Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology: Volume 3 Language and Philology in Romance 9783110815375, 9027979065, 9789027979063

Citation preview

Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology Volume 3

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 14

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology Volume 3: Language and Philology in Romance edited by

Rebecca Posner John N. Green

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

ISBN 90 279 7906 5 © Copyright 1982by Mouton Publishers. The Hague. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means - nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: Redwood Burn Ltd., Trowbridge. - Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. - Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer Buchgewerbe GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany

Contents

3.1 Romance linguistics and philology Karl D. Uitti Introduction Jean-Marie Klinkenberg Stylistics and poetics Georges Mounin The semiologies of literary texts Felix Karlinger Romance folk literature

3 45 79 97

3.2 The 'minor' languages Pierre Bee Occitan Giuseppe Francescato Rhaeto-Friulian Michel Contini and Edward F. Tuttle Sardinian Joseph Gulsoy Catalan

115 131 171 189

3.3 Non-metropolitan Romance Auguste Viatte French outside France

.299

vi

Contents

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg Spanish outside Spain Anthony J. Naro Portuguese in Brazil Index of names

319 413 463

Contributors

Prof. Pierre [Peire] Bee, Centre d'Etudes Superieures de Civilisation Medievale, Universite de Poitiers. Dr. Michel Contini, Institut de Phonetique, Universite des Langues et Lettres de Grenoble. Prof. Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg, Universidad Nacional del Sur Argentina. Prof. Giuseppe Francescato,

Universitä di Trieste.

Prof. Joseph Gulsoy, Department of Hispanic Studies, University of Toronto. Prof. Dr. Felix Karlinger, Institut für romanische Philologie, Universität Salzburg. Prof. Jean-Marie Klinkenberg, Section de langues et litteratures romanes, Universite de Lidge. Prof. Georges Mounin [Emeritus], Section de linguistique, Universite de Provence ä Aix. Prof. Anthony J. Naro, Pontificia Universidade do Rio de Janeiro and Universidade Federal. Prof. Edward F. Tuttle, Department of Italian, University of California at Los Angeles.

viii

Contributors

Prof. Karl D. Uitti, Department of Romance Languages, Princeton University. Dr. Auguste Viatte [Emeritus], Chaire de Langue et Litterature franc, aises Ecole Poly technique Federale, Zürich.

3.1 Romance linguistics and philology

KARL D. UITTI

Introduction

As recently as 1965, while addressing a plenary session of the Xlth International Congress of Romance Linguistics and Philology (Madrid), lorgu Jordan once again felt obliged to deplore that methodologically "la plupart de nos confreres, quelque soit le pays ou le continent ou ils vivent et travaillent, continuent ä cultiver la linguistique qualifiee dejä [in 1962] de 'traditionnelle', epithete employee assez souvent dans un sens plus ou moins ironique par les adeptes trop zeles du structuralisme et des autres courants modernistes, qui semblent gagner peu ä peu du terrain dans notre discipline" (Jordan 1968: 103). The traditionalists, he averred, "ignorent pour ainsi dire par principe l'existence de leurs adversaires", and yet such was not always the case. The Young Turks of 1900-20 resembled in their passionate zeal "les jeunes et les tres jeunes" of today; Jordan cites the examples of Vossler, Gillieron, and Bally. However the traditionalists "d'il y a soixante ans ont milite en faveur de leur conception non seulement en la defendant, mais aussi en prenant 1'offensive centre les 'innovateurs'"; the names of Grammont, Thomas, and Bourciez are invoked. Romance linguistics and philology (one thinks of 'bedierisme' in textual criticism versus the practice of earlier scholars, e.g., Foerster) were, Jordan suggests, vital disciplines then - not only prestigious, but intellectually alive, never (at least not when considered as a whole) affected by know-nothingism and dogmatic rigidity. Jordan joins his voice to the melancholy chorus of so many contemporary Romanists: "les romanistes ne sont plus ä la tete des innovations d'ordre theorique et methodologique dans le domaine de la linguistique consideree d'un point de vue tres general, comme ils Vont ete pendant presqu'un siede" (emphasis mine, K. D. U.); pride of place has been lost. Disciplinary unity, which once encouraged variety and dialogue, has given way to fragmentation, the generation gap, and

