←2019. – Vol. 15

Bohdan V. Cherniukh
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Classical Philology
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv




The analysis of the means of introducing direct speech in Ovid’s poem “Metamorphoses” makes it possible to distinguish three groups: speech verbs, noun phrases and elliptical constructions. The main markers of direct speech are speech verbs divided into hyperonyms (dico, aio, inquam, fari) denoting bare fact of speaking, and hyponyms with additional semantic shade. Among them, the most common are hyperonyms, especially dico, while aio and inquam are second and third respectively. The minimum frequency is shown by fari and its composites (adfari, profari). Noun phrases that include nouns with semantics of speech (e.g, ora solvere, voces dare) are on the second place as to their frequency. Alone in “Metamorphoses”, elliptical constructions (e.g, talibus genitor, tum illa, etc.) are inherent in dialogues. The place of markers regarding direct language may vary, but most often, unlike prose, they are intraposed, which is conditioned by the peculiarities of poetic syntax. Particularly characteristic intraposition is for inquam. Unlike hyperonyms, hyponyms as well as other means of introducing direct speech are usually preposed.

Key words: Latin, Roman poetry, Ovid, direct speech, verb, noun phrase.


  1. Baños Baños, J. M. El discurso indirecto. [in:] Sintaxis dellatín clásico (Madrid, Liceus 2009): 733–758.
  2. Bonami, O., Godard, D. «On the Syntax of Direct Quotation in French.» 15th International Conference on HPSG (Stanford, 2008): 358-377,
  3. Buchstaller, I. Quotatives. New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications (Oxford, 2014).
  4. Capone, A. «The pragmatics of quotation, explicatures and modularity of mind.» Pragmatics and Society 4/3 (2013): 259-284.
  5. De Vries,  M. The representation of language within language: a syntactico-pragmatic typology of direct speech. Studia Linguistica  62/1 (2008): 39-77.
  6. Deutscher, G. «The Grammaticalization of Quotatives.» The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): 646-655.
  7. Fruyt, M. «Le discours indirect en diachronie: l’évolution du réfléchi indirect en latin.» Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina 10/2 (2015): 1-31.]
  8. Gayno, M. «Les modalités d’insertion du discours direct en latin tardif: bornage et redondance.» Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina 11 (2015), DLL_11_M-Gayno.pdf].
  9. GolatoA. «An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so ‘and I’m like/and he’s like’.» Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000):29-54.
  10. Güldemann, T. «When “say” is not day: The Functional Universality of the Bantu Quotative Marker ti with Special Reference to Shona.» Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002): 253-288.
  11. Güldemann, T. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronicsurvey (Berlin, New York, 2008).
  12. Heine, B. «Grammaticalization.» The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003): 575-601.
  13. Keizer, E. «The interpersonal level in English: Reported speech.» Linguistics, 47/4 (2009): 845–866.
  14. Kieckers, E. «Zumpleonastischeninquit.» Glotta 10/3 (1919): 200-209.
  15. Klamer, M. «How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers.» Lingua 110 (2000): 69-98.
  16. Mikulová, J. «Verbs Introducing Direct Speech In Late Latin Texts.» Graeco-Latina Brunensia 20/2 (2015): 123-143.
  17. Mikulová, J. «Marking the End of Direct Speech in Late Latin.» Graeco-Latina Brunensia 21/2 (2016): 169-182.
  18. Mikulová, J. «Direct Speech And Diversity Of Voices In Selected Letters Of Cicero To Atticus I (Direct Speech).» Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 135 (2018): 201209.
  19. Romaine, S., Lange, D. «The Use of like as a Marker of Reported Speech and Thought: A Case of Grammaticalization in Progress.» American Speech 66/3 (1991): 227–279.
  20. Rosén, H. «About non-direct discourse: Another look at its parameters in Latin.» Journal of Latin Linguistics 12/2 (2013): 231–263.
  21. Sznajder, L. «Interférences et conflits dans les formes du discours indirect.» Theory and description in Latin linguistics: selected papers from the XIth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, June 24–29, 2001 (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2002): 361 –377.
  22. Sznajder, L. «Segments introducteurs de discours direct et repérages énonciatifs en latin biblique: éléments pour une étude diastratique et diachronique.» Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina 11 (2015).
  23. Thomas, J.-F. «De la narration au discours rapporté dans l’épopée : le cas de l’Énéide.» Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina 10 (2015),].
  24. Vandelanotte, L. «Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation.» Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004): 489-520.
  25. Vandelanotte, L. «Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization.» Quotative: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012): 173–202.