Book contents
- Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy
- Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Note on texts and translations
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Part I How to command and request in early Latin
- Part II How to say “please” in early Latin, and more
- Part III How to greet and gain attention, and when to interrupt
- Part IV The language of friendship, the language of domination
- Part V Role shifts, speech shifts
- Book part
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index rerum
- Index vocabulorum et locutionum
- Index locorum potiorum
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
Book contents
- Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy
- Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Note on texts and translations
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Part I How to command and request in early Latin
- Part II How to say “please” in early Latin, and more
- Part III How to greet and gain attention, and when to interrupt
- Part IV The language of friendship, the language of domination
- Part V Role shifts, speech shifts
- Book part
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index rerum
- Index vocabulorum et locutionum
- Index locorum potiorum
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy , pp. 355 - 368Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Adams, J. N. 1995. “The Language of the Vindolanda Writing Tablets: An Interim Report.” JRS 85: 86–134.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N., Reinhardt, T. and Lapidge, M.. 2005. “Introduction.” In Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J. N. (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose (Proceedings of the British Academy 129). Oxford, 1–36.Google Scholar
Arnott, G. W. 1964. “The Confrontation of Sostratos and Gorgias.” Phoenix 18: 110–123.Google Scholar
Arnott, G. W. 1965. “Review of Otto Rieth: Die Kunst Menanders in den ‘Adelphen’ des Terenz”. Gnomon 37: 255–263.Google Scholar
Arnott, G. W. 1970. “Phormio Parasitvs: A Study in Dramatic Methods of Characterization.” Greece and Rome 17: 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnott, G. W. 1972. “Targets, Techniques and Traditions in Plautus’ Stichus.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 19: 54–79.Google Scholar
Arnott, G. W. 1995. “Menander’s Manipulation of Character for the Individualisation of Character.” In de Martino, F. and Sommerstein, A. H (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari, 147–164.Google Scholar
Bagordo, A. 2007. “Langverstil und Senarstil bei Terenz.” In Kruschwitz, P., Ehlers, W.-W. and Felgentreu, F (eds.), Terentius Poeta (Zetemata Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 127). Munich, 127–141.Google Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. 2014a. “Quid ais and Female Speech in Roman Comedy.” Hermes 142.4: 480–486.Google Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. 2014b. “The 1st Person Plural ‘Hortatory’ Subjunctive in Plautus and Terence.” RhM 157.3–4: 272–277.Google Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. forthcoming. “The volo Command in Roman Comedy.” Mnemosyne, doi: 10.1163/1568525X-12341827.Google Scholar
Barsby, J. 2004. “Some Aspects of the Language of Cistellaria.” In Hartkamp, R. and Hurka, F. (eds.), Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria. Tübingen, 335–346.Google Scholar
Barwick, K. 1964 [1925]. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri 5, corrected by F. Kühnert. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Becker, E. 1873. “De Syntaxi Interrogationum Obliquarum.” In Studemund, W. (ed.), Studien auf dem Gebiet des Archaischen Lateins. Berlin, 115–314.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. E. 1966 (repr.) Syntax of Early Latin, vol. 1: Syntax of the Early Latin Verb. Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Bettini, M. 1981. “Vel Vibe di Veio e il re Amulio: A proposito di Nevio praet. 5 sg. Ribb.² e di bell. poen. 12 Mor.” MD 6: 163–168.Google Scholar
Blase, H. 1896. “Amabo.” In Wölfflin, E. (ed.), Archiv für Lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik, vol. 9. Leipzig, 485–491.Google Scholar
Blase, H., Landgraf, G., and Golling, J. (eds.) 1903. Historische Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, vol. 3.1: Syntax des Einfachen Satzes. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bloomer, M. 1997. “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education.” ClAnt 16.1: 57–78.Google Scholar
