https://ebookmass.com/product/a-guide-to-old-spanish-firstedition-edition-steven-n-dworkin/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
A theological introduction to the Old Testament Hamilton
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-theological-introduction-to-the-oldtestament-hamilton/
ebookmass.com
(eBook PDF) README FIRST for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods 3rd Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-readme-first-for-a-usersguide-to-qualitative-methods-3rd-edition/
ebookmass.com
A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition. Edition Visser
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-tribute-to-emil-wolf-first-editionedition-visser/
ebookmass.com
Steamforged Heresy: A LitRPG Adventure (Steamforged Sorcery Book 2) Actus
https://ebookmass.com/product/steamforged-heresy-a-litrpg-adventuresteamforged-sorcery-book-2-actus/
ebookmass.com
Globalizing the US Presidency: Postcolonial Views of John F. Kennedy Cyrus
Schayegh
https://ebookmass.com/product/globalizing-the-us-presidencypostcolonial-views-of-john-f-kennedy-cyrus-schayegh/
ebookmass.com
Wardlaw’s Contemporary Nutrition: A Functional Approach
Gordon M. Wardlaw
https://ebookmass.com/product/wardlaws-contemporary-nutrition-afunctional-approach-gordon-m-wardlaw/
ebookmass.com
Psychiatry: Test Preparation & Review Manual 4th Edition J. Clive Spiegel
https://ebookmass.com/product/psychiatry-test-preparation-reviewmanual-4th-edition-j-clive-spiegel/
ebookmass.com
International Finance: New Players and Global Markets 1st Edition Felix I. Lessambo
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-finance-new-players-andglobal-markets-1st-edition-felix-i-lessambo/
ebookmass.com
Curriculum, Schooling and Applied Research: Challenges and Tensions for Researchers 1st ed. Edition Jennifer Donovan
https://ebookmass.com/product/curriculum-schooling-and-appliedresearch-challenges-and-tensions-for-researchers-1st-ed-editionjennifer-donovan/
ebookmass.com
Jubilee, Kentucky 01-Don't Back Down Sala
https://ebookmass.com/product/jubilee-kentucky-01-dont-back-down-sala/
ebookmass.com
AGuidetoOldSpanish AGuidetoOldSpanish STEVENN.DWORKIN GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford, , UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©StevenN.Dworkin
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
ISBN
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface PartI.LinguisticfeaturesofmedievalHispano-Romance
.Thenatureof “OldSpanish”
. Languagenamesandchronologicalscope
. VarietiesofmedievalHispano-Romance
. Latin/Romance:oneortwolinguisticcodes?
. EarliesttextsinmedievalHispano-Romance
TracesofspokenmedievalHispano-Romance anddiscursivetraditions
.Phonetics,phonology,andorthographyofmedievalHispano-Romance
Sourcesofinformationonmedievalpronunciation
. Phonemicinventory
Unstressedvowels
. Reductionofvowelsequences
Stresspatterns
. OldSpanishconsonants
Stop/fricativeallophony
.. Thestatusof/f–/~/h–/
Fricativesandaffricates
.. Syllable-(andword-)finalconsonants
.. Vocalicapocopeandword-finalconsonants
. Yeísmo
. Aspirationofsyllable-andword-final –s
. Consonantlength
. Orthography
.InflectionalmorphologyofmedievalHispano-Romance
Scopeofthischapter
. Grammaticalgenderandgendermarking
Pluralmarking
. Determiners
Definitearticle
.. Article+prepositioncontractions
Demonstratives
.. Possessives
Pronouns
.. Subjectpronouns
Objectpronouns
.. Adverbialpronouns
.. Indefiniteadjectivesandpronouns
.. Negativepronouns(andothernegators)
.. Relativeandinterrogativepronouns
. Morphologicaladverbs
. Numerals
. Prepositions
Verbmorphology
.. Conjugationclassesandverbstems
.
. Pastparticiples
Gerunds
. Verbstemsandendings
Presentindicativeandsubjunctive:verbendings
.. Presentindicativeandsubjunctive:stemalterations andallomorphy
Imperfectendings
“Weakpreterits”:endingsandstems
.. “Strongpreterits”:endingsandstems
Syntheticpluperfect
. Future:stemsandendings
. Analyticorcompoundpasttenses
. Subjunctiveverbalmorphology
Presentsubjunctive
.. Pastsubjunctive
.. Futuresubjunctive
.SyntacticfeaturesofmedievalHispano-Romance
. Scopeofthischapter
. Nounphrasesyntax:determiners
.. Articles
.. Demonstrativesandpossessives
Partitiveconstructions
. Issuesinwordorder
Subject-Verb-Object(SVO)vs.Verb-Subject-Object(VSO)
.. Placementofnominaldirectobjects
Noun+Adjectivevs.Adjective+Noun
Differentialobjectmarking(DOM)
. Syntaxofobjectpronouns
Placementofobjectpronouns
.. Pronominalduplication/cliticdoubling
Leísmo, laísmo, loísmo
. Verbalsyntax
.. Syntheticorsimpleverbtenses
.
. Syntheticandanalyticfutures
. Analyticpasttenses
Auxiliaryselection
Participle–objectagreement
Auxiliary+participlevs.participle+auxiliary
. Estar +gerund
. Subjunctive
. Passiveconstructions
Tener vs. (h)aver
. Ser vs. estar
.ThemedievalHispano-Romancelexicon
Lexicalresources
. Scopeofthischapter
Lexicalstrata
. Lexicalstability
Selectedlexicalitems
.. Nouns
Adjectives
.. Verbs
.. Functionwords(prepositions,conjunctions,pronouns, adverbials)
. Doublets
. Semanticchange
. Suffixalderivation
.. Suffixalinventory
.. Suffixalrivalries
... Examplesofrivalsuffixestoformde-adjectival nominalabstracts
Examplesofrivalsuffixestoformdeverbal nominalabstracts
Lostsuf fixalderivatives
. Prefixation
Compoundingandcomposition
PartII.Anthologyoftexts Passage : Generalestoria,cuartaparte (c.)
Passage : ElcondeLucanor ()
Passage : Atalayadelascorónicas ()
References
Index
Preface Itisessentialtomakeclearfromtheoutsettheprimarygoalofthisbookand,equally important,whatthisworkisnotintendedtobe.Ihavechosentogiveitthetitle AGuidetoOldSpanish ratherthan AGrammarofOldSpanish,asitisdesignedto serveasageneralintroductiontoanddescriptionofthelinguisticstructuresthat characterizethedifferentmedievalRomancevernacularsthatmakeupthelinguistic diasystemthatscholarstodaylabelasOldorMedievalSpanishandthatcontrastwith themodernstandardlanguage.Itisnotmeanttobeacomprehensivedescriptive grammarwrittenwithinaspeci fictheoreticalframeworkcoveringalltheknown phonologicalandmorphologicalvariantsandsyntacticconstructionsfoundinthe – yearsoftextsthathaveconservedthislanguagetowhichthelinguisthas accessonlyinitswrittenforms(arealitythatlimitsthescopeofourknowledge).Nor isthisbookanhistoricalgrammar.ThedetailsoftheevolutionfromspokenLatinto medievalHispano-Romanceofmanyoftheformsandconstructionsdescribedhere remaincontroversial.Inmanyinstances,attheendoftheappropriatesectionIdirect thereadertoselectedrecentstudiesthatreviewcritically,withappropriatebibliography,previousdiachronicworkonthestructure(s)atissue.Suchreferencesdonot necessarilyimplymyagreementwiththehistoricalanalysispresented.
