Apart from the parallel sessions, workshops will take place at ICLL 2025.

Workshop proposals should be addressed to the Organizer: renato.oniga[at]uniud.it 

The following Workshops have been approved. For further information, please contact their respective organizers.

1. Highlights of Latinitas.
Theoretical framework and grammatical practices

Organizers:
Mario De Nonno: mario.denonno[at]uniroma3.it
Paolo De Paolis: paolo.depaolis[at]univr.it
Alessandro Garcea: alessandro.garcea[at]paris-sorbonne.fr

Description:
In a linguistic context, the term Latinitas first appears in Rhet. Her. 4.17, signifying purity of expression and the careful selection of words and grammar, free from defects such as barbarisms and solecisms. Varro provides a more detailed definition (fr. 268 p. 289-90 Funaioli = fr.115 Goetz - Schoell) in a passage preserved by Diomedes (GL 1.439.15-30). Scholars agree that this passage, likely derived from a Greek model, was considered canonical by the late Republican era. It identifies four parameters—nature, analogy, usage, and authority—as both fundamental elements of language and criteria for assessing its correctness. Despite this consensus, Varro's definition has sparked considerable debate and even questions about its authenticity. Quintilian offers a different perspective, listing and succinctly defining the factors of sermo with a different hierarchy (inst. 1.6.1-3), possibly influenced by an antidogmatic stance found in Pliny's Dubius sermo. The evolution of thought on the Latin language and the diversification of textual typologies (theoretical or pedagogical works, commentaries, metrical and spelling handbooks, etc.) required continuous adaptations of the conceptual framework, resulting in a complex, multifaceted system that merits renewed study.

Starting from this definition of the beginnings and various interpretations of Latinitas in Latin grammatical and scholarly literature, this workshop aims to explore this essential concept in ancient Latin language studies. It will focus on the origin and development of Latinitas in relation to Greek linguistic and rhetorical doctrines introduced in Rome in the first century B.C. Another focus will be the evolution of Latinitas from the end of the Republic to the early imperial era, leading to the creation of De Latinitate treatises. These treatises represent the learned strand of Latin grammar, compiling significant linguistic observations and quotations from Latin literary texts that span from the archaic to more recent periods. This body of material later became a key resource for subsequent grammatical works, much of which has come down to us, providing examples to address incorrect usages proliferating in later centuries.

Papers can be proposed on the following topics:

• The origin of the definition of Latinitas and its relation to the concept of ἑλληνισμός;
• The debate on Latinitas from the late Republic to the early imperial era;
• The use of Latinitas in Latin grammatical treatises;
• The treatises and sections De Latinitate in grammatical handbooks and treatises;
• The concept of Latinitas in opposition to vitia orationis.

Bibliography:
J.N. Adams, ‘Romanitas’ and the Latin Language, in «Classical Quarterly», 53/1, 2003, pp. 184-205.

M. Baratin, Remarques sur la place et le rôle du concept de latinité dans les grammaires latines antiques, «Ktèma» 13, 1988 [ma 1992], pp. 187-193 [rist. in J. Dangel (éd.) Grammaire et rhétorique: notion de romanité. Actes du colloque organisé à Strasbourg les 28, 29 et 30 novembre 1990 par l’Institut de Latin avec le concours du Centre de recherche sur le Proche Orient et la Grèce antiques et du Groupe de recherche d’histoire romaine, Strasbourg 1994, pp. 51-57].

W.M. Bloomer, Latinitas, in D.S. Richter - W.A. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The Second Sophistic, Oxford - New York 2017, pp. 67-79, 689-690.

G. Calboli, Cornifici seu Incerti Auctoris Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, Berlin – Boston 2020, 3 voll.

A. Chahoud, Alterità linguistica, latinitas e ideologia tra Lucilio e Cicerone, in R. Oniga – S. Vatteroni (a cura di), Plurilinguismo letterario, Soveria Mannelli, 2007, 41-58.

