Exploring Continuities and Discontinuities Between Ælfric’s Grammar and its Antique Sources

Abstract

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.

Change from Above, Language Contact, and Individual Change in Ælfric’s Linguistic Terminology

“…In fact, our point of view is very close to that of Fabienne Toupin (2009) arguing that borrowing and neology are two methods used by AElfric to introduce Latin grammar to his oblates (and also two main ways of enriching the word-stock of the language). However, we object to identifying Latin terms occasionally appearing in AElfric's work as borrowings (see above).…”

“…Former studies of the Grammar (Law 1987(Law , 1993Gneuss 1990Gneuss , 2009Kleiner 1985;Menzer 1999, 2004, andothers) described it mainly within the frame of history of linguistics and/or contrastive text studies, which was very important, but certainly not sufficient. However, a paper by Edna Williams (Williams 1958) and, among recent publications, those by Fabienne Toupin and Martha Mensah (Mensah & Toupin 2005;Toupin 2009), Don Chapman (Chapman 2010), and particularly Dieter Kastovsky (1992Kastovsky ( , 2011 shed light on the translational techniques used by AElfric in his Grammar. AElfric's approach is also mentioned in works on code-switching in Old English (Timofeeva 2010;Schendl 2011Schendl , 2017.…”

Old English-Latin Language Contacts (a case of Ælfric’s Grammar)

“…Из перечисленных выше трудов Эльфрика безусловный интерес в лингвистическом плане представляет его «Грамматика», восходящая к фундаментальным трудам Присциана "Institutiones grammaticae", "De Institutione de nomine et pronomine et verbo" и Доната -"Ars maior" and "Ars minor". (Клейнер, 1985;Law, 1987;1993; корреляция с латинским источником (Porter, 2002;Menzer, 1999), принципы обучения иностранному языку (Hall, 2009), используемые Эльфриком переводческие стратегии (Williams, 1958;Mensah & Toupin, 2005;Toupin, 2009;Chapman, 2010;Kastovsky, 2008;. Различные способы передачи Эльфриком иноязычной терминологии упоминаются в работах по переключению кодов в древнеанглийских текстах (Timofeeva, 2010;Schendl, 2011;2017).…”

“…Главным достоинством «Грамматики» Эльфрика, несомненно, является ее метаязык, демонстрирующий большое разнообразие с точки зрения ее образования, корреляции с латинскими эквивалентами, семантики, функционирования в тексте и др. Эта терминология была рассмотрена отдельными исследователями (Gneuss, 2009;Toupin, 2009;Chapman 2010;Kastovsky, 2008; (Hall 2009 : 197-198; Chapman 2010: 421) или шестнадцать (Kleist 2009: 391) и вполне позволяет согласиться с мнением о том, что труд Эльфрика превосходил по своей популярности любое другое сочинение англо-саксонской эпохи (Sisam, 1953: 301;Hall, 2009: 197-198). Распространенная в Англии вплоть до XII в., «Грамматика» вышла затем из употребления.…”