Bloomer, M. 2001. “Cross-Speaking in Plautus: The Economies of Slave and Master in the Captivi.” In Tylawsky, E. I. (ed.), Essays in Honor of Gordon Williams: Twenty-five Years at Yale. New Haven, CT, 33–57.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1989. “Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness.” In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ, 37–70.Google Scholar
Bowman, A. K. and Thomas, J. D.. 1994. The Vindolanda Writing Tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses II). London.Google Scholar
Brooke-Rich, L. 2009. “Language and Power in Roman Comedy.” MA thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Fraser, C.. 1979. “Speech as a Marker of Situation.” In Scherer, K. and Giles, H. (eds.), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge, 33–62.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A.. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, 253–276.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A.. 1989. “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.” Language in Society 18: 159–212.Google Scholar
Burton, P. J. 2004. “Amicitia in Plautus: A Study of Roman Friendship Processes.” AJPh 125.2: 209–243.Google Scholar
Cabrillana, C. 2004. “Forma lingüística y tipo de personaje en la comedia terenciana.” In Eire, A. López and Guerreira, A. Ramos (eds.), Registros lingüísticos en las lenguas clásicas. Salamanca, 11–31.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 1998. “‘Is there any ketchup, Vera?’ Gender, Power, and Pragmatics.” Discourse and Society 9: 437–455.Google Scholar
Carney, T. F. 1964. “The Words sodes and quaeso in Terentian Usage.” Acta Classica 7: 57–63.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. 2010. “Colloquial Language in Literary Studies.” In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge, 42–64.Google Scholar
Christenson, D. 2013. “Eunuch.” In Augoustakis, A. and Traill, A. (eds.), Companion to Terence. Malden, MA, 262–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. 2010. “Colloquial Language in Linguistic Studies.” In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge, 7–11.Google Scholar
Coates, J. 1997. “One-at-a-time: The Organisation of Men’s Talk.” In Johnson, S. and Meinhof, U. (eds.), Language and Masculinity. Oxford, 107–129.Google Scholar
Coates, J. 2003. Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, E. 1995. Musa Lapidaria: A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. 1992. “Prolegomenon to the Structure of Emotion: Gleanings from Neuropsychology.”Cognition and Emotion 6: 245–268.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. D. C. 2006. “Review of Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy by E. Karakasis.” Mnemosyne 59.2: 268–274.Google Scholar
Denizot, C. 2011. Donner des ordres en grec ancien: étude linguistique des formes de l’injonction. Cahiers de l’ERIAC, n°3 – Fonctionnements linguistiques. Mont-Saint-Aignan.Google Scholar
Dessen, C. 1995. “The Figure of the Eunuch in Terence’s Eunuchus.” Helios 22.2: 123–139.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. 1995. “Forms of Address and Conversational Language in Aristophanes and Menander.” Mnemosyne 48.3: 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. 2006. “The Use of sis as a Focus-marking Clitic Particle.” In Kölligan, D. and Sen, R. (eds.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics, vol. 11. Oxford, 21–25.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. 2012b. “The Rules of Politeness and Latin Request Formulae.” In Probert, P. and Willi, A. (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford, 313–328.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (ed.) 2012c. The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, vol 1. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dionisotti, A. C. 1982. “From Ausonius’ Schooldays? A Schoolbook and Its Relatives.” JRS 72: 83–125.Google Scholar
Duckworth, G. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Princeton.Google Scholar
Dumont, J. C. 1974. “Guerre, paix et servitude dans les Captifs.” Latomus 33: 505–522.Google Scholar
Dunsch, B. 2014. “Religion in Roman Comedy.” In Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford, 634–652.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Trans. Swain, Joseph Ward. London.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 1988. “Adolescent Social Structure and the Spread of Linguistic Change.” Language in Society, 17.2: 183–207.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. “Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Linguistic Variation.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 41: 87–100.Google Scholar