J. Clackson, Latinitas, Ἑλληνισμός and Standard Languages, «Studi e Saggi Linguistici» 53/2, 2015, pp. 309-330.

R. Coleman, Quintilian I. 6 and the definition of Latinitas, in C. Moussy - J. Dangel (ed.), De lingua Latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xe Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19-23 avril 1999, Louvain - Paris - Sterling (Virginia) 2001, pp. 917-930.

M. De Nonno, Vetustas e antiquitas, veteres e antiquinei grammatici latini, in S. Rocchi - C. Mussini (ed.), Imagines Antiquitatis. Representations, Concepts, Receptions of the Past in Roman Antiquity and the Early Italian Renaissance, Berlin-Boston 2017, pp. 213-247.

P. De Paolis, Il concetto di Latinitas da Varrone ai grammatici latini, «Invigilata Lucernis» 42, 2020, 275-285.

F. Desbordes, Latinitas: constitution et évolution d’un modèle de l’identité linguistique, in Ead., Idées grecques et romaines sur le langage. Travaux d’histoire et d’épistémologie, Lyon 2007, pp. 91-105 [orig. in S. Saïd (éd.), ̔Ελληνισμός. Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 25-27 octobre 1989, Leiden 1991, pp. 33-47].

M.C. Díaz y Díaz, Latinitas. Sobre la evolución de su concepto, «Emerita» 19, 1951, pp. 35-50.

A.C. Dionisotti, Hellenismus, in O. Weijers (ed.), Vocabulary of Teaching and Research between Middle Ages and Renaissance. Proceedings of the Colloquium London, Warburg Institute, 11-12 March 1994, Turnhout 1995, pp. 45-58.

L. Fladerer, Augustinus und die Latinitas, «Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft» n. F. 33, 2009, pp. 123-137.

P. Flobert, Lingua Latina et lingua Romana: purisme, administration et invasions barbares, «Ktèma» 13, 1988 [ma 1992], 205-212 [rist. in J. Dangel (éd.) Grammaire et rhétorique: notion de romanité. Actes du colloque organisé à Strasbourg les 28, 29 et 30 novembre 1990 par l’Institut de Latin avec le concours du Centre de recherche sur le Proche Orient et la Grèce antiques et du Groupe de recherche d’histoire romaine, Strasbourg 1994, pp. 69-76].

A. Garcea, Caesar’s De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford 2012.

S. Grebe, Kriterien für die Latinitasbei Varro und Quintilian, in A. Haltenhoff – F.-H. Mutschler [Hrsgg.], Hortus litterarum antiquarum. Festschrift für Hans Armin Gärtner zum 70. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 2000, pp. 191-210.

V. Lomanto, Il sistema del sermo Latinus in Quintiliano, G. in Bàrberi Squarotti (ed.), Voce di molte acque. Miscellanea di studi offerti a Eugenio Corsini, Torino 1994, pp. 237-256.

L. Pagani, Language Correctness (Hellenismos) and Its Criteria, in F. Montanari - S. Matthaios - A. Rengakos (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2, Between Theory and Practice, Leiden – Boston 2015, pp. 798-849.

R. Müller, Sprachbewußtein und und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike, München 2001.

E. Siebenborn, Die Lehre von der Sprachrichitigkeit und ihren Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik, Amsterdam 1976.

Ch.N. Smiley, Latinitasand ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ. The Influence of the Stoic Theory of Style as Shown in the Writings of Dionysius, Quintilian, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Fronto, Au lus Gellius, and Sextus Empiricus, «Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, Philology and Literature Series» 3/3, 1906, pp. 205-272.

J.E.G. Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators. An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 BCE - 800 CE, Oxford 2018.