Thisbookrepresentsthe firstsystematicdescriptioninEnglishofOldorMedieval Spanish,forwhichIregularlyusethroughoutthelabel “medievalHispano-Romance.” Althoughsuchnineteenth-centurypioneersofRomancehistoricallinguisticsas GottfriedBaist,JulesCornu,RufinoJoséCuervo,EmilGessner,Friedrich(Federico) Hanssen,andAlbertMorel-Fatiopublishedstudiesonindividualgrammaticaland lexicalfeaturesofthemedievallanguage,the AltspanischesElementarbuch ofAdolf Zauner(, ndedn )isthe firstattemptatasyntheticdescription.Some seventyyearslaterMichaelMetzeltin()producedforthesameGermanpublisherasimilarmanualwithanidenticaltitle.Itschaptersonphonetics/orthography, andmorphosyntaxarefollowedbyaselectionofshortsampletextsandabrief overviewofthelinguisticfragmentationoftheIberianPeninsula.Metzeltinexplicitly limitshisdatatoCastilianvarietiesofmedievalHispano-Romance,asheannounces thatheispreparingseparateworksontheLeoneseandAragonesevarieties(which have,tothebestofmyknowledge,notappeared).MetzeltinreprisesinSpanish,and withmoredetail,hisdescriptionofOldSpanishinMetzeltin()andKratschmer andMetzeltin().StefanBarme’sslender EinführungindasAltspanische () isinrealityanelementaryhistoricalgrammartracingthemainlinguisticchanges fromLatinthroughthemedievallanguage.Iamunawareofanybook-lengthsynthesis inSpanish(orinanyotherRomancelanguage).
Ihavesoughttoprepareabookfromwhichstudents(advancedundergraduates andgraduates)andscholarsinthevariousbranchesofSpanishmedievalstudiesmay benefit.Thematerialthatisaimedatallreadersisfoundinthebodyofthetext. Mattersthatmaybeofinterestprimarilytoscholarswhohavesomebackgroundin OldSpanishlanguageandliteraturehavebeenplacedinthenotes.Manyofthe bibliographicreferencesaredirectedmainlyatthislattergroupofreaders.Sincethis bookcontraststhemedievalvarietieswiththemodernstandardlanguage,itpresupposesonthepartofthereadersomebasicknowledgeofcontemporarySpanish.
Thebodyofthebookconsistsof fivechaptersthattreatrespectively()general questionspertainingtothedescriptionandlinguisticanalysisofmedievalHispanoRomance,()phonetics,phonology,andorthography,()inflectionalmorphology, ()sententialsyntax,and()lexicon(includingderivationalmorphology).There followsabriefanthologyoftextswithlinguisticcommentarydesignedtoofferthe readerexamplesincontextofmanyofthefeaturesdiscussedinthework’ s fivemain chapters.ForthatreasonIhavechosentopresentthreelengthierexamplesof medievalHispano-Romanceproseratherthanawiderselectionofshorterextracts illustratingthevariousmedievalliterarygenresandthedifferentregionalvarietiesof thelanguage.Inshort,thissectionofthebookisdesignedforlinguisticanalysisand notforuseinacourseonSpanishmedievalliterature.
Thisworkhasbenefittedfromcarefulreadingandcriticalcommentsbyseveral colleagues.IwishtoexpressmydeepestgratitudetoRafaelCanoAguilar,Gloria ClaveríaNadal,ChristopherPountain,RalphPenny,PedroSánchez-PrietoBorja, KenWireback,andRogerWrightfortheircritiquesandinsights.Needlesstosay, Itakesoleresponsibilityforallerrorsandinfelicities.Ialsowishtothankseveral colleagueswhorespondedpositivelytomyqueriesonindividualpointsorwhosent mecopiesofbooksandarticles,manystillinpressatthetime:MiriamBouzouita, MónicaCastilloLluch,AndrésEnriqueArias,JoséLuisGarcíaArias,BlancaGarrido Martín,EmilioMonteroCartelle,JavierRodríguezMolina,GillesRoques,Ryan Szpiech,FernandoTejedo-Herrero,andAleixandreVeiga.Itakethisopportunity torememberherethelateJohnDavey,whoencouragedmetosubmittheproposal forthisbooktoOxfordUniversityPress,andwhoguidedmethroughtheentire process.IalsoexpressmygratitudetothetwoeditorsunderwhomIworkedafter John'sretirement,JuliaSteerandVickiSunter,andtotheeditorialteamresponsible forcopy-editing,proofreading,andthepreparationoftheIndex.
PartI Linguisticfeaturesofmedieval Hispano-Romance 1 Thenatureof “OldSpanish ” . Languagenamesandchronologicalscope
Thisbookemploysthelabels “oldSpanish/medievalSpanish/medievalHispanoRomance” ascovertermsforthosecloselyrelatedRomancedialectsspokenduring theMiddleAgesinthatpartoftheIberianPeninsulawhichistodaySpain(apolitical entitynotformedinitscurrentshapeuntilthelate fifteenthcenturyaftertheunion oftheKingdomofCastilewiththeCrownofAragonin ,the finalReconquestof AndalusiawiththerecaptureofGranadain ,andtheslightlylaterincorporation oftheKingdomofNavarre).Theuseoftheterm “Spanish” withreferencetothese Romancevarietiesisanachronistic,astheadjective español (itselfaborrowingfrom southernGallo-Romance)1 referredtotheinhabitantsofthecountryandwasrarely employedasalanguagenameuntiltheendofthe fifteenthcentury,whenitappears inthetitle ManualdenuestraSantaFeCatólica,enespañol (Seville, ;seeAlonso : ).2 TheonlyearlierCastilianexampleof español sousedthatIhavefound appearsinthe EstoriadeEspanna ofAlfonsoXtheWise(reigned –),chapter : “Losengennosquesonllamadosenlatínarietesquequiertantodezircuemo carneros eten espannol llamanlosbozones” (quotedinKastenandNitti :s.v. español;myitalics).3 Italsoturnsupasaglottonyminthelatefourteenth-century writingsemanatingfromthechancelleryoftheAragoneseJuanFernándezde Heredia(d. ).
