Cover not available
Article published In:
The Northumbrian Old English glosses
Edited by Elly van Gelderen
[NOWELE 72:2] 2019
► pp. 134–164

Verbal morphology in the Old English gloss to the Durham Collectar

| Universidad de Sevilla
| Universidad de Sevilla
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 2014; Fernández Cuesta & Pons-Sanz 2016, Gameson et al. 2017). This article analyses -s/-th 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 -s/-ð 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 -st and -ð in the Collectar than in Lindisfarne and discuss the possible influence of standard West Saxon on the later gloss.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1-s/ -ð variation
  • 2.Results
    • 2.1Third-person singular present indicative
    • 2.2First-person plural present indicative
    • 2.3Second person plural indicative
    • 2.4Third-person plural present indicative
    • 2.5Second person singular present indicative
  • 3.Adjacency effects
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00025.fer
References (75)
References
Bailey, G., N. Maynor & P. Cukor-Avila. 1989. Variation in subject verb concord in Early Modern English. Language, Variation and Change 1(3). 285–300.Google Scholar
Barth, D. & V. Kapatsinki. 2011. Evaluating logistic mixed-effects models of corpus data. In D. Speelman, K. Heylen & D. Geeraerts (eds.), Mixed effects regression models in linguistics, 99–116. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Benskin, M. 2011. Present indicative plural concord in Brittonic and Early English. Transactions of the Philological Society 1091. 158–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R. 1956. Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Blakeley, L. 1949–1950. The Lindisfarne s/ð problem. Studia Neophilologica 221. 15–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, A. H. 2017. Glossing the Psalms: The emergence of the written vernaculars in Western Europe from the seventh to the twelfth centuries. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonner, G. 1989. St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street. In G. Bonner, D. Rollason & C. Stancliffe (eds.), 387–395.Google Scholar
Bonner, G., D. Rollason & C. Stancliffe (eds.) 1989. St Cuthbert, his cult and his community to AD 1200. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
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
Brown, T. J. (ed.). 1969. The 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
Brunner, A. 1947–1948. A note on the distribution of the variant forms of the Lindisfarne Gospels. English and Germanic Studies 11. 32–52.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cavill, P. 2016. Maxims in Aldred’s Marginalia to the Lindisfarne Gospels. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz, (eds.), 79–102.Google Scholar
Corrêa, A. 1992. The Durham Collectar. London: Published for the Henry Bradshaw Society by the Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Feizmohammadpour, A. 2013. Optional subject-verb agreement in Persian. University of Florida. (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. 2011. The Northern Subject Rule in first-person-singular contexts in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 321. 89–114.Google Scholar
2014. The voice of the dead: Analyzing sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English wills and testaments. Journal of English Linguistics 42(4). 330–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. & N. Rodríguez Ledesma. 2016. A case of accusative/dative syncretism in the language of the Lindisfarne Gospels gloss? Paper presented at the International Conference of English Historical Linguistics, Essen, 22–26 Aug, 2016.
Fernández Cuesta, J. & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.). 2016. The Old English glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, author and context. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. & C. Langmuir. In prep. Not in the right mood: the subjunctive in the Old Northumbrian gloss to the Durham Collectar.
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.
Gameson, R. 2013. From Holy Island to Durham: The contexts and meanings of the Lindisfarne Gospels. London: Third Millennium.Google Scholar
2017. The Lindisfarne Gospels: New perspectives (Library of the Written Word, vol. 57/The Manuscript World, vol. 9). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 1990. Middle English: A creole? In M. Görlach (ed.), Studies in the History of the English Language, 65–78. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gretsch, M. 1999. The intellectual foundations of the English Benedictine Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. The Junius Psalter gloss: Its historical and cultural context. Anglo-Saxon England 291. 85–121.Google Scholar
Higham, N. J. & M. J. Ryan. 2013. The Anglo-Saxon world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. & R. D. Fulk. 2011. A grammar of Old English. Volume II: Morphology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, E. 1922. On the history of the English present inflections, particularly th and -s. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hunter-Blair, P. 1966. An introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jolly, K. L. 2012. The 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
2016. The process of glossing and glossing as process: Scholarship and education in Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.iv.19. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 361–376.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. & G. Bauer (eds.). 1988. Luick revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kendrick, T. D. et al. (eds.) 1960. Evangeliorum 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
Ker, N. R. 1942. Aldred the scribe. Essays and Studies by members of the English Association 281. 7–12.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. 2000. The origins of the Northern Subject Rule: A case of early contact? In H. L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes II, 329–346. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., A. Taylor & D. Ringe. 2000. The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In S. Herring, P. van Reenen & L. Schøsler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 353–391. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. 2005. The development of Swedish from the mid-16th century to 1800. In O. Bandle (ed.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, Vol.21, 1270–1281. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
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 [[URL]]. Edinburgh: © The University of Edinburgh.
