis of linguistic and non-linguistic data in the LLDB has shown that Latinization, i.e. the spread of spoken or vulgar Latin, became more and more intensive over time in all concerned provinces (i.e. Lusitania, Gallia Narbonensis, Venetia et Histria, Dalmatia, Moesia, Pannonia, and Britannia), although to a varying degree in each. What is more, in many aspects of the investigation, it was possible to find differences between the selected provinces of the Roman Empire corresponding mostly to the future Romance (both negative and positive) outcomes of the respective areas. All in all, the analysis of data of the LLDB database can contribute to solving the complex problem of Latinization, and is a lot more appropriate for this purpose than a simple comparative analysis of epigraphic corpora of the selected provinces.

Key takeaways

AI generated

The study traces linguistic Romanization through the Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions (LLDB).
Latinization intensified over time across provinces, but with varying degrees of success.
Over 100,000 data forms allow precise analysis of linguistic shifts from Classical to Vulgar Latin.
Significant differences exist between provinces corresponding to future Romance language outcomes.
LLDB analysis surpasses simple comparative studies of epigraphic corpora for understanding Latinization.

FAQ's

AI generated

What explains the variation in Latinization across Roman provinces?add

The analysis reveals distinct patterns correlating data density with Romance language outcomes, with provinces like Gallia Narbonensis showing stronger Latinization than Moesia, which did not develop Romance languages.

How did data density change from early to late periods in provinces?add

Data density increased across all provinces in the late period, indicating intensified Latinization, with significant growth rates in regions like Lusitania and Gallia Narbonensis.

What are the main categories of analysis in the study?add

The study categorizes data into linguistic (phonological, morphosyntactic) and non-linguistic (orthographic, errors) phenomena, allowing for nuanced comparisons across provinces.

When did the monophthongization of vowel combinations occur?add

Monophthongization of combinations like 'ae' to 'e' likely began in the first century AD, reflecting ongoing phonetic changes during the Imperial Age.

Why are incorrect inscriptions more valuable for understanding Latinization?add

Incorrect inscriptions indicate actual speakers of Latin, whereas correct ones may only reflect formulaic learning, highlighting local language usage during Romanization.

1 of 19

Download research papers for free!

References (20)

Adamik, Béla. 2003. Die verlorene Romanität in Mösien, Thrakien und Pannonien. In Gerhard Ernst, Martin-Dietrich Gleßgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgand Schweickard (eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen 1, (Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft 23[1]), 675-683. New York & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Adamik, Béla. 2006. Offizielles Kommunikationssystem und Romanisierung. In Carmen Arias Abellan (ed.), Latin vulgaire -latin tardif VII.: Actes du VII ème Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Séville, 2-6 septembre 2003, 17-29. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.

Adamik, Béla. 2009. In memoriam József Herman: von der Late Latin Data Base bis zur Computerized Historical Linguistic Data Base of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49. 11-22.

Adamik, Béla. 2012. In search of the regional diversification of Latin: Some methodological considerations in employing the inscriptional evidence. In Frédérique Biville, Marie-Karine Lhommé & Daniel Vallat (eds.), Latin vulgaire -latin tardif IX.: Actes du IXe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Lyon, 6-9 septembre 2009, 123-139. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient e la Méditerranée.

Adamik, Béla. 2015. The periodization of Latin: An old question revisited. In Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century: Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala, June 6th-11th, 2011, 640-652. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Adamik, Béla. 2016. Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of the Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age: Search and charting modules. In Ádám Szabó (ed.), From Polites to Magos: Studia György Németh sexagenario dedicata, 13-27. Budapest & Debrecen: University of Debrecen.

Adams, James N. 2007. The regional diversification of Latin, 200 BC-AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Adams, James N. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Binder, Vera. 2006 [1999].

Latinization. In Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, Christine F. Salazar, Manfred Landfester & Francis G. Gentry (eds.), Brill's New Pauly, Antiquity volumes. Brill: Leiden & Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e632280 (accessed 29 January 2019)

= Binder, Vera. 1999. Latinisierung. In Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike 6, 1175-1174. Metzler: Stuttgart & Weimar.

Garcia y Bellido, Antonio. 1972. Die Latinisierung Hispaniens. In Hildegard Temporini (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1, 1, 462-500. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. translated by R. Wright. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Mihăescu, Haralambie. 1993. La romanité dans le Sud-Est de l'Europe. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.

Raupach, Manfred. 1996. Expansion und Rückzug des Lateins. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik 2, 1. Latein und Romanisch: Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 5-19. Niemeyer: Tübingen.

Reichenkron, Günter. 1959. Das Ostromanische. In Balduin Saria (ed.), Völker und Kulturen Südosteuropas: Kulturhistorische Beiträge, 153-172. München: Südosteuropa- Verlagsgesellschaft.

Smith, Colin. 1983. Vulgar Latin in Roman Britain: Epigraphic and other evidence. In Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2, 29, 2, 893-948. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

Spickermann, Wolfgang. 2006 [2001].

Self-Romanization. In Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, Christine F. Salazar, Manfred Landfester & Francis G. Gentry (eds.), Brill's New Pauly, Antiquity volumes. Brill: Leiden & Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_ e1024520 (accessed 29 January 2019) = Spickermann, Wolfgang. 2001. Romanisation. In Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike 10, 1121- 1122. Metzler: Stuttgart & Weimar.

Woolf, Greg. 2006 [2001]. Romanization. In Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, Christine F. Salazar, Manfred Landfester & Francis G. Gentry (eds.), Brill's New Pauly, Antiquity volumes. Brill: Leiden & Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_ e1024530 (accessed 29 January 2019) = Woolf, Greg. 2001. Romanisierung. In Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike 10, 1122- 1127. Metzler: Stuttgart & Weimar.