Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 37:3 (2010) ► pp.279–319

Premodern Letters and Textual Consciousness

From the Pre-Socratics to the First Grammatical Treatise

| University of Auckland
Modern linguistics textbooks devote little, if any, space to writing systems. Shifting our attention from naming precursors or proto-theories to reading earlier language study and linguistics as theorizing and description, the present paper explores ancient and early medieval concepts of the letter in terms of the semiotics of written language and the emergence of textual consciousness in manuscript culture. Early concepts and uses of the letter in alphabetic writing were ambiguous, multilayered, and occasionally contested, but they were not confused. Ancient and early medieval concepts of the letter were based on a semiotics of language and writing which connected spoken and visual signs as multimodal textual activity. Theories of the letter included: (a) the written character (gramma, littera) is a visual sign signifying a particular sound or group of sounds; (b) letters can function as arbitrary second-order signifying systems, such as numbers or diacritics; (c) different alphabets are rooted in the history of peoples although the Roman alphabet is a plastic medium for inscribing the emerging European vernaculars; (d) letters are material substances; (e) the written character is a mute sign; (f) the written character is imperfect or incomplete when detached from sound and the practice of reading aloud.
Published online: 17 November 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.37.3.01ams
References (62)
References
Abbon de Fleury. 1982. Questions grammaticales (Quaestiones grammaticales). Texte établi, traduction et commentaire par Anita Guerreau-Jalabert. Paris: Société d’Éditions “Les Belles Lettres”.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, David. 1949. “What is a letter?”. Lingua 21.54–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ælfric. 2002. Excerptiones de Prisciano. Ed. by David W. Porter. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
. 1966. Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar: Text und Varianten. Ed. by Julius Zupitza. 2nd ed. Berlin-Zürich-Dublin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Alcuin. Ars grammatica. PL 1011: 849–902.
Alfred. “Preface to Pastoral Care”. An Anglo-Saxon Reader ed. by James W. Bright, 26–29.
Althusser, Louis. 2001. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Transl. by Ben Brewster. London & New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Amsler, Mark. 1989. Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1993. “History of Linguistics, ‘Standard Latin’, and Pedagogy”. Historiographia Linguistica 201.49–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “The Role of Linguistics in Early Medieval Education”. History of the Language Sciences ed. by Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh, vol. I1, 532–540. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
An Anglo-Saxon Reader. 1913. Ed. by James W. Bright. 3rd ed. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. 1931–1954. Ed. by George Philip Krapp and Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie. 61 vols. New York: Columbia University Press (cited as ASPR ).Google Scholar
Anonymus ad Cuimnanum. 1992. Expossitio latinitatis. Ed. by Bernard Bischoff & Bengt Löfstedt. (= Corpus Christianorum; Series Latina, 133D.) Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1978. De interpretatione. Transl. by J. L. Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 1933–1935. Metaphysics. Ed. and transl. Hugh Tredennick. 21 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Augustine. 1961. Confessions. Transl. by R. S. Pine-Coffin. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1975. De dialectica. Ed. by Jan Pinborg and transl. By B. Darrell Jackson. Dordrecht & Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bede. 1969. Historia ecclesiatica gentis anglorum. Ed. by B. Colgrave & R. A. B. Mynors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bitterli, Dieter. 2009. Say What I Am Called: The Old English Riddles of the Exeter Book and the Anglo-Latin riddle tradition. Toronto & London: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Ernst. 1977 [1935]. “Nonsynchronism and the Obligation to Its Dialectics”. New German Critique No.11.22–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language 21.153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1927. “Literate and Illiterate Speech”. American Speech 21.432–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Boethius. 1877–1880. Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Peri hermenias. Ed. by Karl Meiser. 21 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles & Félix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Transl. by Brian Massumi. London & Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. Transl. by Gayatri Spivak. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Diogenes Laertius. 1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 21 vols. Transl. by R. D. Hicks. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dobrovolsky, Michael & William O’Grady. 2001 [1987]. Contemporary Linguistics. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford; New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Donatus Ortigraphus. 1982. Ars grammatica. Ed. by John Chittenden. (= Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 40D.) Turhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Fragments of Attic Comedy. 1957–1961. Ed. and trans. by John Maxwell Edmonds. 31 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Gordon, A. E. 1973. The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet. Berkeley & London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grammatici latini. 1855–1880. Ed. by Heinrich Keil. 81 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961.) [Cited as Keil + volume number + page.]Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar, ed. 1972. First Grammatical Treatise. 2nd rev ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
The Hisperica Famina. Vol. I1: The A-Text. 1974. Ed. and transl. by Michael Herren. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Hrabanus Maurus. De institutione clericorum. PL 1071.293–420.
. De universo. PL 1111.9–614B.
. Excerptio de arte grammatica Prisciani. PL 1111.613A–78.
Isidore of Seville. 1911. Etymologiarum sive originum libri xx. Ed. by W. M. Lindsay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin. (Repr., New York: W. W. Norton, 1964.)Google Scholar
Law, Vivien. 1995. Wisdom, Authority, and Grammar in the Seventh Century: Decoding Virgilius Maro Grammaticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages. New York & London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lucretius. 1975. De rerum natura. Ed. and transl. by W. H. D. Rouse. Rev. ed. by Martin Ferguson Smith. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, James. 1955/56. “Das akrophonische Prinzip und Wulfilas Alphabet”. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 861.265–275.Google Scholar
Meritt, Herbert Dean. 1945. Old English Glosses. New York: MLA.Google Scholar
Murphy, Patrick. 2005. “Bofstafas: A literal reading of Exeter Book Riddle 57”. Philological Quarterly 841.139–160.Google Scholar
Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina. 1844–1855. Ed. by Jean-Paul Migne. Paris: Garnier. [Cited as PL plus volume number.]Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955. Philosophical Writings. Ed. by Justus Buchler. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Plato. 1998. Cratylus. Transl. by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett.Google Scholar
Robinson, Fred C. 1975. “Artful Ambiguities in the Old English ‘Book-Moth’ Riddle”. In AngloSaxon Poetry: Essays in appreciation for John C. McGalliard ed. by L. E. Nicholson & Dolores Warwick Frese, 355–362. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1976 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. with commentary and notes by Tullio De Mauro. Paris: Payothèque.Google Scholar
Shook, Laurence. 1974. “Riddles Relating to the Anglo-Saxon Scriptorium”. Essays in Honour of Anton Charles Pegis ed. by J. R. O’Donnell, 215–236. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Simplicius. 2002. Commentary on Aristotle Physics 3. Transl. by J. O. Urmson. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Svenbro, Jesper. 1993. Phrasikleia: An anthropology of reading in Ancient Greece. Transl. by Janet Lloyd. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 1981. “The History-Writing of Linguistics: A methodological note”. General Linguistics 211.11–16.Google Scholar
Thesaurus palaeohibernicus. 1975. Ed. by W. Stokes & J. Strachan. 21 vols. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Venezky, Richard. 1999. The American Way of Spelling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Virgilius Maro Grammaticus. 2003. Opera omnia. Ed. by Bengt Löfstedt. Munich & Leipzig: K. G. Saur.Google Scholar
. 1886. Epitomae; Epistolae. Ed. by J. Huemer. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
. 1928. Les Epitomae. Ed. by D. Tardi. Paris: Boivin and Cie.Google Scholar
Willibald. 1905. Vita Sancti Bonifatii. Ed. by Wilhelm Levison. (= Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, 57.) Hannover & Leipzig: Hahn.Google Scholar