|Sažetak (hrvatski)|| |
Rad se bavi načinima na koje Marulić govori o fenomenu jezika. Analiza je provedena na korpusu od 19 njegovih latinskih i hrvatskih djela. Na početku je ukratko opisan položaj refleksije o jeziku unutar humanističke intelektualne klime. Potom su promotreni Marulićevi osvrti na gramatičku i fonološku strukturu jezika. Nakon toga analiziran je Marulićev odnos prema značenju u jeziku, i to poglavito u kontekstu kršćanske hermeneutičke tradicije kojoj je pripadao. Pokazalo se da središnje mjesto po zastupljenosti i načinu obrade zauzimaju područja značenja koja današnja lingvistika promatra kao rubna, a da su sinkronijski semantički odnosi prikazani marginalno, kao puka alternacija jezičnih znakova. Na kraju su promotreni izrazi za organizaciju diskursa, pragmatičko nadopunjavanje teksta, uvođenje izvora upravnoga govora, procjenu sažetosti i opširnosti teksta te estetičku evaluaciju stila.
|Sažetak (engleski)|| |
This paper deals with the ways in which Marulić speaks of the phenomenon of language. The analysis is conducted on a corpus of 19 of his works in Latin and Croatian. At the beginning, a review is made of the humanist attitude to language, particularly among Marulić’s contemporaries, in the context of changes in the fundamental tendencies in the prehistory and history of linguistic science. In Marulić’s time in this area there was a turn away from the late medieval concern with grammatical rules (ars) in the direction of the humanist and anti-grammatical promotion of language use (usus) as the main educational and developmental principle. Marulić’s unsystematic and rare use of grammatical terminology, and only of that which fell within the fundamental school education of the time, fits well within this picture.
After this, Marulić’s references to the grammatical and phonological structure of language are discussed. Even in In epigr., a work in which we might reasonably expect quite a systematic engagement with grammatical structure, Marulić restricts himself to sporadic and unsystematic notes, and it is much more poorly featured than other linguistic domains. Only in In epigr. does he refer to phonology, for it was necessary to him for the interpretation of the epigraphs. In the same work he uses a number of expressions that refer to morphology and derivation; the notes on syntax are extremely rudimentary and are in fact always occasioned by a need to explain the semantics.
Marulić is most deeply engaged in writing about meaning. In this he has specific priorities, conditioned by the time in which he lives, and his own interests and objects. Most important to him are allegorical relations (most systematically expounded in Tropol. expos.), which only partially fall into the realm of linguistic signification and which have in addition a certain degree of arbitrariness at the level of the individual, explained with separate linguistic means. In allegoresis, biblical names in Hebrew have a key role, serving as a basis for the reflection on the spiritual stratum of meaning. Non-allegorical etymology features relatively poorly, mostly being used for an interpretation of individual words in In epigr. Marulić understands synchronic linguistic explanations as superficial variations of a linguistic expression and undertakes them more through the establishment of links between language and extra-linguistic reality than between linguistic units.
The ways in which text is organised were not included within traditional linguistic analysis, although today discourse markers and phoric elements are considered and analysed as meta-speech about language. The most prominent means through which text is organised in Marulić’s oeuvre are repetition of anaphoric and cataphoric expressions, and deixis directed towards the reader, i.e. to the reader’s engagement in the text. This appears in Marulić in two main forms, which we may call the dialogic (when the writer simulates a dialogue with the reader as motivation for the continuation of the discourse) and final (the writer states what he wants to achieve in the book). Deictic strategies show a certain regularity in their distribution, correlated with the nature of the work in which they appear.
Marulić’s remarks about prolixity and concision of expression are shown in Table 1. From a quantitative analysis of his evaluations, it would be hard to conclude anything more precise about his stylistic preferences. However, an outline image certainly appears suggesting his textual ideal was an adroitly achieved balance between ornament and simplicity, resulting in an easily intelligible and yet substantial and attractive text.
When he evaluates quality of language, in his praises he mirrors familiar stylistic ideals of humanism and antiquity: elegantia, claritas, puritas, ornatus, uetustas, congruitas, uenustas, lepos, breuitas, simplicitas, while in his criticism he makes use of no less well-worn concepts such as rusticitas, barbaries, inconcinnitas, sophisma, obscuritas and prolixitas. Aware, however, of the special position and nature of Biblical language as reflection of the word of God, he expressly exempts it from the stylistic criteria that he applies to other texts.