Signalling Language Choice in Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Charters, c.700–c.900
Signalling Language Choice in Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Charters, c.700–c.900
复制标题
盎格鲁撒克逊和法兰克宪章中的信号语言选择，c.700–c.900
DOI：
10.1163/9789004432338_007
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
F. Tinti
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Roberts;F. Tinti
虽然日耳曼方言在英格兰和欧洲大陆享有与拉丁语不同的地位，但两个地区的文献作者在使用语言方面都有特定的选择。本章通过对盎格鲁-撒克逊和法兰克法律的文件（包括皇家证书和“私人”（即非皇家）特许状）中自我意识语言使用的比较研究，探讨这些语言决定有时是如何发出信号的，以及它们意味着什么。调查的重点是拉丁语和日耳曼语之间的语码转换的重要案例。我们确定和比较宪章抄写员如何发出信号，在语言的开关，例如在文件中，拉丁散文被打断的一个限定短语来描述的东西在日耳曼语言。此外，我们还研究了宪章中特定语言意识的实例，包括明确提到的theodisca（通常是大陆日耳曼语）和撒克逊语（通常是古英语）。
这些语言的代码转换和识别揭示了起草者敏锐的语言意识，并为直接比较两种文化提供了机会，这两种文化的外交实践似乎往往明显不同。在这两个地区，日耳曼方言在特许状中最常用于描述土地和边界（尽管在英格兰，古英语也可以用于其他目的和特许状的不同部分）。虽然承认实用主义的传递某些信息的白话文，我们认为，使用白话文在描述的景观和财产往往也是一个领土的主张和有意义的身份表示。拉丁语在这两个地区作为书面交流的标准语言的地位，迄今为止一直倾向于让学者们认为，日耳曼语的插入语和限定短语被纳入宪章纯粹是为了促进拉丁语识字率相对较低的社会的交流。相比之下，我们的研究表明，方言可以被有意地引用，它可以被利用作为产生社会包容或排斥的一种手段，它最终传达的意图和意义远远超出了简单的澄清。
Though Germanic vernaculars enjoyed different statuses in relation to Latin in England and on the continent, authors of documents in both regions made specific choices concerning their use of language. This chapter explores how these linguistic decisions were sometimes signalled and what they imply through a comparative study of self-conscious language-use in Anglo-Saxon and Frankish legal documents, including both royal diplomas and ‘private’ (i.e. non-royal) charters, between c.700 and c.900. The enquiry focuses on significant cases of code-switching between Latin and Germanic vernacular. We identify and compare how charter scribes signalled a switch in language, as for instance in documents where Latin prose is interrupted with a qualifying phrase to describe something in a Germanic language. In addition, we examine instances of specific linguistic awareness in charters, including explicit references to the theodisca (usually continental Germanic language) and saxonica (usually Old English) languages.
These code switches and identifications of language reveal an acute linguistic consciousness on the part of the draftsmen and offer an opportunity for direct comparison between two cultures whose diplomatic practices have often seemed to be markedly different. In both regions the most frequent use of Germanic vernacular in charters came in descriptions of land and boundaries (though in England, Old English could also be employed for other purposes and in different sections of a charter). While acknowledging the pragmatism of transmitting certain pieces of information in the vernacular, we argue that the use of the vernacular in descriptions of landscape and property was often also an assertion of territoriality and a meaningful representation of identity. The status of Latin as the standard language of written communication in both regions has hitherto tended to lead scholars to suppose that Germanic insertions and qualifying phrases were included in charters purely to facilitate communication in societies with relatively low Latin literacy. Our study, by contrast, shows that the vernacular could be invoked quite deliberately, that it could be exploited as a means of engendering social inclusion or exclusion, and that it ultimately conveyed intentions and meanings which went far beyond simple clarification.