Volume 72, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0108-8416
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9715
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The articles in this volume contribute to our understanding of Northumbrian Old English of the 10th century, of the nature of external influence, and of the authorship of the glosses. This introduction provides a background to these three areas. Most of the introduction and contributions examine the Lindisfarne Glosses with some discussion of the Rushworth and Durham Glosses. Section 2 shows that the Lindisfarne glossator often adds a (first and second person) pronoun where the Latin has none but allows third person null subjects. Therefore, although the Latin original has obvious influence, Old English grammar comes through. Section 3 reviews the loss of third person verbal inflection in favor of , especially in Matthew. This reduction may be relevant to the role of external (Scandinavian and British Celtic) influence and is also interesting when the language of the Lindisfarne and Durham Glosses is compared. In Section 4, the use of overt pronouns, relatives, and demonstratives shows an early use of pronouns, casting doubt on a Norse origin of Section 5 looks at negation mainly from a northern versus southern perspective and Section 6 sums up. Section 7 previews the other contributions and their major themes, namely possible external (Latin, Norse, or British Celtic) influence, the linguistic differences among glossators, the spacing of ‘prefixes’ as evidence for grammaticalization, and the role of doublets.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Benskin, M.
    2011 Present Indicative Plural Concord in Brittonic and Early English. Transactions of the Philological Society109(2). 158–185. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2011.01279.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2011.01279.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Berndt, R.
    1956Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergen, L. van
    2008 Negative contraction and Old English dialects. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen109. 275–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carpenter, H. C. A.
    1910Die Deklination in der nordhumbrischen Evangelienübersetzung der Lindisfarner Handschrift. Bonn: Hanstein.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cole, M.
    2014Old Northumbrian verbal morphosyntax and the (Northern) Subject Rule. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/nss.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.25 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2016 Identifying the author(s) of the Lindisfarne Gloss. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 169–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2018 Where did THEY come from? A native origin for THEY, THEIR, THEM. Diachronica35(2). 165–209. 10.1075/dia.16026.col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16026.col [Google Scholar]
  8. DOE
    DOE. Dictionary of Old English (DOE)texts. www.doe.utoronto.ca
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Facsimile
    Facsimile 2002The Lindisfarne Bible. Munich: Faksimile Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fernández Cuesta, J.
    2016 Revisiting the manuscript of the Lindisfarne Gospels. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds), 257–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fernández Cuesta, J. & S. Pons-Sanz
    (eds.) 2016The Old English gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, author and context. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110449105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110449105 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gelderen, E. van
    2000A History of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.39 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013 The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. InT. Lohndal (ed.), In search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 195–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.202.13gel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.202.13gel [Google Scholar]
  14. Holmqvist, E.
    1922On the history of the English present inflections particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jespersen, O.
    1917Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Høst.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jones, C.
    1970 Some features of determiner usage in the Old English glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual. Indogermanische Forschungen75. 198–219. 10.1515/if‑1970‑0112
    https://doi.org/10.1515/if-1970-0112 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kendrick, T. D.
    1956Evangeliorum quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. Lausanne: Graf.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Klemola, J.
    2013 English as a contact language in the British Isles. InD. Schreier & M. Hundt (eds.), English as a contact language, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lange, C.
    2006Reflexivity and intensification in English. Frankfurt: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Levin, S.
    1958 Negative contraction: An Old and Middle English dialect criterion. Journal of English and Germanic Philology57. 492–501.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moore, S. & A. H. Marckwardt
    1951Historical outlines of English sounds and inflections. Ann Arbor, MI: Wahr.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mustanoja, T.
    1960A Middle English syntax. Helsinki [2016 reprint. Amsterdam: Benjamins].
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nagucka, R.
    1997 Glossal translation in the Lindisfarne Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia31. 179–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pons-Sanz, S.
    2013The lexical effects of Anglo-Scandinavian linguistic contact on Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. 10.1484/M.SEM‑EB.5.106260
    https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SEM-EB.5.106260 [Google Scholar]
  25. Quirk, R. & C. L. Wrenn
    1957An Old English grammar, 3rd edn.London: Oxford University Press. 10.4324/9780203407578
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203407578 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ross, A.
    1937Studies in the accidence of the Lindisfarne Gospels. Leeds: School of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Skeat, W.
    1871–87The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John [1970 reprint. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Suárez-Gómez, C.
    2009 On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: Evidence from the Gospels. English Language and Linguistics13(1). 57–75. 10.1017/S1360674308002864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002864 [Google Scholar]
  29. Traugott, E.
    1992 Syntax. InR. Hogg (eds.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 168–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Vennemann, T.
    2001 Atlantis Semitica: Structural contact features in Celtic and English. InL. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 351–369. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.215.24ven
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.215.24ven [Google Scholar]
  31. Walkden, G.
    2016 Null subjects in the Lindisfarne Gospels as evidence for syntactic variation in Old English. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 239–256.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error