This paper explores the extent to which the tenth-century English scholar AElfric, author of a grammatical treatise known to us as AElfric's Grammar, differed from his sources, the late antique grammarians Donatus and Priscian, (1) in his conception of grammar, (2) in his perception of the structure of Latin, and (3) in the descriptive apparatus he used. I argue for the transmission of a conceptual framework. The facts taken into consideration are those dealt with by Donatus and Priscian, and they are analyzed with the help of the self-same concepts: AElfric does not introduce new concepts into the description, nor does he elaborate or refine those transmitted by the grammatical tradition. I also note the transmission of a descriptive apparatus, at which level, however, discontinuity appears in the partial re-organisation of the treatise so as to gain coherence and pedagogical efficiency, in the Christianisation and Anglicisation of the exemplification, in the systematic translation of Latin items into English and in the coinage of a vernacular grammatical terminology. Yet in the most important form of discontinuity, i.e. in AElfric's decision not to use Latin as the medium of a Latin grammar, several elements point to a continuity, such as the technical terms being Latin loan words or functioning as glosses to Latin words.

Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 19 avril 2019. Corela-cognition, représentation, langage est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution-Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International. L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie 1 Brian Lowrey et Fabienne Toupin L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010 L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010 ONE et SOME ne marquent pas directement l'opposition référentiel/non référentiel. Mais les deux traits qu'ils comportent, extraction et caractère indifférencié de l'unité (ou des unités) extraite(s), les rendent aptes à exprimer le non-référentiel si le contexte le permet. (Garnier et Guimier 1997 : 66) 5 Cette dernière citation montre bien que l'invariant peut constituer le cadre d'un raisonnement visant à dégager le rôle respectif du marqueur et de son cotexte dans la variation des sens qui peuvent lui être associés (cf. "aptes à exprimer le non-référentiel si le contexte le permet."). Et sous cet angle, il convient de nuancer les positions, la linguistique de l'invariant étant alors moins nettement une linguistique du mot et davantage une linguistique du discours. La tâche de formuler un invariant est probablement une des plus malaisées qui soit dans la description linguistique contemporaine. Jean-Jacques Franckel et Denis Paillard, dans la revue Langages 129 (1998 : 61), évoquent "l'inévitable étau des deux contraintes antagonistes qui conduisent d'un côté à surinvestir le mot pour ne rien rater de sa L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010 L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010 (3) Is our rabbit a girl or a boy, Mummy? (4) The Mature Woman in Higher Education: What's a Nice Old Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This? (Site de l'ERIC, Education Resources Information Center) Dans (3), le référent de girl n'est pas un être humain. Dans (4), girl ne désigne pas un être jeune : son emploi correspond plutôt à la définition 2 du Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English : (5) 2.spoken. an old woman: She's a nice old girl! (http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/old-girl) Certes, on soulignera le rôle de old dans cette interprétation, mais ce serait trop vite oublier que old girl ne réfère pas nécessairement à un être âgé et peut même renvoyer à une personne jeune encore, au sens de « ancienne élève d'une école ou institution ». Quoi L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010 L'invariant à l'épreuve de la diachronie Corela, 8-2 | 2010

My focus here will be on those animal names which never (e.g. deer) or occasionally (e.g. herring) take the-s suffix in the plural in Present-Day English. After a detailed presentation of these names (§1), I will try to show (§2) that they form a lexical category in Guiraud's sense, that is, a non-arbitrary set of nouns with common features at the level both of the signified and of the signifier, and constituting, from a diachronic perspective, a matrix having enabled membership of the category to develop until today. I will then try to explain why this category resisted analogical extension of the-s plural marker, by bringing in the culture of Anglo-Saxon England and the very special status of a group of animals in the culture in question (§3). My conclusion (§4) will stress that multicausality is at work in that resistance to analogy, the cultural factor put forward in §3 being the main explanation. I will eventually explain how these animal names fit into the traditional description of English nouns, and then into Culioli's speaker-centered theory, known as the Théorie des Opérations Prédicatives et Enonciatives.

This paper deals with the conjunction and in the English late medieval period when it displayed not only the senses that we are familiar with in Present-Day English, but also a whole range of conditional meanings for which if would be used today. My initial corpus is the fifteenth-century morality play called Eveiyman, butfurther enquiry will show that the conditional meaning was in fact a regular and attested use of and throughout Middle English. After demonstrating that it is impossible for this use of and to have originated in loan translation from Dutch or in contact with Scandinavian, I will try to build a case for a grammaticalisation process. The driving force behind the process would have been a metonymical semantic shift from the temporal senses of the conjunction in the late twelfth or in the early thirteenth century. I will also sketch the hypothesis that if and conditional and were variants in complementary distribution.

No abstract