Thepreferredtermsthroughtheendofthe fifteenthcentury(andevenintothe earlymodernperiod)were romance (vars. romanz, romancio )or lenguaje/lengua vulgar, fablar,oftenfollowedbyageographicalspecifier(e.g., romancecastellano, en ellenguajedeCastiella, fablarcastellano, romancearagonés, enlenguaaragonesa;for
1 Thenativeformis espannón;fordiscussionandbibliography,seeDworkin(: ).
2 InthiscontextitisworthnotingthatElioAntoniodeNebrijachosetotitlehispioneeringgrammarof Gramáticadelalenguacastellana.InhisLatin-Spanishdictionaryofthesameyearheglossedthe Latinadverb hispane with “enlenguadeEspaña.”
3 Fernández-Ordóñez(: )suggeststhatforeigncollaboratorsofAlfonsoXmayhaveused español inthisway.InOldFrench espaignol wasusedasalanguagelabel,althoughitisuncleartowhichofthe medievalHispano-Romancevarietiesitreferred;seeColón(: )
AGuidetoOldSpanish.Firstedition.StevenN.Dworkin. ©StevenN.Dworkin .Firstpublished byOxfordUniversityPress.
abundantexamples,seeCano ).4
Mondéjar(: )citesexamplesof castellano sousedasanouninthe Librodelosengannos5 ()andintheAlfonsine Librosdelsaberdeastronomía (–).6 Ihavefoundnoexamplesof leonés ‘Leonese’ or asturiano ‘Asturian’ asnamesoflanguagesintheMiddleAges.7 Indeed, intheKingdomofCastileandLeón,thespeechofLeónandSalamancadidnotenjoy thesamelevelofprestigeincourtcirclesasdidthespeechofToledo.ViejoFernández (: ),withoutindicatingaspecifictext,statesthatthe firstreferencestoan AsturianformofspeechdistinctfromCastilianarefoundonlyinthe fifteenth century.Sometextsfromthethirteenththroughthe fifteenthcenturiesemploythe phrase nuestrolatín clearlyinreferencetoRomancevernacularforms(e.g., entredicho, fierro, omne, oreja).TejedoHerrero(, a)claimsthatthephrase nuestrolatín referstoahigher(written?)registerofRomance.8 Thevernacular reflexesofthefamilyof , ladino, ladinado,and,lessfrequently, ladinar,are usedintextsthroughthe fifteenthcentury,especiallybyMuslimsandJews,with referencetotheuseandknowledgeoftheRomancevernacular(thoughwithout specifyingaparticularregionalvariety). 9
Usuallywritersfeltaneedtospecifythenameofthespokenvernacularonlywhen contrastingitwithanotherlanguagesuchasLatin,Greek,Arabic,orHebrew(asin thequotationabovefromthe EstoriadeEspanna).AlthoughCastilian(especially itspost-ReconquestToledanvarietyresultingfromtheimplantationofnorthern Castilianlinguisticfeatures)graduallybecamethedominantwrittenformasthe KingdomofCastileconsolidateditspoliticalpowerintheIberianPeninsula,we cannotspeakofanational,muchlessanofficiallysanctionedstandardizedvarietyof medievalHispano-Romance.Althoughspecialistsagreethatthelabel castellano drecho,foundintheProloguetoAlfonsoX’sastronomicaltreatise LibrodelaOchava Esfera mightindicatean(undefined)abstractideal,itcertainlydoesnotbespeakthe presenceofawrittenstandardvariety.10
4 Thenoun romance was flankedbytheverb romançar ‘torenderintoRomance’
5 “etouoporbienqueaquestelibrofuesedearauigoencastellanotrasladado” (citedinMondejar : ).
6 BothEnriquedeVillenaandíñigoLópezdeMendoza,MarquésdeSantillana,employedthenoun catalán asaglottonyminthe firsthalfofthe fifteenthcenturyinreferencetotranslationsfromother languages.
7 AninterestingdistinctionappearsinaLeonesedocumentof withreferencetotheLeonese versionofthelawcodeknownasthe FueroJuzgo: “donRodrigo ... mandótreslladarelLiuroIudgoenletra ladina,caenanteyeraenletratoledanaenonlopodiatodoomneleer” (quotedinViejoFernández : ).Isthisareferencetoorthographicpractices,withimplicationsofaconsciousnessofalinguistic differentiation?
8 Adifferentinterpretationofthephrase nuestrolatín appearsinCanoAguilar().
9 Thephrase morolatinado inthe CantardeMíoCid referstoaMoorwhounderstood(andprobably spoke)thelocalRomancedialect;forfurtherdiscussion,seeWright(c),Tejedo(, a).The adjective ladino couldalsomean ‘pertainingtothelanguageofRome,Latin’ asin letrasladinas, meses ladinos foundintextsfromthecourtofAlfonsoXelSabio(seeKastenandNitti : ,s.v. ladino).
10 ThephraseoccursonlyonceintheentireAlfonsinecorpus.Themanuscriptoftheworkthatcontains itisnotfromtheAlfonsinescriptorium.Consequently,thesentenceinquestionmaybeapost-Alfonsine
Thisbookcoverstheperiodfromthetimeofthe firsttexts(tenthandeleventh centuries)whoseorthographyindicatesunequivocallyanattempttoreproducethe phoneticandmorphologicalrealitiesoftheRomancevernacular(asopposedto Latin)totheendofthe fifteenthcentury.Forthespecialistinlanguagehistory,the closingdateof traditionallyemployedbystudentsofSpanishmedievalliteratureandhistoryisarbitrary,asnoprecisedatecanbeputonlinguisticchanges.The fifteenthcenturymarksaperiodofgreattransitioninthephonological,morphological,syntactic,andlexico-semanticstructuresofthelanguage.Manycharacteristic featuresofmedievalHispano-Romancecontinuetoappearinthesixteenthcentury andsomelivedonintotheseventeenthcenturybeforefallingintodisuseorbeing relegatedtothestatusofnon-standardregionalvariantsaftertheconsolidationofa standardlanguageintheearlymodernperiod.Variousscholarshaveproposed chronologicalsubdivisionsforthemedievalperiod.Suchdivisionsdonotcorrespond toanylinguisticrealitiesexperiencedbyspeakers,buttheymayhavedidacticvalueas pointsofreferenceforthemodernreaderorstudent.Theyareoftenbasedon externalcriteriasuchashistoricaleventsorliteraryhistory.11 Somespecialistsprefer toworkwithperiodsor épocas,suchas laépocadeorígenes, laépocaalfonsí, laépoca delosReyesCatólicos
. VarietiesofmedievalHispano-Romance MedievalHispano-Romanceisatextlanguage,i.e.,theonlyattestationsarewritten textsthathavesurvivedtothepresent.Invaluableasthisabundantdocumentationis, itallowsinsightonlyintoselectedregistersofthewrittenlanguageandoffersonly limitedaccesstotherealitiesoforaldiscourse.Indeed,writtenregistersoftenemploy syntacticconstructionsormakelexicalchoicesthatareinfrequentorevenunknown inthespokenlanguage.ScholarsinmedievalIberiahadnointerestinthelocal vernaculars,devotingtheirattentiononlytoBiblicalHebrew,ClassicalLatin,and Arabic.Therearenocontemporarydescriptionsofthedifferentregistersofthe spokenlanguage.Thus,theoverallpictureofthevariouslinguisticstructuresof medievalHispano-Romanceofferedinthisbookisnecessarilyincompleteorpartial.
addition.IhavefoundnootherexamplesinmedievalHispano-Romance.Ironically,theform drecho is probablyAragoneseratherthanCastilian.HundredsofexamplesarefoundintextsfromNavarreand Aragon,includingthewritingsofJuanFernándezdeHeredia(seeCORDE(CorpusDiacrónicodel Español)andMackenzie(: a)).Forfurtherdiscussion,seeCano().GonzálezOllé()has demonstratedthatthereisnoevidencetosupporttheassertionfoundinsomesixteenth-centurysources thatinthemid-thirteenthcentury(c.),AlfonsoXdeclaredthat,inthecaseofalegaldisputeinvolving themeaningofaword,itsmeaninginthespeechofToledoshouldprevail.