2. Argument structure alternations in Latin

Organizers:
Jaume Mateu (UAB): jaume.mateu@uab.cat
Jesús de la Villa (UAM): jesus.delavilla@uam.es

Description:
The aim of this workshop is to examine some of the major empirical and theoretical results pertaining to the morphosyntax and semantics of predicate argument relations in Latin. More particularly, this workshop will primarily concentrate on extracting the empirical and theoretical generalizations of the lasting results of the past forty years or so on the so-called “argument structure alternations” in Latin (e.g. the causative/anticausative alternation, the locative alternation, alternations with psychological verbs, oblique and double object alternations, active-passive alternations, etc.). For example, see Lemaire (1983) for a distinguished pioneering work on this topic in Latin and Devine & Stephens (2013) for an informative overview of some relevant argument structure alternations found in this language.

What linguists often refer to under the label ‘argument structure’ is the relational semantics of participancy between arguments and predicates. Argument structure has been a major focus of past and present investigations in linguistics: for example, important work like the one developed by Levin (1993) has been a constant source of inspiration for many researchers of (verbal) argument structure in different languages, including Latin (e.g. see Torrego (2018) and Villa (2015), i.a.) and Ancient Greek (Villa 2017). The answers given to questions related to argument structure alternations, such as, for instance, whether the two alternating frames have the same or different semantics have had wide-ranging implications, often determined one’s position on the nature of said alternations, one’s analysis thereof and even one’s views of the clausal architecture underlying the alternation.

Descriptive and theoretical approaches to argument structure alternations in Latin are welcome. Despite the different theoretical approaches to argument structure (e.g. structuralist, functionalist, cognitivist or generativist ones), the relevant descriptive patterns that have been acknowledged by researchers of different theoretical persuasions in Latin Linguistics should form a solid empirical basis on which some kind of consensus in this fruitful research area could hopefully be established.

Possible topics of papers:
Some questions that can be considered of interest for the present call for papers include, but are not limited to, the following ones:

- What are the empirical and theoretical contributions of Latin Linguistics to the domain of argument realization and argument structure alternations from a typological perspective (e.g. Lehmann 2002; Inglese 2021; i.a.)?

- Are there pragmatic and/or information structure factors involved in the choice between the two alternating frames, for various types of alternations in Latin (e.g. Bolkestein 1989, i.a.)? Besides the derivational and non-derivational approaches to argument structure alternations, is there evidence for the proposal that the choice between the two constructions is more probabilistic and comes down to which construction is licensed in a given discourse context?

- What are the empirical and theoretical contributions of Latin Linguistics to the debate between lexicalist/projectionist (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005) vs. constructionist (Goldberg 1995, 2006) approaches to argument structure (alternations)? Does the study of Latin provide evidence for the well-known distinction between verbal/root meaning and constructional/structural meaning (e.g. Acedo-Matellán 2016, i.a.)? But see Croft (2012) for the difficulty to identify the semantic contributions of verb and construction.

- Is there evidence for associating argument structure with event structure (e.g. see Ramchand (2008), i.a.) in Latin? For example, Devine & Stephens (2013) and Mateu (2017a) take the position that the semantic information associated to (verbal) argument structures in Latin is best described as a structured representation of event semantics involving grammatically relevant notions such as cause, change, and result. Are these factors involved in drawing generalizations concerning Subject or Object selection, types of constructional alternation, and interactions with explicit morphology?

References:
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. (1989). “Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin”. In Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.). Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. 3-35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Croft, William (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2013). Semantics for Latin. An Introduction. Oxford & New  York: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford & New  York: Oxford University Press.

Inglese, Guglielmo (2021). “Anticausativization and basic valency orientation in Latin”. In Silvia Luraghi & Elisa Roma (eds.). Valency over time. 133–168. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

Lehmann, Christian (2002). “Latin valency in typological perspective.” In A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Caroline Kroon, Harm Pinkster, Wim Remmelink & Rodie Risselada (eds.). Theory and description in Latin Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XIth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam June 24-29, 2001. 183-203. Leiden: Brill.  

