Neogrammatici

Contribuisci a migliorarla secondo le convenzioni di Wikipedia. L'Università di Lipsia intorno al 1900I Neogrammatici (in tedesco Junggrammatiker) furono un gruppo di linguisti tedeschi dell'Università di Lipsia che, alla fine del XIX secolo, diedero un notevole impulso allo sviluppo dell'indoeuropeistica fino ad arrivare a definire una prima ricostruzione dell'indoeuropeo, definita nei decenni seguenti ricostruzione "classica" e definitivamente sintetizzata nella monumentale Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1897-1916) di Karl Brugmann.

Al movimento si fa riferimento anche con le espressioni Scuola neogrammaticale e Scuola di Lipsia.

Indice 1 Esponenti della scuola 2 Principi teorici 3 Note 4 Bibliografia 4.1 Fonti primarie 4.2 Letteratura storiografica 5 Voci correlate Esponenti della scuola I Neogrammatici furono:

August Leskien (1840–1916) Berthold Delbrück (1842–1922) Hermann Paul (1846–1921) Hermann Osthoff (1847–1909) Karl Brugmann (1849–1919) Wilhelm Braune (1850–1926) Eduard Sievers (1850–1932) Alla scuola neogrammaticale si riconducono anche gli studi di Otto Behaghel, Adolf Noreen e Karl Verner.

Principi teorici I Neogrammatici, ispirati dalle contemporanee ricerche nel campo della filologia germanica che approdarono alla definizione della Legge di Grimm e della Legge di Verner, individuarono una serie di leggi che regolavano i rapporti fonetici nel passaggio dall'indoeuropeo ricostruito alle lingue indoeuropee storiche; particolare rilievo ha la Legge di Leskien, secondo la quale il cambiamento fonetico, a parità di condizioni, avviene sempre con lo stesso risultato, senza eccezioni. Inoltre, i Neogrammatici introdussero anche i principi, complementari alla Legge di Leskien, dell'analogia e del prestito.

Scuola di Praga

Il circolo linguistico di Praga (in lingua ceca Pražský lingvistický kroužek), più noto come scuola di Praga è stato un gruppo di critici letterari e linguisti cechi della prima metà del

ventesimo secolo che elaborò il concetto di funzione nel linguaggio, concetto che fu il fulcro e il punto in comune dei lavori del circolo. Negli anni '30 i suoi componenti, prendendo le mosse dagli studi di Ferdinand de Saussure, svilupparono metodi di analisi strutturalista del linguaggio, influenzando i successivi sviluppi della linguistica, della semiotica e della fonologia.

Fondato nel 1926 dal linguista ceco Vilém Mathesius (presidente del circolo fino alla sua morte, nel 1945), il gruppo era formato da emigrati russi come Roman Jakobson, Nikolaj Trubeckoj, Sergej Karcevskij, il critico letterario René Wellek, l'anglista Bohumil Trnka, lo slavista e boemista Bohuslav Havránek, lo studioso di estetica Jan Mukařovský, ed ebbe il suo periodo di maggiore attività nel periodo precedente lo scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale.

La glossematica (dal greco γλὼςςα (glossa) = lingua o linguaggio, e matematica) è una teoria linguistica e semiotica sviluppata dallo studioso danese Louis Hjelmslev sulla base della linguistica strutturale di Ferdinand de Saussure.

Accanto al Circolo di Praga, al Formalismo russo e allo stesso strutturalismo, la scuola danese ha costituito uno dei più importanti centri europei di riflessione sul linguaggio, contribuendo a creare una solida base teorica per l'intera filosofia del linguaggio del Novecento (da non confondersi con la filosofia analitica anglosassone).