11 MarcosMarín()andQuilisMerín()criticallyreviewinconsiderabledetailthecriteria employedinvariousattemptsatperiodization.Wright()callsintoquestionthenotionandvalueof periodizationinlanguagehistory.
OverthelongperiodoftheMiddleAgesthegeographicspreadandthe sociolinguisticprestigeofthedifferent varietiesofHispano-Romanceunderwent signi fi cantchanges.Attheoutset(secondhalfoftheeighthcentury)ofthe ChristianReconquest( Reconquista )ofMuslimSpain,itisusefultodistinguish betweentheRomancevarietiesspokeninChristianSpainandthosespokenin Muslim-controlledterritories. 12 AstheReconquestprogressedfromthenorthto thesouth,northernvarietiesofHispan o-Romancespreadanddisplacedthelocal Hispano-RomancespokenbyChristians,Arabs,andJewsinAl-Andalus(the namegiventoMuslimSpain).Duetoalackofextanttexts, 13 weknowverylittle aboutthesedialects,thedirectcontinuations(withastrongArabiclexicaloverlay)of thespokenvarietiesofLatinofpartsofthecentralandsouthernIberianPeninsula, traditionallylabeled “Mozarabic” (Sp. mozárabe),althoughthenames romandalusí, coinedandadvocatedbyFedericoCorriente,and romanceandalusí aregradually gainingwideracceptance.ForChristianSpain,itisreasonabletospeak(moving fromwesttoeast)ofGalician,Asturo-Leonese,Castilian,Riojan,Navarro-Aragonese, andCatalanvarietiesofRomance.WiththeexceptionofRiojan,14 theselabelsactually correspondtohistorical–politicalrealitiessuchasadministrativeboundariesrather thandialectboundariesformedbybundle sofcoincidentisoglosses.Theyarea “ necessaryconvenience ” (Penny : ).
Inalllikelihood,thesespeechcommunitiesformedalinguisticcontinuum,with speakersperhapsfeelingthateachformedpartofthesamelanguage,withregional differencesinpronunciation,morphology,andlexicon(aswillbedescribedinthe relevantchaptersofthisbook).Dialectsorregionalvarietiesinclosegeographical proximityaremutuallyintelligible,whereasthosefurtherapartinspacearemore distinctphonetically,morphologically,syntactically,andlexicallyfromeachother. UntilthedifferentpoliticalentitiesthatcomprisedmedievalSpainbeganinthemidthirteenthcenturytoseektodevelopandconsolidatetheirownsystemsofwritingin Romance,speakershadnoconceptofdistinctvarietiesofHispano-Romance. Attemptsto fixaregularizedorthographywouldhavehadnoimpactonthelinguistic consciousnessoftheoverwhelminglyilliteratemajorityofthepopulation.The politicalandmilitarydominanceofCastileduringtheReconquestincreasedthe prestigeofitsRomancevarieties,whichunderwentaprocessofkoineizationand linguisticlevelingasaresultofthemixingofvariousregionalvarietiesduringthe southwardmovementofnorthernRomancespeakers(Penny ,Tuten ).
12 SpecialistsdonotagreeontheextenttowhichsouthernvarietiesofRomancecontinuedtobe spokeninMuslim-controlledCórdobaandSevillepriortotheirreturningtoChristiancontrolin and respectively.
13 ManyChristianslivinginMuslimSpainpreferredtowriteinArabic,thehighlanguageofculturein thatregion.
14 Originally,LaRiojaformedpartoftheterritoryofNavarrebeforebeingdividedbetweenthe KingdomofCastileandtheCrownofAragon.Iteventuallybecamepartoftheformerentity.
Aftertheunionin oftheoriginallyseparatekingdomsofCastileandLeón, thetwomainpoliticalentitiesinwhatistodaySpainweretheKingdomofCastile andLeónand,toitseast,theCrownofAragon(createdin throughtheunionof theKingdomofAragonandtheCountyofCatalonia).IntheformerCastilian rapidlybecametheprestigevariety(thoughGalician,Asturian,andLeonesesurvived ineverydayspeechandinwrittenusageinlocallawcodes,notarialdocuments, ecclesiasticalcartularies,etc.),whereasAragoneseandCatalanweredominantuntil thegradualencroachmentofCastilianintheearly fi fteenthcenturyintotheCrown ofAragon.TodaymostscholarsagreethattheJewsofmedievalIberiaemployedthe sameregionalvarietiesastheirChristianneighbors,leavingasidespecificlexical itemsdesignatingJewishbeliefs,customs,andreligiouspractices,e.g.,theuseofthe Arabism alhad ratherthantheChristian domingo for ‘Sunday’,theuseof dio rather than dios tostresstheonenessofGod,orthepresenceoflexicalHebraisms(cf.the useofHebraismsinmodernYiddish).15 Thislackofawarenessoflinguisticfeatures delimitingdifferentvarietiesofRomancemaybeafactorinexplainingthepresence ofwhatweviewtodayascompetingregionalvariantsinthesamecopyofagiventext. Textualevidencedocumentstheawarenessofsomelevelofdifferencebetween CastilianandAragonese;Inthe EstoriadeEspanna ofAlfonsoXelSabiothe chroniclernotes: “murióelReydonPedrodeAragónetregnóempóselsuhermano donAlffonsoalquellamaronallá ensuaragonés Batallero” (quotedinNiederehe : –;myitalics,asisthecaseinallthefollowingquotations).ThethirteenthcenturyAragoneselegalcompilationknownas VidalMayor declares: “tantosonlas palaurasestraniasdellatínoencaratantassonstraniasdel lengoagedeAragón que nonpuedenserespuestasaqueillaspalaurasderafezenlatínsinonporpalauras quesonditasacerquad’aqueillasninlosquefablanensuromantzpuedenentender allí” (quotedinEnguitaUtrilla : ).In PedroIVwrotetoJuanFernández deHeredia: “quehaentregatalseuprocuradorelllibreSummadelesHistories traduit alaragonés perferloaiximateixtraduir al’aragonés” (quotedinEnguita Utrilla : ).AcustomsagreementsignedinBarcelonain betweenthe KingdomofCastileandtheCrownofAragonstipulated: “Quedelosdichoscapítulos tractoseconcordiasefagandoscartas:launaescriptaen lenguaaragonesa,laotra escriptaen lenguacastellana” (GonzálezOllé : ).ThebeginningofJuan FernándezdeHeredia’stranslationofPaulusOrosiusdeclares: “Encomiençaellibro dePauloOrosiorecontadordeystoriassacadodelatínen lenguaaragonesa” (citedin Mackenzie :vi).In ,somethirty-fiveyearsaftertheunionofthetwo kingdomsintheIberianPeninsula,theconvertfromIslamtoChristianitywhotook thenameJuanAndrésdeclaredinhisanti-Islamtreatise Confusiónoconfutaciónde
15 SpanishJewsdidproduceextensiveliterarytextswritteninRomancewithHebrewcharacters,e.g., thefourteenth-century Proverbiosmorales ofSantobdeCarrión.ManySpanishJewspreferredArabicas theirdailylanguage;Hebrewwasusedonlyforliturgicalpurposesandforwritingonreligioustopics.
