1887
Volume 72, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0108-8416
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9715
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines the verbal morphology of the Old English interlinear gloss to the Durham Collectar, attributed by almost universal consensus to Aldred of Chester-le-Street, whose earlier gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels has recently been the object of scholarly attention (Cole 2014Fernández Cuesta & Pons-Sanz 2016Gameson et al. 2017). This article analyses - variation in the present indicative and imperative forms in relation to their syntactic context, in particular subject type and subject-verb adjacency, in order to assess whether the Northern Subject Rule detected by Cole (2014) in Lindisfarne was also operative in Aldred’s later gloss. By means of a quantitative analysis, we find that the first constraint does not significantly affect -/- variation in the gloss and that there is insufficient context for the second. Additionally, it is argued that adjacency is a problematic variable in this text-type. We also demonstrate that there is a higher percentage of second person singular - and - in the Collectar than in Lindisfarne and discuss the possible influence of standard West Saxon on the later gloss.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00025.fer
2019-12-10
2020-08-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailey, G., N. Maynor & P. Cukor-Avila
    1989 Variation in subject verb concord in Early Modern English. Language, Variation and Change1(3). 285–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth, D. & V. Kapatsinki
    2011 Evaluating logistic mixed-effects models of corpus data. InD. Speelman, K. Heylen & D. Geeraerts (eds.), Mixed effects regression models in linguistics, 99–116. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benskin, M.
    2011 Present indicative plural concord in Brittonic and Early English. Transactions of the Philological Society109. 158–185. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2011.01279.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2011.01279.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Berndt, R.
    1956Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakeley, L.
    1949–1950 The Lindisfarne s/ð problem. Studia Neophilologica22. 15–47. 10.1080/00393274908587038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274908587038 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blom, A. H.
    2017Glossing the Psalms: The emergence of the written vernaculars in Western Europe from the seventh to the twelfth centuries. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110501865
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110501865 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bonner, G.
    1989 St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street. InG. Bonner, D. Rollason & C. Stancliffe (eds.), 387–395.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonner, G., D. Rollason & C. Stancliffe
    (eds.) 1989St Cuthbert, his cult and his community to AD 1200. Woodbridge: Boydell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brookes, S.
    2016 The shape of things to come? Variation and intervention in Aldred’s gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels. In: J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz, (eds.), 103–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, T. J.
    (ed.) 1969The Durham Ritual: A southern English collectar of the tenth century with Northumbrian additions, Durham Cathedral Library A.IV.19. Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 16. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunner, A.
    1947–1948 A note on the distribution of the variant forms of the Lindisfarne Gospels. English and Germanic Studies1. 32–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Campbell, A.
    1959Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cavill, P.
    2016 Maxims in Aldred’s Marginalia to the Lindisfarne Gospels. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz, (eds.), 79–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Corrêa, A.
    1992The Durham Collectar. London: Published for the Henry Bradshaw Society by the Boydell Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Feizmohammadpour, A.
    2013 Optional subject-verb agreement in Persian. University of Florida. (Doctoral dissertation)
  17. Fernández Cuesta, J.
    2011 The Northern Subject Rule in first-person-singular contexts in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica32. 89–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 The voice of the dead: Analyzing sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English wills and testaments. Journal of English Linguistics42(4). 330–358. 10.1177/0075424214549561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424214549561 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernández Cuesta, J. & N. Rodríguez Ledesma
    2016 A case of accusative/dative syncretism in the language of the Lindisfarne Gospels gloss?Paper presented at theInternational Conference of English Historical Linguistics, Essen, 22–26 Aug, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernández Cuesta, J. & S. Pons-Sanz
    (eds.) 2016The Old English glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, author and context. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110449105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110449105 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernández Cuesta, J. & C. Langmuir
    . In prep.Not in the right mood: the subjunctive in the Old Northumbrian gloss to the Durham Collectar.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fernández Cuesta, J. & N. Rodríguez Ledesma
    . Forthcoming. A case of accusative/dative syncretism in the language of the Lindisfarne Gospels gloss and the Durham Collectar.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gameson, R.
    2013From Holy Island to Durham: The contexts and meanings of the Lindisfarne Gospels. London: Third Millennium.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2017The Lindisfarne Gospels: New perspectives (Library of the Written Word, vol. 57/The Manuscript World, vol. 9). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004337848
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004337848 [Google Scholar]
  25. Görlach, M.
    1990 Middle English: A creole?InM. Görlach (ed.), Studies in the History of the English Language, 65–78. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gretsch, M.
    1999The intellectual foundations of the English Benedictine Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511483295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511483295 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000 The Junius Psalter gloss: Its historical and cultural context. Anglo-Saxon England29. 85–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Higham, N. J. & M. J. Ryan
    2013The Anglo-Saxon world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hogg, R. M. & R. D. Fulk
    2011A grammar of Old English. Volume II: Morphology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Holmqvist, E.
    1922On the history of the English present inflections, particularly th and -s. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunter-Blair, P.
    1966An introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jolly, K. L.
    2012The community of St. Cuthbert in the late tenth century: The Chester-le-Street additions to Durham Cathedral Library A.IV.19. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016 The process of glossing and glossing as process: Scholarship and education in Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.iv.19. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 361–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kastovsky, D. & G. Bauer
    (eds.) 1988Luick revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendrick, T. D.
    (eds.) 1960Evangeliorum Quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis, Musei Britannici Codex Nero D.IV. Volume II: Commentariorum libri duo, quorum unus de texto evangeliorum Latino et codicis ornatione, alter de glossa Anglo-Saxonica. Olten/Lausanne: Graf.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ker, N. R.