Enk, P. J. (ed.) 1979 (repr.) Plauti Truculentus cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentario exegetico. New York.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. and Meillet, A.. 1994. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Paris.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. “‘Is Sybil there?’ The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 5: 25–66.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 1971. “Hautontimoroumenos and Adelphoe: A Study of Fatherhood in Terence and Menander.” Latomus 30.4: 970–998.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 1975. “Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women in New Comedy.” Phoenix 29.1: 44–74.Google Scholar
Feneron, J. S. 1974. “Some Elements of Menander’s Style.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 21: 81–95.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1994. “Dialect, Register, and Genre: Working Assumptions about Conventionalization.” In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford, 15–30.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. 2008. “Politeness in Latin Comedy: Some Preliminary Thoughts.” MD 61: 15–28.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. 2012. “How to Say No in Latin.” In Leiwo, M., Halla-aho, H., and Vierros, M. (eds.), Variation and Change in Greek and Latin. Papers and monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 17. Helsinki. 105–127.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. forthcoming. “An Ancient Grammarian’s View of How the Spoken Language Works: Pragmalinguistic Observations in Donatus’ Commentum Terenti.” In Ferri, R and Zago, A (eds.), The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World (Corpus Christianorum: Lingua Patrum 8).Google Scholar
Ferri, R. and Probert, P.. 2010. “Roman Authors on Colloquial Language.” In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge, 12–41.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. 2004. “Gender Specific Communication in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, with a Research Bibliography.” Historiographia Linguistica 31.2/3: 199–276.Google Scholar
Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A. (eds.) 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Forberg, M. 1913. “De Salutandi Formulis Plautinis et Terentianis.” Dissertation, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. 2007. Plautine Elements in Plautus. Trans. Drevikosky, Tomas and Muecke, Francis. Oxford.Google Scholar
Frangoulidis, S. “Phormio.” In Augoustakis, A., Traill, A. and Thorburn, J. (eds.), A Companion to Terence. Malden, MA, 281–294.Google Scholar
Gaide, F. 2001. “À propos des interactions verbales dans le théâtre de Plaute.” In Moussy, C. and Dangel, J. (eds.), De Lingua Latina Novae Quaestiones: Actes du Xème Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 (Avril 1999). Louvain, 959–969.Google Scholar
Galinksy, G. K. 1969. “Plautus Poenulus and the Cult of Venus Erycina.” In Bibauw, J. (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard, vol. 1. Brussels, 358–364.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P.. 2014. “Deverbal Pragmatic Markers from Latin to Italian.” In Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford, 61–85.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. 1997. “Didactic Poetry as ‘Popular’ Form: A Study of Imperatival Expressions in Latin Didactic Verse and Prose.” In Atherton, C. (ed.), Form and Content in Didactic Poetry. Bari, 67–98.Google Scholar
Gilleland, M. 1979. “The Linguistic Differentiation of Character Type and Sex in the Comedies of Plautus and Terence.” Dissertation, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Gilula, D. 1980. “The Concept of the Bona Meretrix: A Study of Terence’s Courtesans.” RFIC 108: 142–165.Google Scholar
Grant, J. 1975. “The Ending of Terence’s Adelphoe and the Menandrian Original.” AJPh 96.1: 42–60.Google Scholar
Gratwick, A. S. 1982. “Drama.” In Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Vol. 2, Part I. The Early Republic. Cambridge, 77–137.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York, 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimal, P. 1969. “Le modèle et la date des Captivi de Plaute.” In Bibauw, J. (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard, vol. 1. Brussels, 394–414.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1996. “Cicero Fam. 5.8 and Fam. 15.5 in the Light of Modern Politeness Theory.” Antichthon 30: 19–33.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 2005. “Politeness and Formality in Cicero’s Letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27).” MH 62: 193–213.Google Scholar
