63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

50 anna chahoud
(iv) Colloquial language works on minimum resource expenditure –
a notion which Hofmann expresses in terms of ‘mental idleness’
(Denkträgheit). 23
It is clear that Hofmann’s identification of lexical and syntactical features
moves entirely from psychological criteria: his principles (i) and
(ii) fall into the category of emotive-subjective expression (Affektsatz);
(iii) and (iv) describe, qualifying them as limits, cognitive processes. The
emotive-subjective criterion (Affekt) is by far the most significant one, as
the clearest indicator of Umgangssprache. 24 Thesystemhassomevalidity.
Attention to the effects of subjectivity led Hofmann to single out factors
operating at a colloquial level such as derive from the interaction of a
speaker with another, whether present (e.g. in comic dialogue) or absent
(e.g. in private letters): verbalisation of contact, immediacy of reaction,
prevalence of implication over fully elaborated expression. If we remove
the psychologising backdrop from Hofmann’s theory (as now Ricottilli
2003: 53–61), we are not too far from the opposition ‘formal/informal’ that
we find in other classifications. As a method for the recovery of conversational
language, however, Hofmann’s system is not unfailing. While ‘vivid’
expressions of ‘feelings and engagement’ are characteristics of conversational
language, 25 it does not necessarily follow from this that they are consequences
only of conversational language. Hence one should not assume
that every expression of this kind, by any speaker and in any context, is
conversational.
2.2 Colloquial versus stylised: naturalness
Indicators of conversational style as can be extrapolated from the illustration
in Hofmann’s Lateinische Umgangssprache largely match the categories
singled out by studies of Greek colloquial language (Stevens 1976;
Landfester 1997; and Collard 2005). In English-language Greek scholarship
the definition of colloquialism is associated with the works of P. T.
Stevens on colloquial expressions in Athenian dramatists, especially
Euripides. Stevens defined colloquialisms as ‘such words and phrases as
might naturally be used in everyday conversation, but are avoided in
23 Cf. Hofmann 1951: 165 = Hofmann–Ricottilli 335.
24 Hofmann 1951: 9 (my emphasis): ‘Die Umgangssprache als die in erster Linie vom Affekt beherrschte
Sprache’ (= Hofmann–Ricottilli 103; see Ricottilli’s discussion at 103–4 n. 1 on §8).
25 Courtney 2001: 95 on Petronius’ freedmen: ‘When J.B. Hofmann was writing his classic book on
conversational Latin, he began by seeking a criterion which could define conversational language in
general, and found this in “Affekt”: this is exactly the quality which we see in these speeches.’