    1942 Aldred the scribe. Essays and Studies by members of the English Association28. 7–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Klemola, J.
    2000 The origins of the Northern Subject Rule: A case of early contact?InH. L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes II, 329–346. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kroch, A., A. Taylor & D. Ringe
    2000 The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. InS. Herring, P. van Reenen & L. Schøsler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 353–391. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Larsson, K.
    2005 The development of Swedish from the mid-16th century to 1800. InO. Bandle (ed.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, Vol.2, 1270–1281. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lass, R., M. Laing, R. Alcorn & K. Williamson
    2013– A corpus of narrative etymologies from Proto-Old English to Early Middle English and accompanying corpus of changes. Version 1.1 [www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/CoNE/CoNE.html]. Edinburgh: © The University of Edinburgh.
  41. Lemke, A.
    2015The Old English translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum in its historical and cultural context. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. 10.17875/gup2015‑787
    https://doi.org/10.17875/gup2015-787 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lindelöf, U.
    1890Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham. Ein Beitrag zur altenglischen Grammatik. Helsingfors: Frenckell & Son.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (ed.) 1927Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis. The Durham Collectar. A new and revised edition of the Latin text with the interlinear Anglo-Saxon version, Surtees Society 140, Durham/London: Andrews⁄ Quaritch.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. McColl Millar, R.
    2016The interaction of closely related linguistic varieties and the history of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474409087.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474409087.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. McWhorter, J.
    2016 Is radical analyticity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. InE. van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change continued, 49–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.227.03mcw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.03mcw [Google Scholar]
  46. Metzger, B. M.
    1997The earliest versions of the New Testament: Their origins, transmission and limitations. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller, G.
    2002 The origin and diffusion of English 3sg -s. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia38. 352–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Poussa, P.
    1982 The evolution of Early Standard English: The creolization hypothesis. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia14. 60–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Roberts, J.
    2016 Aldred: Glossator and book historian. InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 37–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Robinson, F. C.
    1973 Syntactical glosses in Latin manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon provenance. Speculum48(3). 443–475. 10.2307/2854443
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2854443 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodríguez Ledesma, N.
    2013 The Northern Subject Rule in first-person singular contexts in Older Scots. Folia Linguistica Historica34. 149–172. 10.1515/flih.2013.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.2013.006 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ross, A. S. C.
    1960 Standard paradigms. InKendrick (eds.), Book II, 37–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1968 Aldrediana XVII: Ritual supplement. English Philological Studies11. 1–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1968 On some forms of the anomalous and contracted verbs in the Anglo-Saxon glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual. Transactions of the Philological Society, 69–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 1970 Conservatism in the Anglo-Saxon gloss to the Durham Ritual. Notes and Queries215. 363–366. 10.1093/nq/17‑10‑363b
    https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/17-10-363b [Google Scholar]
  56. 1971 Aldrediana XXIII: Notes on the accidence of the Durham Ritual. Leeds Studies in English5. 53–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1978 A point of comparison between Aldred’s two glosses. Notes and Queries223. 197–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ross, A. S. C., E. G. Stanley & T. J. Brown
    1960 Some observations on the gloss and the glossator. InKendrick (eds.), Book II, 3–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rusche, P. G.
    2016 The Lindisfarne Gospel glosses and the Benedictine Reform. Was Aldred trained in the Southumbrian glossing tradition?InJ. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 61–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Shields, K.
    1992A history of Indo-European verb morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.88
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.88 [Google Scholar]
  61. Skeat, W. W.
    (ed.) 1871–1887The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions. 4vols.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Mark (1871), Luke (1874), John (1878), Matthew (1887)].
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (ed.) 1878The Gospel according to Saint John in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian versions synoptically arranged. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Spellman, D.
    2011 Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Stanley, E. G.
    1988 Karl Luick’s “Man schrieb wie man sprach” and English historical phonology. InD. Kastovsky & G. Bauer. (eds.), 311–334.
  65. Stein, D.
    1986 Old English Northumbrian verb inflection revisited. InD. Kastovsky & A. Szwedek, (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries; in honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday. Volume I: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics, 637–650. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110856132.637
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856132.637 [Google Scholar]
  66. Stevenson, J.
    1840Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis. Surtees Society 10. London.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Theijssen, D.
    2009 Variable selection in logistic regression: The British English dative alternation. InT. Icard & R. Muskens (eds.), Interfaces: Explorations in logic, language and computation, 87–101. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Thomason, S. G. & T. Kaufman
    1988Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Timofeeva, O.
    2010 Anglo-Latin bilingualism before 1066: Prospects and limitations. InAlaric Hall, O. Timofeeva, Á. Kiricsi & B. Fox (eds.), Interfaces between language and culture in Medieval England. A Festschrift for Matti Kilpiö, 1–36. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004180116.i‑340.5
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004180116.i-340.5 [Google Scholar]
  70. Townend, M.
    2002Language and history in Viking-Age England: Linguistic relations between speakers of Old Norse and Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. 10.1484/M.SEM‑EB.5.106296
    https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SEM-EB.5.106296 [Google Scholar]
  71. Tristram, H. L. C.
    2004 Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or what was spoken Old English like?Studia Anglica Posnaniensia40. 87–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Trudgill, P.
    1986Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2011Sociolinguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Van Bergen, L.
    2008 Negative constructions and OE dialects: Evidence from glosses and prose. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen109. 275–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Vennemann, T.
    2001 Atlantis Semitica: Structural contact features in Celtic and English. InL. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 351–369. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.215.24ven
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.215.24ven [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00025.fer
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00025.fer
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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