Hall, K. 1995. “Lip Service on the Fantasy Lines.” In Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York, 183–216.Google Scholar
Hand, F. 1829–1845. Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii. Leipzig. 4 vols.Google Scholar
Handford, S. A. 1946. The Latin Subjunctive. Its Usage and Development from Plautus to Tacitus. London.Google Scholar
Happ, H. 1967. “Die Lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des Plautus.” Glotta 45.1/2: 60–104.Google Scholar
Hine, H. 2011. “‘Discite … Agricolae’: Modes of Instruction in Latin Prose Agricultural Writing from Cato to Pliny the Elder.” CQ 61.2: 624–654.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. E. 1983. “Conversation Openings in the Comedies of Plautus.” In Pinkster, H. (ed.), Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam, 217–228.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 2011. “Complimenting: A Positive Politeness Strategy.” In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford, 71–88.Google Scholar
James, S. 2013. “Gender and Sexuality in Terence.” In Augoustakis, A., Traill, A. and Thorburn, J. (eds.), A Companion to Terence. Malden, MA, 175–194.Google Scholar
James, S. 2015. “Mater, Oratio, Filia.” In Dutsch, D., James, S. L., and Konstan, D. (eds.), Women in Roman Republican Drama. Madison, WI, 108–127.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1993. “Sprache, Schriftlichkeit, und Charakterisierung in der römischen Komödie (Plautus, Pseudolus 41–73, 998–1014).” In Vogt-Spira, G. (ed.), Beiträge zur Mündlichen Kultur der Römer. Tübingen, 125–139.Google Scholar
Karakasis, E. 2014. “Tragic and Epic Interactions in Terentian Comedy.” In Papaioannou, S. (ed.), Terence and Interpretation. Newcastle upon Tyne, 75–93.Google Scholar
Katsouris, A. 1975. Linguistic and Stylistic Characterization: Tragedy and Menander. Ioannina.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W. (eds.) 1982. The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. 2, part I: The Early Republic. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kenny, A. 1982. The Computation of Style: An Introduction to Statistics for Students of Literature and Humanities. Oxford.Google Scholar
Kissine, M. 2012. “Sentences, Utterances, and Speech Acts.” In Jaszczolt, K. and Allan, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, Cambridge, 169–190.Google Scholar
Knorr, O. 2007. “Metatheatrical Humor in Terence.” In Kruschwitz, P., Ehlers, W. and Felgentreu, F. (eds.), Terentius Poeta (Zetemata Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 127). Munich, 167–174.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2010. “Are Fellow Citizens Friends? Aristotle versus Cicero on Philia, Amicitia, and Social Solidarity.” In Rosen, R. and Sluiter, I. (eds.), Valuing Others in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieter-Spiro, M. 1997. Sklaven, Köche und Hetären: Das Dienstpersonal bei Menander. Stellung, Rolle, Komik und Sprache. Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, C. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero, and at. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P. 2012. “Language, Sex, and (Lack of) Power: Reassessing the Linguistic Discourse about Female Speech in Latin Sources.” Athenaeum 100.1–2: 197–229.Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P. 2013. “Memento Mori: The Use(s) of the Future Imperative in the Carmina Latina Epigraphica.” In Martínez, C. Fernández, Belén, M. Limón, Pallarès, J. Gómez and Calleja, J. del Hoyo (eds.), Ex officina: Literatura epigráfica en verso. Seville, 193–216.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. 1998. “New Zealand Sporting Formulae: Two Models of Male Socialisation.” In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford, 285–293.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1972. “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” In Peranteau, P. M, Levi, J. L and Phares, G. C (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society April 14–16, 1972. Chicago, 183–228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1973b. “The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding your P’s and Q’s.” In Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. C. and Weiser, A. (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society April 13–15 1973. Chicago, 292–305.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. and Bucholtz, M. 2004. Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. New York.Google Scholar