Lemaire, Maryvonne (1983). “Un aspect de l’échange des arguments du verbe: les verbes à double régime de l’objet en latin”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 78: 283-324.

Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mateu, Jaume. (2017). “State and change of state in Latin: A view from the lexicon-syntax interface”. In O. Fernández-Soriano et al. (eds.). Boundaries, Phases, and Interfaces. Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte. 344-366. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ramchand, Gillian C. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Torrego, María Esperanza (2018). “Lexique, sémantique et syntaxe: étude de la complémentation du verbe latin consto.” Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout. De Lingua Latina 17: 1-26.

De la Villa, Jesús (2015). “Verbal alternations in Latin.” Paper presented at the XVIII International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, June 8-13, Toulouse.

De la Villa, Jesús (2017). “Verbal alternations in Ancient Greek as an interface between lexicon and syntax.” In Felicia Logozzo & Paolo Pocetti (eds.). Ancient Greek Linguistics: New Approaches, Insights, Perspectives. 535-550. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.

3. Style & Latin Linguistics¹

Organizers:
Suzanne Adema (Leiden University): s.m.adema[at]hum.leidenuniv.nl
Margherita Fantoli (KU Leuven): margherita.fantoli[at]kuleuven.be
Lidewij van Gils (University of Amsterdam): l.w.vangils[at]uva.nl
Caroline Kroon (University of Amsterdam): c.h.m.kroon[at]uva.nl

Description:
In 1985 Harm Pinkster ended his linguistically thrusted article on Latin Stylistics with the words: „Gibt es eigentlich überhaupt eine Stilistik?“ After four decades of advancements in the field of Latin linguistics, in which the relatively new subfields of pragmatics and sociolinguistics came to be enriched by, inter alia, discourse, cognitive and digital approaches, it seems relevant and opportune to raise this question anew.
In the abovementioned article, Pinkster draws attention to the methodological divide in main stream Latin philology between studies that approach style as ‘Sprachstil’, focusing on linguistic particularities at a micro level of the text, and studies that approach style as ‘literarischer Stil’, in which stylistic analysis is taken as more or less equivalent to interpretation and in which the object of interest is more at the macro level.² Both approaches are not very explicit as to what they mean by ‘style’ and show a lack of clarity as to both the type of phenomena involved and the methods of research to be applied. The result is, in Pinkster’s words, ‘ein unsystematischer Katalog linguistischer Beobachtungen’ (1985: 67).
In the proposed workshop, we would like to pick up the discussion Pinkster started in 1985, in an attempt to contribute − from the field of contemporary Latin linguistics − to a more general discussion on the complex concept of style. This general discussion centres around questions such as: what definition of style do we use, what phenomena exactly are we talking about when we use the term, and what are our research objectives in stylistic research? The more specific and modest questions we would like to address in the proposed workshop are how the achievements of many centuries of research in Latin stylistics (starting with Antiquity itself) relate to, and may be sharpened by, the results of recent developments in Latin linguistics; and how the ‘style’ and ‘stylistic devices’ of our texts can best be determined.
It is our conviction that in answering these and related questions, substantive progress could be made based on recent developments in the field of Latin linguistics. These may, on the one hand, enable us to bridge the gap between research on ‘Sprachstil’ and research on ‘literarischer Stil’, and on the other hand offer us the (digital and other) tools to develop a systematic method of stylistic analysis in which a heterogeneous set of features can be studied in combination, and in large corpora of texts. A first development is linguistic research on the (macro)structure of the text, based on acquired insights into pragmatic linguistic phenomena like word order, particles/discourse markers, speech acts/illocution, tense usage, active–passive variation, anaphoric reference, and combinations of these. This research can be roughly divided into two branches, following the two types of discourse they focus on: narrative structure and conversational structure.³ A second relevant development is the introduction of cognitive theories in the study of the Latin language and literature, drawing attention to, inter alia, the effects (emotive, affective, or otherwise) of linguistic choices on recipients, and on such cognitive aspects as experientiality, epistemic immediacy, processing ease and cognitive alignment.⁴ Thirdly, reference can be made here to the progress made in recent years in quantitative and digital research methods, including specific studies on computational stylometry.⁵ We believe the time is ripe to synthesize these promising trends and advancements and try to take the discussion on Latin linguistics and stylistic research to the next level.
As a starting point, we suggest using Pinkster’s functionally oriented definition of style (1985: 69), which approaches style primarily as linguistic choice⁶: style involves the particular way in which speakers/authors give linguistic form to a particular event, fact or thought, thereby consciously or unconsciously led by the communicative goal they attempt to achieve, and the intended effect on their addressee/audience. Thus, in this view, style is approached as a choice between several available linguistic options that are related to a specific communicative function, rather than as an inventory of quite random authorial or generic preferences.