lasectaMahométicaydelAlcorán “ Convertimeatrasladardearávigo enlengua aragonesa todalaleydelosmoros ” (quotedinSzpiech : ). 16
. Latin/Romance:oneortwolinguisticcodes? Fortheperiodpriortotheappearanceofthe firsttextsclearlywritteninvarietiesof medievalHispano-Romance,historiansoftheSpanishlanguagehavetraditionally operatedwithadiglossiclinguisticsituation.WhereasallspeakersofRomancespoke theirlocalHispano-Romancevernaculars,thefewwhocouldwriteemployedLatin, perceivedasadistinctlinguisticcode.ThisviewwaschallengedbyRogerWright, who,inoneofthemostimportantbooks(Wright )writteninthe fieldof Romancelinguisticsinthelastquarterofthetwentiethcentury(followedbydozens ofpertinentarticles;seethestudiesgatheredtogetherinWright a, ),argued thatuntilthelateeleventhcenturyintheIberianPeninsula(outsidetheCatalan region),therewasnoconceptualdistinctionbetweenwhatwetodayviewasseparate linguisticsystems,namelyLatinandRomance.InWright’sviewthosefewpeople whocouldwritedidsointhesamelanguagethattheyspoke,namelyRomance,but theyused(withwidelyvaryingdegreesofaccuracyandcorrectness)theonlyspelling systemavailablethatwastaughtintheschoolsofthetime,thatofwrittenLatin. Whenatextwasdeliveredorally,itwasreadwithcontemporaryvernacularphoneticsandwasunderstandabletoitslisteners.Thissituationprevaileduntilthelate eleventhcentury,whenthenewreadingnorms(atleastforecclesiasticaltexts) formulatedbytheEnglishmanAlcuinofYorkatCharlemagne’scourtintheearly ninthcenturywithintheframeworkoftheCarolingianReformwereadaptedforthe SpanishchurchbytheCouncilofBurgos(c.).Thesenormsrequiredthe pronunciationofalllettersofawrittenwordwithaconsistentone-to-onesound–lettercorrespondenceinoralreading.Thus,written paternoster, episcopus, oculus, normallyreadoutloudas/padrenuestro/,/obispo/,/odʒo/,becameincomprehensible whenpronouncedas/paternoster/,/episkopus/,/okulus/.Theresultledtothe establishmentofanewspellingsystemthatreflectedasbestitcouldtherealitiesof vernacularpronunciation(atthephonemiclevel),sothatlistenerswouldunderstand textsreadoutloudinaccordwiththenewpractices.Itiscertainlyworthnotingthat theappearanceofthe firsttextswrittenclearlyinRomanceinFranceandSpain coincidewiththeintroductionofthereadingnormsoftheCarolingianReform (cf.theFrench SermentsdeStrassbourg, c ,whichpostdatebyonlyafew decadestheirintroductionintheCarolingiancourt).AccordingtoWright,what occurredwasnotachangeoflinguisticcode,butachangeinspellingpractices, resultinginthebeginningsofaconceptualdistinctionbetweenthetextswrittenwith
16 Formedievalexamplesof catalá(n)/catalane (sometimeLatinizedas cat(h)alano ),seeColón ( :
).
EarliesttextsinmedievalHispano-Romance
theoldsystem(whatwenowcallMedievalLatin)andthenewwayofspelling (i.e.,Romance).Theinstigatorsofthischangewereveryoftenecclesiastics,skilledfor themostpartinwritingaccordingtotheoldnorms(i.e.,Latinorthography)and capableofdevisingasystemcapableofrepresentingtherealitiesoforalspeech.Many hadbeentrainedinFrenchreligioushouseswherethepracticeofusinganew Romanceorthographyhadbeen firstestablished.17
Icannotenterhereintoareviewofthestrengthsandweaknessesaswellas themanypublishedpositiveandnegativereactionstoWright’sstimulatingand controversialhypothesis.18 Forpracticalpurposes,thisbookwillbeginitsdescription ofmedievalHispano-Romancewiththe firsttextsthatareclearlywritteninan orthographyre flectingattemptstoreproducethelocalRomancevernacularandits phonological,morphological,andsyntacticfeatures.Althoughthelanguageofmany earlydocumentsmayindeedhavebeenthelocalvarietyofmedievalHispanoRomance,theuseofaLatinatespellingandmorphologyinthesetextsmasksthe realitiesofthevernacularofthetime.Nevertheless,thesesamesourcesoftenshow clearlysuchtraitsofRomancesyntaxasVerb-ObjectratherthanObject-Verbword orderandthe firstvestigesofDirectObjectMarking(seeVelázquez-Mendoza ), andoftenlexicon(especiallyintheformofArabismsreproducedinvernaculargarb orlightlyLatinized).
. EarliesttextsinmedievalHispano-Romance ThenumerousextanttextsthathavepreservedMedievalHispano-Romancearethe productofamanuscriptculture.Veryfewhavesurvivedintheiroriginalversion. Rather,theyhavebeenpreservedincopies,oftenatmanyremovesintimeandin spacefromtheoriginalorautographversionofthetext.Indeed,themajorityof literaryworks firstwritteninthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiesexistonlyin copiespreparedinthe fifteenthcentury.Medievalcopyistsfeltnoobligationto preserveorrespecttheoriginalwordingandlinguisticformsandstructuresofthe texttheyweretranscribing.Theyunhesitatinglywouldreplacewordsorforms intheirsourcetextwithitemsthatbestcorrespondedtothelinguisticsituation oftheintendedreadership.Thus,amid-fifteenth-centuryCastilianscribecopyinga thirteenth-centuryworkpreparedin,say,aLeonesevarietyofHispano-Romance wouldsubstituteunfamiliarLeoneselinguisticformsorwordswithcontemporary Castilianequivalents.Theywerefarfromconsistentinintroducingchangestomeet locallinguisticconditions.Asaresult,mostsurvivingmanuscriptsareacompositeof originalauthorialformsandlaterscribalmodi ficationsandmodernizations,asituationthatexplainstheorthographicandmorphologicalpolymorphismofmost