Lefèvre, E. 1983. “La structure des Adelphes de Térence comme critère d’analyse.” In Zehnacker, H (ed.), Théâtre et spectacles dans l’antiquité. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 5–7 novembre 1981. Leiden, 169–179.Google Scholar
Lefèvre, E. 1998. “Plautus’ Captivi oder Die Palliata als Prätexta.” In Benz, L. and Lefèvre, E. (eds.), Maccus barbarus: Sechs Kapitel zur Originalität der Captivi des Plautus. Tübingen, 9–50.Google Scholar
Leo, F. 1883. “Lectiones Plautinae.” Hermes 18: 558–587 = Fraenkel, E (ed.), 1960. Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften, vol. 1. Rome, 3–33.Google Scholar
Leo, F. 1912. Plautinische Forschungen: Zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie. Berlin.Google Scholar
Letessier, P. 2000. “La ‘salutatio’ chez Plaute: adaptation ludique d’un rituel social.” Lalies 20: 151–163.Google Scholar
Lindsay, W. M. (ed.) 2003. Nonius Marcellus De compendiosa doctrina: libros XX. Munich.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. 2004. “The Politeness of Achilles: Off-record Conversation Strategies in Homer and the Meaning of kertomia.” JHS 124: 75–89.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. 2006. “Sophocles in the Light of Face-Threat Politeness Theory.” In de Jong, I. J. F. and Rijksbaron, A. (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects of Diction, Syntax, and Pragmatics. Leiden, 225–239.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. 2009. “The Language of the Gods: Politeness in the Prologue of the Troades.” In Cousland, J. R. C. and Hume, J. R (eds.), The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp. Leiden, 183–192.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1973. “Terentian Technique in the Adelphi and the Eunuchus.” CQ 23.2: 279–284.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, L. 1966. Les expressions du commandement et de la défense en latin et leur survie dans les langues romanes. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Mack, A. M. 1967. “Mulieres comicae: Female Characters in Plautus and his Predecessors.” Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1946. “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., The Meaning of Meaning, 8th edn. New York, 296–336.Google Scholar
Maltby, R. 1979. “Linguistic Characterization of Old Men in Terence.” CPh 74.2: 136–147.Google Scholar
Maltby, R. 1995. “The Distribution of Greek Loan-Words in Plautus.” In Brock, R. and Woodman, A. J. (eds.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol. 8. Leeds, 31–69.Google Scholar
Maltby, R. 2014. “Donatus on ‘Appropriate Style’ in the Plays of Terence.” In Papaioannou, S. (ed.), Terence and Interpretation. Newcastle upon Tyne, 201–221.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, J. 1922. L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. I: Les groupes nominaux. Paris.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. W. 2009 (repr. with corrections). The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Martin, R. H. 1995. “A Not-So-Minor Character in Terence’s Eunuchus.” CPh 90.2: 139–151.Google Scholar
McCarthy, K. 2000. Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. 1978. “Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York, 261–280.Google Scholar
Müller, R. 1997. Sprechen und Sprache. Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Núñez, S. 1995. “Materiales para una sociología de la lengua latina: Terencio y los modificadores de imperativo.” Florentia Iliberritana 6: 347–366.Google Scholar
O’Barr, W. and Atkins, B. K.. 1980. “Women’s Language or ‘Powerless Language’?” In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R. and Furman, N. (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York, 93–110.Google Scholar
Osmun, G. F. 1952. “Dialogue Technique in Menander.” Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Owens, W. M. 2000. “Plautus’ Stichus and the Political Crisis of 200 BC.” AJPh 121.3: 385–407.Google Scholar
Packman, Z. M. 1999. “Feminine Role Designations in the Comedies of Plautus.” AJPh 120.2: 245–258.Google Scholar
Paoli, U. E. 1943. “L’ἐπίκληρος Attica nella palliata romana.” Atene e Roma 11: 19–29 = Paoli, U. E., 1976. Altri studi di diritto Greco e Romano. Milan, 103–112.Google Scholar
Parker, H. 1989. “Crucially Funny or Tranio on the Couch: The Servus Callidus and Jokes about Torture.” TAPhA 119: 233–246.Google Scholar