Secondo i principi esposti dallo stesso Hjelmslev nei suoi "Fondamenti della teoria del linguaggio" (1943), la teoria glossematica è una teoria sull'analisi dei testi che prende come oggetto d'esame le relazioni tra i singoli elementi che costituiscono il testo analizzato. In conformità alla linguistica strutturale, ogni elemento del testo viene considerato su due piani (o assi) differenti:

sull'asse sintagmatico la parola viene considerata in relazione con tutte le altre parole presenti all'interno del testo stesso (relazione in praesentia); sull'asse paradigmatico la parola viene considerata in correlazione a tutti i termini della sua stessa categoria che possono essere sostituiti alla parola stessa, ad es. nomi, articoli, avverbi ecc (relazione in absentia). Indipendentemente dall'asse preso in considerazione, ogni coppia di termini può essere collegata solo da tre funzioni diverse:

interdipendenza (K↔K): funzione tra due costanti in cui la presenza di ciascun termine presuppone la presenza dell'altro; determinazione (K←V): funzione tra una costante e una variabile in cui la variabile determina la presenza della costante e non il contrario; costellazione (V|V): funzione tra due variabili in cui la presenza di ciascun termine non presuppone la presenza dell'altro. Da queste due classificazioni congiunte, ossia dall'asse su cui si trovano i termini e dalla relazione tra i due termini, possiamo ottenere sei tipi diversi di funzione:

solidarietà (K~K): interdipendenza sull'asse sintagmatico; complementarità (K K): interdipendenza sull'asse paradigmatico; ⊥selezione (V→K): determinazione sull'asse sintagmatico; specificazione (V|-K): determinazione sull'asse paradigmatico; combinazione (V-V): costellazione sull'asse sintagmatico; autonomia (V†V): costellazione sull'asse paradigmatico�

Opere linguistica di Noam Chomsky.Chomsky, dopo qualche articolo, pubblica nel 1957 il volume Syntactic structures (Le strutture della sintassi), che contiene in nuce la sua teoria rivoluzionaria sulla grammatica generativo-trasformazionale.

Nel 1959 pubblica una lunga e ormai classica recensione del volume di Burrhus Skinner, allora il più noto esponente del comportamentismo, Verbal behavior: lo scritto contiene una critica esplicita ed argomentata del comportamentismo, dal quale Chomsky aveva preso le distanze.

Tra il 1965 e il 1966 escono le due opere che fissano in maniera quasi definitiva sia le posizioni specificamente linguistiche, sia le posizioni e le ascendenze filosofiche generali dell'autore: Aspects of the theory of syntax nel 1965 e Cartesian linguistics nel 1966.

Una ulteriore precisazione di tali posizioni è proposta in Language and mind, del 1968. Chomsky, a questa data, è ormai il più influente studioso di linguistica sia nel suo paese, sia in gran parte del mondo. Lo studioso non cessa di approfondire e difendere le sue teorie, nei dibattiti frequenti e vivaci dei successivi anni, in numerosi articoli e saggi, talvolta raccolti in volume. Alcuni fra i più significativi sono: The logical structure of linguistic theory del 1975, Reflections on language del 1976, Language and problems of knowledge del 1988.

Nelle opere del 1957 e del 1965 Chomsky offre una descrizione formalizzata, di un livello e di una strutturazione quasi matematici, della grammatica e delle strutture sintattiche del nostro linguaggio.

La creatività viene considerata come una delle caratteristiche fondamentali del modo di usare il linguaggio: rispetto al numero limitato di parole e di regole esistenti, noi tendiamo a creare qualcosa di nuovo, non riducibile in maniera meccanica alle regole grammaticali, anche se da esse, in qualche modo, "generato". La grammatica quindi, "genera" enunciati, nel senso che sta alla loro base, ma non li produce in maniera meccanica una volta per tutte. Poiché la conoscenza di una lingua è per Chomsky capacità di produrre e comprendere un numero virtualmente infinito di frasi, cioè anche frasi nuove, mai prodotte o udite prima, di questo deve dar conto una grammatica.

Strutturalismo (linguistica)

Per strutturalismo si intende - in linguistica - la teoria e la metodologia di tutte quelle scuole e correnti, elaborate sulla teorizzazione del linguista svizzero Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 - 1913) e del suo "Cours de linguistique générale" (1916) che si propone lo studio della lingua intesa come sistema autonomo e unitario di segni, dando rilievo primario all'asse della sincronia rispetto a quello della diacronia.

Lo strutturalismo, di tradizione e prospettiva positivistica storica, si è occupato dei valori e delle funzioni determinate dalle relazioni reciproche dei singoli elementi linguistici, considerati come parti di un ordinamento strutturale e di un insieme di fenomeni in continua interdipendenza e interazione.