17 Hernández()discussestheroleofJewishscribesintheevolutionofwritinginRomance.
18 AlistofreviewsandbriefdiscussionappearsinDworkin(b).
manuscriptsandthedifferencesamongcopiesofthesamesourcetext.19 Such variationdoesnotreflecttherealityofthespokenlanguageofanyindividual. Althoughalltheformsmaybeauthentic,thestudentofthemedievallanguageas wellastheliterarycriticmusttakecaretodistinguishbetweenthoseitemsinatext thatmayreflectthelanguageoftheoriginalauthorandthosethatmayresultfrom lateralterations.Scribeswerefalliblehumans,usuallyworkingunderdifficultconditionsinill-litandphysicallyuncomfortablescriptoria.Suchcircumstancescould leadtomisreadingsandtheintroductionofnon-existentformsandghostwords (someofwhichhavefoundtheirwayintomodernscholarlyeditions,historical grammars,anddictionaries).
Zumthor()dividedtheearliestRomancetextsintotwocategoriesaccording totheirpurpose,whichhelabeleddocumentationandmonumentalization.The formerincludestextswhosefunctionwasimmediate,practical,andperhapsshortterm,e.g.,donationsofproperty,billsofsale(compraventas),notarialdocuments, wills,oaths,etc.,whereasthelatterincludeslawcodes,chancellerydocuments,aswell asliteraryand(inthemedievalsense)scholarlytexts.
Priortothebeginningofthetwelfthcentury,one findstexts,mainlynotarial documentsandmunicipallawcodes(fueros)writteninwhatappearstobeLatinwith scatteredRomanceforms(especiallynon-LatinlexicalitemssuchasArabisms). Frequently,suchitemsarenotedasbeingofadifferentlinguisticlevelorregister thantherestofthetextbyaphrasesuchas vulgodicitur, vulgovocatur, vocatur vulgariter , vulgusdicit,essentially ‘asitissaidinthespokenlanguage’.Manyofthese earlydocumentscomefromtheAsturianandLeoneseregionsofChristianSpain(see PérezGonzález ,GarcíaArias , ).Sometextsshowsuchdecidedly vernacularsyntacticfeaturesandRomancelexicalitemshiddenbehindtheirLatinate morphologythatonemightwonderwhethertheywere firstdrafted(orally?)in Romanceandthengiven(sometimesinanimperfectfashion)aLatinatesurface appearanceforthedefinitivewrittenversion.Somecopyistsmayhavefeltthattheuse oftheLatinate(orolder)orthographygavethetextaddedauthorityor gravitas. Indeed,itisverylikelythatthewritersorcopyistsofsuchtextsdidnotfeelthatthey weremixingitemsfromtwoconceptuallydistinctlinguisticcodes,butratherthat theywereusingsyntacticconstructionsorlexicalitemsreflectingdifferentregisters ofonelanguagegovernedbywhatWright(b: –)hascalled “complex monolingualism”.Manysuchtextsweresetdowninwritingsothattheycouldbe preservedforlateroraldisseminationtoalargelyilliteratepublic.
PerhapstheearliestRomancetextfromtheIberianPeninsulaisashortpiece knownbyits firstthreewords, “Nodiciadekesos”,aninventoryofcheesespurchased
19 Anexcellentexampleisthemanuscripttraditionoftheearlythirteenth-century LibrodeAlexandre, preservedinalatethirteenth-centurymanuscriptcharacterizedbyLeoneselinguisticfeaturesanda fifteenth-centurymanuscriptwithAragoneselinguistictraits.
byamonkfortheMonasteryofSaintsJustoandPastornearLeón.Onthebasisof externalevidencethetexthasbeendatedto c. .Manyoftheformsareclearly Romance(nodicia , kesos, puseron, lebaron, fosado , mesa, espiseron , llo, sopbrino),and others,althoughLatinateinappearance,caneasilybereadwiththephoneticsof knownmedievalHispano-Romanceforms,e.g., espisit [=espeso/espiso], venit [=veno/vino], ibi [=i](MoralaRodríguez ,Sánchez-PrietoBorja : –).
AmongtheearliesttextscontainingscatteredRomancelexicalitemsarethetenthandeleventh-century jarchas/xarajat ,refrains(estribillos )writtenforthemostpart incolloquialArabicattachedtoapoeticformknownasthe muwassahat ,forwhich thelinguisticvehiclewasClassicalArabic.Thelinguisticinterpretationofthe jarchas (someofwhicharewritteninHebrewcharacters)iscomplicatedbythe absenceoflettersindicatingthevowelsandthepaleographicdifficultiesposed bythesurvivingmanuscripts.AlthoughmanyseemtocontainRomancelexical items,thereisno jarcha writtenexclusivelyinRomance.Didthepoetsresponsible fortheseshortcompositionsrealizethatthesewordsbelongedtothelinguistic codeoftheChristianslivinginal-Andalus?Aretherelevant jarchas deliberately multilingualormighttheRomanceformsbeborrowingsintegratedtosomedegree inlocalHispano-Arabic?DotheRomanceformsindicatesomeformof(literary) code-switching?WasthevernacularlanguageofearlymedievalMuslimSpaina typeofRomance –spokenArabiclinguisticcontinuum?Nomattertheanswersto thesequestions,the jarchas donotconstituteearlyindependenttextsconsciously writteninHispano-Romance.
AsaresultoftheworkofRamónMenéndezPidal,theso-called GlosasEmilianenses ,preservedinMS oftheMonasteriodeSanMillándelaCogolla(today housedintheRealAcademiadelaHistoria,Madrid)hadlongbeenconsideredthe earliesttextwithclearlyRomancelinguisticelements.ThemanuscriptisacollectionofseveralmuchearlierreligioustextswritteninLatin.Threesectionsofthe manuscript(folios v–r, r–v, r– r)containinterlinearormarginal lexicalglossesdesignedtoclarifythemeaningofselectedLatinwordsorphrases.20 Onlyoneoftheseglossescontainsacompletesentence,namelyaRomancerenderingoftheDoxology. 21 Inmanyinstancesitisdiffi culttotellwhethertheglossis meanttobereadasaLatinorasaRomanceform(e.g., dico, castigo , peccatos,very possiblyarticulatedas[digo,castigo,pekados]),whereasinothercasestheformis clearlyRomance(quien, lebantai, elo, terzero, diabolo, uenot, fuerza).MenéndezPidal (: –)datedonpaleographicgroundstheglossestotheyear .Mostscholars
20 InadditiontotheRomancelexicalglosses,therearetwoglossesinBasque,aswellassyntactic glossesintheformofsuperscriptlettersreflectingRomancewordorderandabbreviationsindicating grammaticalfunctions.