Lemke, A. 2015. The Old English translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum in its historical and cultural context. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindelöf, U. 1890. Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham. Ein Beitrag zur altenglischen Grammatik. Helsingfors: Frenckell & Son.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1927. Rituale 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
McColl Millar, R. 2016. The interaction of closely related linguistic varieties and the history of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. 2016. Is radical analyticity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. In E. van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change continued, 49–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, B. M. 1997. The earliest versions of the New Testament: Their origins, transmission and limitations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 2002. The origin and diffusion of English 3sg -s . Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 381. 352–61.Google Scholar
Poussa, P. 1982. The evolution of Early Standard English: The creolization hypothesis. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 141. 60–87.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 2016. Aldred: Glossator and book historian. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 37–60.Google Scholar
Robinson, F. C. 1973. Syntactical glosses in Latin manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon provenance. Speculum 48(3). 443–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Ledesma, N. 2013. The Northern Subject Rule in first-person singular contexts in Older Scots. Folia Linguistica Historica 341. 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. S. C. 1960. Standard paradigms. In Kendrick et al. (eds.), Book II, 37–42.Google Scholar
1968. Aldrediana XVII: Ritual supplement. English Philological Studies 111. 1–43.Google Scholar
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
1970. Conservatism in the Anglo-Saxon gloss to the Durham Ritual. Notes and Queries 2151. 363–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1971. Aldrediana XXIII: Notes on the accidence of the Durham Ritual. Leeds Studies in English 51. 53–67.Google Scholar
1978. A point of comparison between Aldred’s two glosses. Notes and Queries 2231. 197–199.Google Scholar
Ross, A. S. C., E. G. Stanley & T. J. Brown. 1960. Some observations on the gloss and the glossator. In Kendrick et al. (eds.), Book II, 3–33.Google Scholar
Rusche, P. G. 2016. The Lindisfarne Gospel glosses and the Benedictine Reform. Was Aldred trained in the Southumbrian glossing tradition? In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 61–78.Google Scholar
Shields, K. 1992. A history of Indo-European verb morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skeat, W. W. (ed.). 1871–1887. The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions. 41 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Mark (1871), Luke (1874), John (1878), Matthew (1887)].Google Scholar
(ed.). 1878. The Gospel according to Saint John in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian versions synoptically arranged. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spellman, D. 2011. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stanley, E. G. 1988. Karl Luick’s “Man schrieb wie man sprach” and English historical phonology. In D. Kastovsky & G. Bauer. (eds.), 311–334.Google Scholar
Stein, D. 1986. Old English Northumbrian verb inflection revisited. In D. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, J. 1840. Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis. Surtees Society 10. London.Google Scholar
Theijssen, D. 2009. Variable selection in logistic regression: The British English dative alternation. In T. Icard & R. Muskens (eds.), Interfaces: Explorations in logic, language and computation, 87–101. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & T. Kaufman 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, O. 2010. Anglo-Latin bilingualism before 1066: Prospects and limitations. In Alaric 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Townend, M. 2002. Language and history in Viking-Age England: Linguistic relations between speakers of Old Norse and Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tristram, H. L. C. 2004. Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or what was spoken Old English like? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 401. 87–110.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2011. Sociolinguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bergen, L. 2008. Negative constructions and OE dialects: Evidence from glosses and prose. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1091. 275–312.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2001. Atlantis Semitica: Structural contact features in Celtic and English. In L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 351–369. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fernández Cuesta, Julia
2022. Der Geist, der stets verneint: Roger Lass’s epistemology of linguistic change. Language & History 65:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Fernández-Cuesta, Julia & Nieves Rodríguez-Ledesma
2020. Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.