Lo strutturalismo linguistico, ispirato all'opera di de Saussure, ha connotato in modo determinante le più importanti scuole linguistiche del XX secolo come quella del circolo di Praga, quella del circolo di Copenaghen, detta glossematica e iniziata dal danese L.T. Hjelmslev intorno al 1930, quella del funzionalismo sviluppatasi nel XX secolo principalmente per opera di Nikolaj Trubeckoj e André Martinet in Europa, quella del distribuzionalismo nata negli Stati Uniti nel 1930 a opera di Leonard Bloomfield e successivamente elaborata da Zellig Sabbetal Harris e ancora, quella detta del trasformazionalismo originata dalle teorie di Noam Chomsky.

In particolare nella critica artistica e letteraria (vedi gli studi di Gérard Genette), è stata applicata la teoria e la prassi strutturalista che considera l'opera presa in esame (testo letterario, creazione pittorica o filmica) come un insieme organico scomponibile in elementi e unità, il cui valore funzionale è determinato dall'insieme dei rapporti fra ogni singolo livello dell'opera e tutti gli altri.

Administration Process:

Political structuresA typical Classic Maya polity was a small hierarchical state (ajawil, ajawlel, or ajawlil) headed by a hereditary ruler known as an ajaw (later k’uhul ajaw). Such kingdoms were usually no more than a capital city with its neighborhood and several lesser towns, although there were greater kingdoms, which controlled larger territories and extended patronage over smaller polities.[citation needed] Each kingdom had a name that did not necessarily correspond to any locality within its territory. Its identity was that of a political unit associated with a particular ruling dynasty. For instance, the archaeological site of Naranjo was the capital of the kingdom of Saal. The land (chan ch’e’n) of the kingdom and its

capital were called Wakab’nal or Maxam and were part of a larger geographical entity known as Huk Tsuk. Interestingly, despite constant warfare and eventual shifts in regional power, most kingdoms never disappeared from the political landscape until the collapse of the whole system in the 9th century AD. In this respect, Classic Maya kingdoms are highly similar to late Post Classic polities encountered by the Spaniards in Yucatán and Central Mexico: some polities could be subordinated to hegemonic rulers through conquests or dynastic unions and yet even then they persisted as distinct entities.

Mayanists have been increasingly accepting a "court paradigm" of Classic Maya societies which puts the emphasis on the centrality of the royal household and especially the person of the king. This approach focuses on Maya monumental spaces as the embodiment of the diverse activities of the royal household. It considers the role of places and spaces (including dwellings of royalty and nobles, throne rooms, temples, halls and plazas for public ceremonies) in establishing power and social hierarchy, and also in projecting aesthetic and moral values to define the wider social realm.

Spanish sources invariably describe even the largest Maya settlements as dispersed collections of dwellings grouped around the temples and palaces of the ruling dynasty and lesser nobles. None of the Classic Maya cities shows evidence of economic specialization and commerce of the scale of Mexican Tenochtitlan. Instead, Maya cities could be seen as enormous royal households, the locales of the administrative and ritual activities of the royal court. They were the places where privileged nobles could approach the holy ruler, where aesthetic values of the high culture were formulated and disseminated, where aesthetic items were consumed. They were the self-proclaimed centers and the sources of social, moral, and cosmic order. The fall of a royal court as in the well-documented cases of Piedras Negras or Copan would cause the inevitable "death" of the associated settlement.

Aztec EmpireAlso known as Aztec Triple Alliance

1325–1521 →

Capital TenochtitlanLanguage(s) NahuatlReligion Aztec religionGovernment Hegemonic EmpireTlatoani - 1376–1395 Acamapichtli - 1520–1521 CuauhtémocHistorical era Pre-Columbian - Tenochtitlan is founded