21 “Conoajutoriodenuestroduenoduenochristosalbatorequalduenogetenahonoreequalduenno tienetelamandationeconopatreconospiritusanctoenossieculosdelossieculosfacanosdeusomnipotentestalserbitjoferekedenantesiafacegaudiososegamus.Amen.” (Wolf : ). EarliesttextsinmedievalHispano-Romance
nowrejectthislong-accepteddateandoptforDíazyDíaz’sdecision()toassign theglossestothesecondhalfoftheeleventhcentury.Thespecificdialectaloriginofthe Romanceformsinthe GlosasEmilianenses hasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebate, although,consideringthelocationoftheMonasteryofSanMillándelaCogollain LaRioja,allagreethattheyrepresentsomeeasternvariety(Riojan,Aragonese)of Hispano-Romance.InlikefashiontherearescatteredRomancelexicalglossesin otherearlyLatincompilations,e.g.,thelateeleventh-century GlosasSilenses,compiled attheMonasteriodeSantoDomingodeSilos.Indeed,recentstudieshavedemonstratedacloserelationshipinthepreparationofbothcompilations.22
ThereareahandfulofextantCastiliandocumentsfromthetwelfthcentury(see Sánchez-PrietoBorja ).Untilthethirteenthcentury,documentsemittedby thechancelleriesintheKingdomsofLeón,Castile,andtheCrownofAragonwere writteninLatin.ThereexistsalonedocumentinRomancedated fromthe CastilianchancelleryofAlfonsoVIII(Hilty : ).Thedatingoftheextant RomanceversionoftheAsturian FuerodeAvilés grantedin remainsasubject ofcontroversy.The FuerodeValfermosodelasMonjas (intheprovinceofGuadalajara),whichshowsbothLatinandRomanceelements,isdatedto .Exceptforthe FuerodeMadrid (c.),the FuerodeAlcaládeHenares (c.),the Fuerode Añador,andtheshort cartapuebla ofTorredeDonMorant(allbefore ),the datableRomanceversionsof fueros (municipallawcodes)arefromthemidpointof thethirteenthcentury.23 TheonlyRomancedocumentfromtheLeonesechancellery priortotheunionin oftheKingdomofLeónwiththeKingdomofCastileisthe Leoneseversionofthe TratadodeCabreros of (seeWright ).TheCastilian textofthistreatyhasalsosurvived.Thedocumentsemanatingfromthe Cortes deToledoarealsoinRomance.ThereisnothingfurtherinRomancefromthe CastilianchancelleryuntilthereignofFernandoIII(–).Ofthe documentsfromthischancellerypublishedbyGonzález(), areinRomance;the firstthreerelevantdocumentsarefrom .Onlyafter doRomancedocumentsoutnumberthosewritteninLatin(seethechartinHilty : ).Wright ()discussesthepoliticalcircumstancesthatmayhaveplayeda(significant)role inthedelayoftheuseofRomanceinchancellerydocuments,namelythepresencein ofDiegoGarcíaasRoyalChancellor,astrongadvocateofthetraditionalmode ofwriting.Latinand(asappropriateintheIberianPeninsula)Arabicwerethe languagesofinternationalrelations,diplomacy,andtreaties.Arareexceptionisthe RomanceversionofatreatybetweentheAragonesemonarchJamestheConqueror
22 Foracriticaloverviewofscholarshiponthesetwotexts,seeGarcíaTurzaandGarcíaTurza(). Wright()offersthemostrecentdiscussionofthe GlosasSilenses.
23 Craddock()demonstrateshow fueros canprovideinsightsintothespokenlanguageofthe MiddleAges.Wright()claimsthattheRomanceversionsofthe FuerodeZoritadelosCanes and the FuerodeGuadalajara arelaterthanthetraditionallyaccepteddatesof and respectively.
andtheMuslimleaderal-Azraq(c.–);fordetails,seeBurnsandChevedden :ChapterTwo.
Withthepossibleexceptionofthe AutodelosReyesMagos,theearliest “literary” textsinvarietiesofmedievalHispano-Romancearefromthe firstquarterofthe thirteenthcentury.TodaymostscholarsnolongeracceptRamónMenéndezPidal’ s datingoftheextantversionoftheepicknownasthe CantardeMíoCid or PoemadeMíoCid,orthemid-twelfth-centurydateproposedbyMosheLazarforthe FaziendadeUltraMar,anadaptationofpartsoftheHebrewBible.Thedatesof compositionofbothworkshavebeennowplacedintheearlyyearsofthethirteenth century.Nevertheless,thepolishedstateofthe Cid epic,preservedinaunique fourteenth-centurymanuscript,maywellindicatesomefamiliaritywiththepractice ofsettingdownanextendedliteraryworkintheRomancevernacular.Specialistsstill acceptthetwelfth-centurydating(basedonpaleographicevidence)oftheuntitled fragmentthathascometobeknownas Autodelosreyesmagos.Thisworkwas writteninToledoandispreservedinonemanuscripthousedinthatcity’scathedral. Intheopinionofvariousspecialistscertain “anomalous” rhymes(fembra/december, escarno/carne, mundo/redondo)indicateanauthorwhosenativelanguagewasnot the romancecastellano ofToledo,avarietythatmaintainedthedistinctionbetween word-final –a, –e, –o. 24
Withtheneedtousethevernacularinwrittenformforartisticanddidactic expression,therearosetheneedtoelaboratethelanguageonthelevelofsyntax andvocabularytomakeitasuitablevehicleforthetransmissionofknowledge.The onlymodelavailabletothosewhocouldwritewasthatofLatin.Onemightalsosee herethebeginningofthecomplexandlengthyprocessthatwilleventuallyleadtothe creationofaCastilian-basedstandardwrittenvarietyinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies(althoughitiscertainlyanachronistictospeakofastandardvariety ofmedievalHispano-Romance).
. TracesofspokenmedievalHispano-Romance anddiscursivetraditions Theextenttowhichwrittenmedievalsourceshavepreservedorreproducewithsome degreeof fidelityauthentictracesoforalityorregistersofthepopularspoken languagehasbeenatopicofmuchrecentresearchonmedievalHispano-Romance.25 Althoughsuchtextscandocumentthecoexistenceandinteractionofrivalor
24 Sánchez-PrietoBorja(b)arguesthattheserhymeschemesarenot “anomalous” withinthe poetictraditionsofthetime,andthatconsequentlytheydonotruleoutavarietyofCastilianasthe languageofthetext’sauthor.Thisstudyoffersitsreaderacriticaloverviewofthecontroversyconcerning theauthor’slanguage.