Petersmann, H 1995. “Zur Mündlichen Charakterisierung des Fremden in der Komödie des Plautus.” In Benz, L., Stärk, E. and Vogt-Spira, G. (eds.), Plautus und die Tradition des Stegreifspiels: Festgabe für Eckard Lefèvre zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen, 123–136.Google Scholar
Petersmann, H 1996–1997. “Die Nachahmung des sermo rusticus auf der Bühne des Plautus und Terenz.” AAntHung 37: 199–211.Google Scholar
Poccetti, P. 2010. “Greeting and Farewell Expressions as Evidence for Colloquial Language: Between Literary and Epigraphical Texts.” In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge, 100–126.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, S. 1975. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York.Google Scholar
Raccanelli, R. 1998. L’amicitia nelle commedie di Plauto: un’indagine antropologica. Bari.Google Scholar
Reay, B. 2005. “Agriculture, Writing, and Cato’s Aristocratic Self-Fashioning.” CA 24.2: 331–361.Google Scholar
Rei, A. 1998. “Villains, Wives, and Slaves in the Comedies of Plautus.” In Joshel, S. R. and Murnaghan, S. (eds.), Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture: Differential Equations. London and New York, 92–108.Google Scholar
Riccotilli, L. 2003. “Lettura pragmatica del finale degli Adelphoe.” Dioniso 2: 60–83.Google Scholar
Richter, P. 1873. “Heus.” In Studemund, W. (ed.), Studien auf dem Gebiet des Archaischen Lateins, vol. 1. Berlin, 566–579.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. 1989. “Latin Illocutionary Parentheticals.” Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1–4: 367–378.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. 1993. The Imperative and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. 1994. “Modo and sane, or What to Do with Particles in Latin Directives.” In Herman, J. (ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected Papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam, 319–342.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. 2005. “L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute.” In Calboli, G. (ed.), Papers on Grammar IX.2. Rome, 921–932.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. 2008. “Les débuts des dialogues dans la comédie et la tragédie latines.” In Bureau, B. and Nicolas, C. (eds.), Commencer et finir: débuts et fins dans les littératures grecque, latin et néolatin. Lyon, 207–222.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. 2010. “Interpellation et enjeux de pouvoir dans les comédies et tragédies latines,” CORELA (Numéros thématiques | L’interpellation). Online at: http://corela.revues.org/1632 (accessed December 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Rosén, H. 1999. Latine loqui: Trends and Directions in the Crystallization of Classical Latin. Munich.Google Scholar
Rothwell, K. 1995. “Aristophanes’ Wasps and the Socio-politics of Aesop’s Fables.” CJ 93: 233–254.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G.. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50.4: 696–735.Google Scholar
Sandbach, F. H. 1970. “Menander’s Manipulation of Language for Dramatic Purposes.” Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 26: 113–136.Google Scholar
Sandbach, F. H. 1978. “Donatus’ Use of the Name Terentius and the End of Terence’s Adelphoe.” BICS 25: 123–145.Google Scholar
Scafuro, A. C. 2003–2004. “The Rigmarole of the Parasite’s Contract for a Prostitute in Asinaria: Legal Documents in Plautus and His Predecessors.” LICS 3.4. Online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics/ (accessed December 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Schauwecker, Y. 2002. “Zum Sprechverhalten der Frauentypen bei Plautus.” Gymnasium 109: 191–211.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, E. 1977. “Der Typ der ‘uxor dotata’ in den Komödien des Plautus.” Philologus 121: 45–65.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York, 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–24.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., and Cheney, D. L.. 2012. “The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship.” Annual Review of Psychology 63: 153–177.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. 1997. “Haud Mollia Iussa” [response to Gibson 1997]. In Atherton, C. (ed.), Form and Content in Didactic Poetry. Bari, 99–115.Google Scholar
Siess, H. 1906. “Über die Characterzeichnung in den Komödien des Terenz.” WS 28: 229–262.Google Scholar
Siess, H. 1908a. “Über die Characterzeichnung in den Komödien des Terenz: II.” WS 29: 81–109.Google Scholar