Possible topics of papers:
For this workshop we welcome contributions that, from a linguistic point of view, address issues that are relevant to the questions posed above, or form an illustration of how the newer trends in linguistic research mentioned above may benefit stylistic research on individual authors and genres, and on comparative stylistic research. Contributions can include both literary and non-literary material and can have a synchronic or diachronic perspective.

Please, indicate in your abstract your methodology, corpus and relevance for the workshop. The selection procedure follows the same procedure and deadlines as the one for the general sessions of the ICLL: please send your provisional title to the local organization in Udine (with cc to c.h.m.kroon@uva.nl) before September 15^th and an abstract before November 15t^th, adding that the paper is meant to be part of the workshop ‘Style and Latin Linguistics’. For any questions concerning participation in this workshop, please, send an email to one of the organizers.

¹The proposed workshop is the next in a series of workshops which contribute from the field of linguistics to the Anchoring Innovation Gravitation Grant research agenda of OIKOS, the National Research School in Classical Studies in the Netherlands. An earlier linguistic workshop in this context was held at the ICLL in Las Palmas in 2019, with the topic of Communicative Anchoring (see Martin Rodriguez 2020).

²  Pinkster 1985: 67-68. A representative example of the more traditional linguistic approach to Latin stylistics is Szantyr 1965; for the literary approach see e.g. Richter’s studies (1972; 1973) on the style of Tacitus and Sallust. For recent literary work on style in Latin, see Dainotti, Hasegawa, and Harrison 2024.

³  For state of the arts studies on Latin pragmatics, see e.g. Denizot & Spevak 2017, Martin, Iurescia, Hof &  Sorrentino 2020, and Berger & Unceta 2022;  for narrative structure an upcoming volume by Adema & Allan (in prep); and for conversational structure an upcoming volume by Verano (in prep).

⁴ See e.g.  Fedriani 2014; Devereaux 2016; Adema 2019; van Gils & Kroon 2019; and the upcoming volume by Fedriani & De Felice (in prep.).

⁵ See e.g. Longrée and Mellet 2018 for the application of the method of computational stylometry to Latin literature. See e.g. Chen et al. 2024; Kestemont 2016 and Agapitos and van Cranenburgh 2024 for the method of computational stylometry to texts whose authorship attribution has been disputed in scholarship. In the last few years a couple of dissertations have appeared in which quantitative data and methods were used in the investigation of the style and language of individual authors and genres. See e.g. Breunesse (to app.) on Plautus,  Fantoli (2020) on Pliny the Elder, Stienaers (2024) on Sallust, Caesar and Tacitus, and Vendel (2023) on Cicero’s oratory. 

⁶ Since Marouzeau’s seminal study on stylistics from 1935 this view has been commonplace. See also Eckert & Rickford 2002 for a sociolinguistic approach.

References:
Adema, S.M. (2019). Tenses in Vergil’s Aeneid. Narrative Style and Structure. Leiden.