March 13, 1325 1325

 - Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire

August 13, 1521 1521

Area 500,000 km2

(193,051 sq mi)Currency Various currencies

Government

The Aztec Empire was an example of an empire that ruled by indirect means. Like most European empires, it was ethnically very diverse, but unlike most European empires, it was more of a system of tribute than a single system of government. In the theoretical framework of imperial systems posited by Alexander J. Motyl[8] the Aztec empire was an informal or hegemonic empire because it did not exert supreme authority over the conquered lands, it merely expected tributes to be paid. It was also a discontinuous empire because not all dominated territories were connected, for example the southern peripheral zones of Xoconochco were not in direct contact with the center. The hegemonic nature of the Aztec empire can be seen in the fact that generally local rulers were restored to their positions once their city-state was conquered and the Aztecs did not interfere in local affairs as long as the tribute payments were made.[9]

Although the form of government is often referred to as an empire, in fact most areas within the empire were organized as city-states, known as altepetl in Nahuatl. These were small polities ruled by a king (tlatoani) from a legitimate dynasty. The Early Aztec period was a time of growth and competition among altepetl. Even after the empire was formed (1428) and began its program of expansion through conquest, the altepetl remained the dominant form of organization at the local level. The efficient role of the altepetl as a regional political unit was largely responsible for the success of the empire's hegemonic form of control.

Tribute and tradeSeveral pages from the Codex Mendoza list tributary towns along with the goods they supplied, which included not only luxuries such as feathers, adorned suits, and greenstone beads, but more practical goods such as cloth, firewood, and food. Tribute was usually paid twice or four times a year at differing times.

Archaeological excavations in the Aztec-ruled provinces show that incorporation into the empire had both costs and benefits for provincial peoples. On the positive side, the empire promoted commerce and trade, and exotic goods from obsidian to bronze managed to reach the houses of both commoners and nobles. Trade partners included the enemy Tarascan, a source of bronze tools and jewelry. On the negative side, imperial tribute imposed a burden on commoner households, who had to increase their work to pay their share of tribute. Nobles, on the other hand, often made out well under imperial rule because of the indirect nature of imperial organization. The empire had to rely on local kings and nobles and offered them privileges for their help in maintaining order and keeping the tribute flowing.

Economy

The Aztec economy can be divided into a political sector, under the control of nobles and kings, and a commercial sector that operated independently of the political sector. The political sector of the economy centered on the control of land and labor by kings and nobles. Nobles owned all land, and commoners got access to farmland and other fields through a variety of arrangements, from rental through sharecropping to serf-like labor and slavery. These payments from commoners to nobles supported both the lavish lifestyles of the high nobility and the finances of city-states. Many luxury goods were produced for consumption by nobles. The producers of featherwork, sculptures, jewelry, and other luxury items were full-time commoner specialists who worked for noble patrons.

In the commercial sector of the economy several types of money were in regular use. Small purchases were made with cacao beans, which had to be imported from lowland areas. In Aztec marketplaces, a small rabbit was worth 30 beans, a turkey egg cost 3 beans, and a

tamal cost a single bean. For larger purchases, standardized lengths of cotton cloth called quachtli were used. There were different grades of quachtli, ranging in value from 65 to 300 cacao beans. One source stated that 20 quachtli could support a commoner for one year in Tenochtitlan. A man could also sell his own daughter as a sexual slave or future religious sacrifice, generally for around 500 to 700 beans. A small gold statue (approximately 0.62 kg / 1.37 lb) cost 250 beans. Money was used primarily in the many periodic markets that were held in each town. A typical town would have a weekly market (every 5 days), while larger cities held markets every day. Cortés reported that the central market of Tlatelolco, Tenochtitlan's sister city, was visited by 60,000 people daily. Some sellers in the markets were petty vendors; farmers might sell some of their produce, potters sold their vessels, and so on. Other vendors were professional merchants who traveled from market to market seeking profits. The pochteca were specialized merchants organized into exclusive guilds. They made long expeditions to all parts of Mesoamerica, and they served as the judges and supervisors of the Tlatelolco market. Although the economy of Aztec Mexico was commercialized (in its use of money, markets, and merchants), it was not "a capitalist economy because land and labor were not commodities for sale."

Class structure A painting from Codex Mendoza showing elder Aztecs being given intoxicants.The highest class were the pīpiltin or nobility.[15] Originally this status was not hereditary, although the sons of pillis had access to better resources and education, so it was easier for them to become pillis. Later the class system took on hereditary aspects.