Siess, H. 1908b. “Über die Characterzeichnung in den Komödien des Terenz: III.” WS 29: 289–320.Google Scholar
Slater, N. W. 1988. “The Fictions of Patriarchy in Terence’s Hecyra.” CW 81.4: 249–260.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. 1995. “The Language of Athenian Women.” In de Martino, F. and Sommerstein, A. H (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari, 61–85.Google Scholar
Spranger, P. 1984. Historische Untersuchungen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Stockert, W. 1982. “Zur sprachlichen Charakterisierung der Personen in Plautus Aulularia.” Gymnasium 89: 4–14.Google Scholar
Stockert, W. 2004. “Schwören auch Frauen bei Herkules? – Bemerkungen zu Cist. 52 und anderen Plautus-Stellen.” In Hartkamp, R. and Hurka, F. (eds.), Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria. Tübingen, 363–370.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1987. “Repetition in Conversation as Spontaneous Formulaicity.” Text 7: 215–243.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. 2003. “Generalised and Particularised Implicatures of Linguistic Politeness.” In Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H. and Zeevat, H. (eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millenium. Amsterdam, 149–164.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. 2007. “Toward a Universal Notion of Face for a Universal Notion of Co-operation.” In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin, 313–344.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. 2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness.” In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. (eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin, 45–74.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. 2012. “Politeness and Pragmatics.” In Jaszczolt, K. and Allan, K (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge, 617–637.Google Scholar
Thamm, G. 1972. “Beobachtungen zur Form des plautinischen Dialogs.” Hermes 100: 558–567.Google Scholar
Traill, A. 2013. “Adelphoe.” In Augoustakis, A. and Traill, A. (eds.), Companion to Terence. Malden, MA, 318–339.Google Scholar
Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin.Google Scholar
Unceta-Gómez, L. 2009. La petición verbal en Latín: estudio léxico, semántico y pragmatico. Madrid.Google Scholar
Vairel-Carron, H. 1975. Exclamation, ordre, et défense: analyse de deux systèmes syntaxiques en Latin. Paris.Google Scholar
Valentini, A. 2012. Matronae tra novitas e mos maiorum: spazi e modalità dell’azione pubblica femminile nella Roma medio repubblicana. Venice.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. 1977. “Making a Scene: Language and Gesture in Coriolanus.” In Alexander, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Shakespeare Library, vol. 2: Shakespeare Criticism. Cambridge, 276–286.Google Scholar
Verboven, K. 2011. “Friendship.” In Peachin, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. New York, 404–421.Google Scholar
Victor, B. 2012 “Terentius orator an poeta: The Endings of Eunuchus and Adelphoe.” CQ 62: 671–691.Google Scholar
Victor, B. 2013. “History of the Text and Scholia.” In Augoustakis, A., Traill, A. and J. Thorburn (eds.), A Companion to Terence. Malden, MA, 343–363.Google Scholar
Welsh, J. 2015. “Roman Women in the fabula togata.” In Dutsch, D., James, S. L. and Konstan, D. (eds.), Women in Roman Republican Drama. Madison, WI, 155–170.Google Scholar
Wessner, P. 1902–1908. Commentum Terenti, accedunt Eugraphi commentum et scholia Bembina. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Willcock, M. 1995. “Plautus and the Epidicus.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol. 8. Leeds, 19–29.Google Scholar
Willi, A. 2003. The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford.Google Scholar
Willi, A. 2002. “The Language of Greek Comedy: Introduction and Bibliographical Sketch.” In Willi, A. (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy. Oxford, 1–32.Google Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. and Hughes, A.. 1986. Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wright, J. 1974. Dancing in Chains: The Stylistic Unity of the comoedia palliata. Rome.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. 2005. “A Chinese Yuppie in Beijing: Phonological Variation and the Construction of a New Professional Identity.” Language in Society 34: 431–66.Google Scholar
Zucker, F. 1950. Freundschaftsbewährung in der neuen attischen Komödie: ein Kapitel hellenistischer Ethik und Humanität. Berlin.Google Scholar