Adema, S.M. & R.J. Allan, eds. (in prep). The Language of Ancient Greek and Latin Narratives.

Agapitos, P., & Cranenburgh, A. van. (2024). A Stylometric Analysis of Seneca’s Disputed Plays. Authorship Verification of Octavia and Hercules Oetaeus. (preprint) doi.org/10.26083/TUPRINTS-00027394

Berger, Ł & L. Unceta Gómez, eds. (2022). Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin. Cambridge,

Breunesse, M.E. (to appear). Demonstrative reference in Plautus. Leiden.

Chen, S., Burns, P., Bolt, T., Chaudhuri, P.  and Dexter, J. (2024). Leveraging Part-of-Speech Tagging for Enhanced Stylometry of Latin Literature. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Machine Learning for Ancient Languages (ML4AL 2024), 251–259, Hybrid in Bangkok, Thailand and online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Dainotti, P., A. Pinheiro Hasegawa & S. J. Harrison, eds. (2024). Style in Latin Poetry. Berlin.

Denizot, C. & O. Spevak, eds. (2017). Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam.

Devereaux, J. (2016). Embodied historiography: Models for reasoning in Tacitus’ Annales. In W.M. Short, Embodiment in Latin Semantics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 237-268

Eckert, P. & J. R. Rickford, eds. (2002) Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge.

Fantoli, M. (2020). “Res ardua vetustis novitatem dare, novis auctoritatem”: étude contrastive des enjeux linguistiques et communicatifs du deuxième livre de la Naturalis Historia de Pline l’Ancien. PhD thesis Université de Liège.

Fedriani, C. (2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden.

Fedriani, Chiara & Irene De Felice, eds. (in prep). Studies in Cognitive Classical Semantics.

Alessandria.

Gils, L.W. van & C.H.M. Kroon (2019). Engaging the audience. An intersubjectivity approach to the historic present tense in Latin. In: L.W. van Gils, C. Kroon & R. Risselada (eds), Lemmata Linguistica Latina. Volume 2: Clause and Discourse. Berlin, 351-373 (open access)

Kestemont, M., Stover, J., Koppel, M., Karsdorp, F., & Daelemans, W. (2016). Authenticating the writings of Julius Caesar. Expert Systems with Applications, 63, 86–96. doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.029

Longrée, D. & S., & S. Mellet (2018). Towards a topological grammar of genres and styles: a way to combine paradigmatic quantitative analysis with a syntagmatic approach. In D. Legallois, T. Charnois & M. Larjavaara (eds) The Grammar of Genres and Styles: From Discrete to Non-Discrete Units, 320, Berlin, 140-163.

Marouzeau, J. (1935). Traité de stylistique Latine. Paris.

Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., & Sorrentino, G., eds. (2020). Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Leiden. doi.org/10.1163/9789004440265

Martin Rodriguez, A.M. (2020). Linguisticae Dissertationes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon and Pragmatics. Madrid.

Pinkster, H. (1985). Lateinische Stilistik: eine Übersicht. Sprache und Literatur 16.1: 67-77.

Richter, W. (1972). Tacitus als Stilist. Altsprachlicher Unterricht, Beiheft 1 der Reihe 14: 111-128.

Richter, W. (1973). Der Manierismus des Sallust und die Sprache der römischen Historiographie. ANRW I, 3: 655-680.

Stienaers, D. (2024). Textual Strategies in Sallust, Caesar and Tacitus. A Combined Discourse Linguistic-Narratological Approach. PhD thesis University of Amsterdam.

Szantyr, A (1965). Lateinische Syntax uns Stilistik. München

Vendel, A. (2023). Nulla umquam obmutescet verustas: Hyperbaton in Cicero’s oratory. PhD thesis University of Cambridge.

Verano, R., ed. (to app.) Conversation Analysis and Classics. Talk in Interaction in Greek and Latin Literature.  Leiden.