Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book takes a deceptively simple question as its starting point: did the changes to Latin which ultimately resulted in the Romance languages come only from below?The answer, masterfully demonstrated over the course of 900 pages, is no: while past scholarship has been tempted to see almost any Latin feature that has Romance outcomes as "Vulgar", many of these changes can be shown to have come from above, or to have been present in the speech of all social classes.Some of Adams's results can sometimes come as a surprise, directly contradicting the prescriptions of modern school-book grammars.As a consequence, this book is likely to become an essential point of reference in Latin and early Romance sociolinguistics. Scholars of Latin andGreek historical sociolinguistics will likely already be familiar with Adams's previous two works on sociolinguistics, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (2003) and The Regional Diversification of Latin 200BC -AD600 (2007).This book forms the third of the set, and makes links to the previous two works while covering very little of the same ground.The book is divided into eight parts of unequal length, and further divided into short chapters, each of which discusses and exemplifies one topic.After a concise introduction to his methods and overall argument, the first three largest parts are dedicated to phonology and orthography (Part 2), case and prepositions (Part 3) and nominal, pronominal and adverbial morphology and syntax (Part 3).These are followed by three shorter parts dealing with verbal morphology and syntax (Part 5), subordination (Part 6) and the lexicon and word order (Part 7), and a brief conclusion.Adams does not suggest that this book is meant to be exhaustive, though the level of detail is impressive, covering epigraphic, literary and metalinguistic evidence.Rather than covering every possible subject, the book aims to cover the main developments which have been discussed in previous literature.For this reason, phonology and morphology are given more space; the section on the lexicon is particularly brief, focusing on two case studies on anatomical terms and suppletion in the verb "to go" in place of a discussion of the entire lexicon.This book is grounded firmly in Labovian sociolinguistics, and Adams repeatedly shows the usefulness of taking the theoretical framework of modern
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".