25 Formethodologicaldiscussionaswellastheanalysisofconcreteexamples,thereadercanturntothe essayscontainedinBéguelin-Agrimónetal.()andSánchezMéndez().
competinglinguisticfeatures,theycangiveusnoinsightsintothephoneticdetailsof regionalandsocialvarietiesofspokenmedievalHispano-Romance.Theycontainno non-lexicalmetalinguisticobservations.Theanalysthasinsufficientlinguisticand socialevidencetoattempttolinkthemorphologicalandsyntacticalvariation observableinmedievaltextswithidentifiablesociolinguisticvariablesofspoken medievalHispano-Romance.Itwillbeimpossibletowriteabookwithapossible titleof *TheSociolinguisticStratificationoftheSpeechofThirteenth-CenturyToledo (cf.thetitleofLabov ).Thewrittenevidenceisfarfromunequivocal.Togivebut oneexample,doesthealternationin fifteenth-centurytextsofsecondpersonplural presentindicativeverbforms cantades, comedes, salides, sodes alongside cantás/ cantaes, comés/coméis, salís, sos/sois indicatethecoexistenceinthespeechcommunityoftwovariant(sociallydetermined?)pronunciations,withtheshorterform indicatingthespreadofthemoreevolvedpronunciation,orare cantades, comedes, salides, sodes simplyconservativeorthographicrepresentationsofthephonicrealities representedbytheshorterforms?26
Onecanquestionthedegreetowhichdialoguesfoundinmedievaltextsreproduce therealitiesofeverydayspeechregisters.MedievalSpainoffersnoexamplesofplays thatcontainspontaneousdialogue.Therearesometextsinwhichtheauthorhas attemptedtoreproducefeaturesoflocalcolloquialspeech.Perhapsthemoststudied examplesaretheso-called serranillas ofthemid-fourteenth-century Librodebuen amor,passagesinwhichJuanRuizseekstosetdownthespeechofrusticmountain women.Thesepassagescontainsuchformsas gaho (= gafo) ‘leprous’ , heda (= fea) ‘ugly’ , ro(h)ín (= ruin) ‘ugly;lowerclass’ trete (= tráete). Asimilarlistofwordsand colloquialphrasesattributed(inamisogynisticvein)tothespeechofwomenis reproducedinthe Corbacho ()oftheArciprestedeTalavera.
Undersuchrubricsas “palabrasvedadas, ”“palabrasmalas, ”“palabrasmalasy deshonestas, ” thirteenth-centurycitylawcodes(fueros)provideexamplesofcoarse personalinsults,theuseofwhichcouldresultin fines: fodudo, fududuincal, foderen elculo (allofwhichrefertohomosexualactsofanalintercourse), cornudo ‘cuckolded’ , gafo ‘leper’.Thesesametextscontainnumerousexamplesofcoarsevocabularyreferringtosexualactsandbodilyfunctionssuchas cagar ‘toshit’ , mierda ‘shit’ , foder ‘tofuck’.Exampleswithreferencetomalegenitaliainclude carajo, cojones; wordsemployedforfemalegenitaliaare coño, crica, verija ;forprostitute, puta, soldadera, mundaria.Notarialdocumentshavepreservedsuchracynicknamesas PedroCarayuelo, PetrusJohannesPixaFeliz.AccordingtotheCORDEdatabase,the overwhelmingmajorityofoccurrencesofthesewordsintheperiod – turn upin fueros,butareabsentfromthemoreelevatedregistersofjuridicallanguage foundintheAlfonsine Sietepartidas (completed c.).Manysuchtermsthen
26 Forfurtherdiscussionandbibliographypertinenttothisexample,seeChapter
reappearoraredocumentedforthe firsttime(e.g., nicar ‘tofuck’ , pixa ‘cunt’)inthe worksofcertainpoets(e.g.,AlfonsoÁlvarezdeVillasandino,JuanAlfonsodeBaena), asconservedintheearly fifteenth-century CancionerodeBaena ,aswellasinmedical texts.27 Theseitems,soemployed,turnuprarelyinotherdiscursivevarietiesof writtenlanguagethathavetransmittedmedievalHispano-Romancetous.Late medievalverbatimtranscriptionsoftestimonygiventotheInquisitionbylargely uneducatedspeakersmayalsoprovidesomeinsightsintospontaneousspeech(see EberenzanddelaTorre ).Inshort,ourknowledgeoftherealitiesofmedieval Hispano-Romanceislimitedandmediatedbythosemorphologicalandlexical variantsthatweredeemedsuitableforinclusioninthewrittenregisters.Wehave nowayofrecoveringthefulldynamicsofcolloquialeverydaylanguage.Certain conclusionsseemreasonable;e.g.,mostofthelexicalandsyntacticLatinismsfound intheworksof fifteenth-centurypoetssuchasJuandeMenaandtheMarquésde Santillana,didnotformpartoftherepertoireofdailyspeech.28
Itisdifficulttodeterminetowhatextentthemorphologicalvariationandsyntactic complexitiesofelaboratedtextsreflectoralrealitiesofthedifferentregistersofthe spokenlanguage.Somespecialistsclaimthat,giventhehighrateofilliteracy,many textswerewrittentobereadaloud,whethertooneperson,asmallgroup,oralarger audience.Phrasessuchas comoyaoyestes ‘asyouhaveheard’ , comoyaoyredes ‘ as youshallhear ’ seemtoreflectthepresenceoforaldeliveryatsomestageinthe process.Manytextsmayhavebeendictatedorallyratherthancopiedfromawritten source.Intheabsenceofastandardizedornormativesyntax,orality-re flecting featuresofthespokenlanguagemayhaveplayedaroleintheearlierstagesof documentedmedievalHispano-Romanceinsuchkeylinguisticissuesasthepositioningofthesubjectnounorpronounbeforeoraftertheverb,ortheusesoftheverb tensesthemselves(forfurtherdiscussion,seeChapter ).29 Thediscoursetraditions (determinedbysuchelementsasgenre,topic,intendedaudience,etc.)inwhicha givenmedievaltextcanbesituatedmayalsoplayadeterminingroleintheselection ofthesyntacticconstructionsorthelexicalchoicesthatunderliethewidevariation seeninthemedievalHispano-Romancecorpus.30 Evenwithineachofthegenresor literarytypesthathavecomedowntousinwrittenform(e.g., mesterdejuglaría,
27 Additionalterms,aswellasexamplesofnon-sexualtermsusedmetaphoricallyin Cancionero poetry forgenitaliaandsexualacts,aredescribedanddiscussedinUrbánFernándezandLópezQuero()and LópezQuero().
28 Dworkin(:Chapter )discusseshowsomeoftheseLatinismsdiffusedmorewidelyinthe lexiconasaresultofincreasedliteracyassociatedwiththeriseofprinting.
29 ItisworthquotinghereFleischman(: ): “Oralityplayedacrucialroleinshapingthegrammar (inthelinguist’ssense)ofmedievalvernaculars,and,consequently,thelinguisticstructureofourtexts” ;see alsoNeumann-Holzschuh()andVilaRubio().
30 Foranhistoricalbackgroundtoandoverviewoftheanalyticroleandvalueofwhathasbecomeknown amongHispanistsas tradicionesdiscursivas,seeKabatek(),aswellastheIntroductionsinJacoband Kabatek(:vi–xviii)andKabatek(: –).
