The Roman linguistic theory in the sociocultural context of 1 B.C. - 1 A.D.

The present article is devoted to an analysis of a correlation existing between the mode of language use, the naïve everyday ontology of language, and the linguistic theory in their determination by the Roman intellectuals' mentality and world-view in 1 B.C. - 1 A.D. In the firs part of the paper the author explores an influence of pansemiotism - an ability to manifest a sign (signum) -upon perception of language essence in the Roman culture. The consequence of the influence was that the language did not have a privileged ontological status. The Romans saw signs of its ontological imperfection in relativity of its meanings and its changeability. A conventional nominalistic attitude towards the language was manifested first of all in that what can be generally called speech culture. The multifold practice of a conscious and purposeful refinement of the speech had as its metaphysic basement a notion of a total progress occurring in the world and fatalism peculiar to the Romans in that time. Having considered the factors determining a creation of the Roman linguistic theory the author comes to an analysis of its conceptual core connected with questions of language origin and genesis. Like Epicurus' disciples stoics solved a problem of language origin par excellence according to a deterministic principle. Proceeding from an idea of universe rationality stoics offered their solution to an old problem of how, naturally or conventionally, first names had been given to things. They found both positions right in their own way: the language had arisen both naturally and conventionally. As far as a problem of language development is concerned there was a tense discussion about it known as the analogists and the anomalists' dispute. The anomalists thought the main thing directing a language dynamics was conscious and unconscious efforts of people as well as other spontaneously happening circumstances. The adherents of the analogy stated the language changed according to its own specific rules. In conclusion of the article the author claims that the sociocultural determinedness of the linguistic theory manifested first in a selection of problems postulated as most important and in the intellectual approaches to their solution and was further elaborated by the followers of concurrent schools (stoics and epicureans; adherents of the analogism and the anomalism). It was argued that in spite of all differences in those approaches and methods their metaphysic basement were common in many ways, because they were predetermined by universal intellectual orientations and notions dominating an elite sphere of that epoch

Keywords

Authors

References