The second class was the mācehualtin, originally peasants. Eduardo Noguera estimates that in later stages only 20% of the population was dedicated to agriculture and food production. The other 80% of society were warriors, artisans and traders. Eventually, most of the mācehuallis were dedicated to arts and crafts. Their works were an important source of income for the city.

Slaves or tlacotin also constituted an important class. Aztecs could become slaves because of debts, as a criminal punishment or as war captives. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. However, upon becoming a slave, all of the slave's animals and excess money would go to his purchaser. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they had children with or were married to their masters. Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance.

Traveling merchants called pochtecah were a small, but important class as they not only facilitated commerce, but also communicated vital information across the empire and beyond its borders. They were often employed as spies.

Political organizationAccording to ethnohistorian James Lockhart who specialises in the historical description of the Nahua, Aztec society was characterized by a "tendency to create larger wholes by the aggregation of parts that remain relatively separate and self-contained brought together by their common function and similarity". [4] This understanding entails a social stratification that is built from the bottom - up, rather than from the top - down. Aztec hierarchy by this understanding was not of the type "where a unit of one type - the capital - controls subordinate units of another type" but instead a type where the main unit is composed out of several constituent parts.

Family and lineageFamily and lineage were the basic units of Aztec society. Ones lineage determined ones social standing, and noble lineages were traced back to the mythical past, as the nobles were said to be descended from the god Quetzalcoatl.[6] Prestigious lineages also traced their kin back through ruling dynasties, preferably ones with a Toltec heritage. The extended family group was also the basic social unit and living patterns were largely determined by family ties, because networks of family groups settled together to form calpollis. Lineage was traced through both the maternal and paternal lines, although with a preference for paternal lineage.

CalpolliThe calpolli (from Nahuatl calpōlli meaning "big house") was a political unit composed of several interrelated family groups. The exact nature of the calpolli is not completely understood and it has been variously described as a kind of clan, a town, a ward, a parish or an agriculture based cooperative. In Nahuatl another word for calpolli was tlaxilacalli - "a partition of houses".

The calpolli was centered around the local chief (calpōleh), to whom its members were normally related and he provided the calpolli members with lands for cultivation (calpōllālli) or with access to non-agricultural occupations in exchange for tribute and loyalty.

The calpolli also ran a temple where the adoration of the deity of the calpolli was performed and a school called the Telpochcalli where young men were trained, mostly in martial arts. In some Aztec citystates calpollis were specialised in a trade, which was practiced by all of its members, and these calpollis functioned something like a medieval trade guild. This was the case in Otompan and in Texcoco and Tlatelolco. Other calpollis were composed of immigrant groups from other areas of Mesoamerica who settled together in a tightly knit community when they arrived in their new home city - for example there is evidence that Tenochtitlan had calpollis composed of Otomis, Mixtecs and Tlapanecs.

AltepetlThe altepetl (from Nahuatl āltepētl "water-mountain") was a citystate composed of several calpollis and ruled by a tlatoani. The altepetl was the unit that held sway over a given territory and defended and possibly expanded it by military might. The tlatoani was the head of the most influential calpolli, often because of having the most prestigious lineage. The word altepetl, however, did not only refer to the area but also to its population, and altepetl affiliation is thought to have been the primary criteria for ethnic divisions in Mesoamerica - rather than linguistic affinities.

Alliances and political hegemonyAltepetl states would normally strive towards dominating neighboring altepetl through warfare. In this way weak altepetl would become subjugated by stronger ones to whom they then paid tribute. This often lead to the formation of alliances between subordinate altepetl in order to overthrow a dominant altepetl. Some alliances were short-lived, or ad-hoc and others were long term relationships where a group of altepetl would converge to form what was sometimes almost a single political entity. One example of a long term alliance between independent city-states would be that between the four altepetl of Tlaxcallan, Ocotelolco, Tizatlan, Quiyahuiztlan and Tepeticpac, which is normally thought of as a single state although it had four independent rulers and a certain level of internal competition. Another is the so-called Aztec Triple Alliance between Tlacopan , Texcoco and Tenochtitlan which was originally formed to end the dominance of the altepetl

Azcapotzalco and which eventually achieved political hegemony in the greater part of Mesoamerica and has become known to posterity as the Aztec empire.