HISTORIC LINGUISTICS (ADVANCED)

The course is part of the core educational activities of the master’s degree programs in Ancient Civilisations: Archaeology, Literature, and History (Philology and Literature) and in Italian Philology, Linguistics, and Literature (for all curricula). It aims to provide the knowledge required for reflecting and operating on language and languages as historical phenomena revealed by texts, with particular attention to the topics of variation, change, and reconstruction.

Students are expected to acquire the awareness of variation across time, space, society, and according communicative settings as a constitutive dimension of language, to be able to recognise and describe phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical changes as well as to analyse them in light of the current theoretical frameworks, to achieve a knowledge of the principles and methods of etymology and linguistic reconstruction as well as of the relationship between linguistic reconstruction and cultural reconstruction, to be able to frame theoretical and methodological issues and problems relevant to Historical Linguistics. Students are also expected to learn to use appropriate terminology.

The course requires basic knowledge of general linguistics obtained through the Principle of Linguistics course or other basic linguistics courses. The course also requires a good knowledge of the Italian language for foreign students.

The first part of the course will cover open theoretical and methodological issues concerning the genesis and theoretical grounds of Historical Linguistics, linguistic variation, historical and typological results of linguistic comparison, linguistic reconstruction, cultural reconstruction based on language data, and linguistic change according to different perspectives on the nature and functioning of language and languages. The second part of the course will focus on the principles and methods of etymology, also through the discussion of etymological proposals concerning lexical forms pertinent to ancient and modern languages.

1. Reference manuals
M. Mancini (ed.), Il cambiamento linguistico, Roma, 2003.

2. Further readings
2.1. Open theoretical and methodological issues
A. L. Prosdocimi, Diacronia: ricostruzione. Genera proxima e differentia specifica, in «Lingua e stile» 13/III, 1978, pp. 335-371.
A. L. Prosdocimi, I fondamenti teorici della linguistica storica ovvero alla ricerca dell’odorosa pantera ovvero à la recherche…, in A. L. Prosdocimi, Scritti inediti e sparsi, Padova, 2004, II, pp. 583-627.
A. L. Prosdocimi, Comparazione, tipologia e ricostruzione, in A. L. Prosdocimi, Scritti inediti e sparsi, Padova, 2004, II, pp. 657-855.
A. L. Prosdocimi, Dialetto/dialetti, koinè/koinai. Ambito del significare e orizzonti del comunicare, in G. Marcato (ed.), Le mille vite del dialetto, Padova, 2014, pp. 441-472.
M. P. Marchese, A. L. Prosdocimi, Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Coseriu e Saussure, in V. Orioles, R. Bombi (eds.), Oltre Saussure. L’eredità scientifica di Eugenio Coseriu, 2015, pp. 233-247.

2.2. Etymology
Y. Malkiel, Etymology and general linguistics, in «Word» 18, 1, 1962, pp. 198-219.
A. Zamboni, L’etimologia, Bologna, 1976.
A. L. Prosdocimi, Da appunti manoscritti su Trasanni e Cesane come microsistema toponimico, in Trasanni porta di Urbino, Urbino, 1999, pp. 341-359.
W. Belardi, Di alcuni fondamenti teorici dell’etimologia, in M. Benedetti (a cura di), Fare etimologia. Presente, passato e futuro nella ricerca etimologica, Roma, 2001, pp. 7-56.
P. Di Giovine, Etimologia indoeuropea ed etimologia romanza, in M. Benedetti (a cura di), Fare etimologia. Presente, passato e futuro nella ricerca etimologica, Roma, 2001, pp. 285-291.
A. L. Prosdocimi, Unità e varietà di un’etimologia e del fare-etimologia, in M. Benedetti (a cura di), Fare etimologia. Presente, passato e futuro nella ricerca etimologica, Roma, 2001, pp. 293-410.
A. Zamboni, Etimologia e linguistica generale, in M. Benedetti (a cura di), Fare etimologia. Presente, passato e futuro nella ricerca etimologica, Roma, 2001, pp. 233- 248.
W. Belardi, L’etimologia nella storia della cultura occidentale, 2 tomi, Roma, 2002, spec. vol. I pp. 5-112, vol. II pp. 109-146, 451-462 (capp. I, XI, XXII).
D. Poli, Dall’ovvietà alla congetturalità: le strategie etimologiche come percorsi cognitivi del latino, in A. Manco, D. Silvestri (a cura di), L’etimologia, Roma, 2011, pp. 197-218.
D. Baglioni, L’etimologia, Roma, 2016.
S. Brugnolo, F. Rovai, Note sull'argomentazione etimologica da Heidegger a Cacciari, in «SigMa» 8, 2024, pp. 295-323.
D. Baglioni Etimologie vere, false, presunte, in «La Crusca per voi» 68, pp. 4-6.

Learning will be assessed through an interview. The interview will focus on three general topics, which will be selected by the teacher: one from the reference manuals, one from the further readings concerning Open theoretical and methodological issues (2.1), one from the further readings concerning Etymology (2.2). It should be noted that the further readings will be framed and discussed during the lessons. The lecture slides, which will be regularly uploaded to the course's Moodle space, will serve as a guide to the key aspects of each text that require particular focus.
In particular, mastery of the topics, ability in presentation, terminological adequacy, and the ability for independent reflection on linguistically phenomena will be taken into account for evaluation.

oral

30–30 with distinction: Demonstrates an excellent mastery of the topics covered in lectures and reference texts; employs the discipline’s technical terminology with precision; exhibits an exceptional ability for independent reflection on linguistic phenomena.

28–29: Displays a very good understanding of the topics covered in lectures and reference texts; makes largely appropriate use of the discipline’s technical terminology; demonstrates a strong ability for independent reflection on linguistic phenomena.

26–27: Shows a good knowledge of the topics covered in lectures and reference texts; occasional inaccuracies in the use of the discipline’s technical terminology; moderate ability for independent reflection on linguistic phenomena.

22–25: Demonstrates a partial and/or somewhat superficial understanding of the topics covered in lectures and reference texts; presentation is not always clear and may show deficiencies in the use of the discipline’s technical terminology; exhibits a sufficient ability for independent reflection on linguistic phenomena.

18–21: Shows an incomplete but sufficient understanding of the topics covered in lectures and reference texts; presentation is unclear and/or lacks appropriate use of the discipline’s technical terminology; exhibits a limited but still adequate ability for independent reflection on linguistic phenomena.

Classroom-taught classes and in-depth analysis of specific topics carried out also through seminars.