4

Karl D. Uitti

recrimination. The young and the old (as well as the not-so-young/old) are all to blame, though, to be sure, a few bright spots remain. Nowadays, then, it has become fashionable to describe Romance linguistics and philology as undergoing a state of crisis; the crisis is internal and external. (Romance studies are no longer so much attacked by non-practitioners as barely tolerated or ignored.) Yet, is it not true that, in a larger sense, fragmentation as well as polemic and even petulance may be detected also in the most modish areas of contemporary linguistics and literary study? 'Schools' come and go, spinning off new 'schools', vertiginously. Have not the 'semioticians' - a motley group if ever there was one - done in the rather more traditional 'structuralists', who have held sway in the French (para-) academia during the late 1960's? The early 1970's have become proudly /port-structuralist. And what of generative semantics? Montague grammar? Might it not be said, then, that Romance studies merely partake of - or reflect - the intellectual temper of our times, perhaps, for that matter, in calmer fashion than general linguistics as a whole, or literary theory? Finally, given the academic character of most linguistic and literary research nowadays, might one not properly attribute some of this freewheeling and dizzying activity to the extraordinary expansion undergone by universities virtually throughout the world during the 1960's, when teaching and research personnel were in very great demand, when scholars moved about from institution to institution, indeed from continent to continent, constantly jockeying for position and facing the desire, and perhaps the necessity, of Making It New? Conversely, it might be opined, the post-1970 academic retrenchment, at least in America and Western Europe, has much to do with more recent developments. Thus - to return to Romance studies - during the 1960's younger scholars had too little time to master the intricacies of these traditional disciplines; one could satisfy one's ambitions more easily by being original, even outrageous. Subsequently, already by 1970, after having been so often decried as "irrelevant", and having suffered from this charge, Romance linguistics and philology came increasingly to be viewed as a dispensable luxury by hard-pressed university administrators. It is cheaper to hire, say, a 'semiotician', who can in theory teach anything - Chretien de Troyes, Dante, Boccacio, linguistic and literary theory, Balzac, Proust - than an ivory-tower philologist whose expertise is confined to the fine points of editing Old French texts and to Old French syntax. Bizarre situations have arisen. I have met recent PhD's, from distinguished universities, who, though ostensibly specializing in medieval French, have never read the Life of

Introduction

5

Saint Alexis, let alone the Strasbourg Oaths, but who are fully conversant with Greimas and Tel Quel. For them - and this is important - the notion of arbitrary corpus has replaced the idea of an externally imposed canon. Such, indeed, was precisely the case even with Julia Kristeva, whose doctoral dissertation (1970), ostensibly concerned with Le Petit Jehan de Saintre and directed by Barthes, is shot through with appalling ignorance of canonic medieval French narrative(s). Little is to be gained, it seems to me, from deploring the way things are. Especially since the exaggerations and the errors - which nonetheless must be denounced as circumstances dictate - as well as the fragmentation alluded to above may - and should - at least in part be imputed to the deficiencies that marred our discipline in past years. Rigidity and, at times, even lack of imagination ran rampant during the tragic 1930's and 1940's, both in Europe and in America. Material lacks also have their part of blame. Any scholar who, as a young student, worked in the Paris of the 1950's, will understand the anger of the 1960's if only he remembers the inaccessibility of books and teachers - the virtual impossibility for all but the most advanced and protected students to use the Bibliotheque Nationale, the crowded lecture halls, the inadequacy of everything. Facilities designed years previously for a few elite simply could not handle the otherwise praiseworthy opening up of the University to the many. Also, let me add, a certain lack of discretion prevailed almost everywhere: in Berkeley, by the mid-1960's, there were one-hundred resident graduate students in French alone. When one multiplies this figure by the number of graduate schools - old and new - in the U.S. and Canada, the totals boggle the mind. Yet, we agree, retreat to the bourgeois gentility of 1910 would be morally and physically inconceivable as well as intellectually ridiculous. Clearly, then, Romance studies are no longer the aristocratic, monolithic (or closely-knit) set of activities they (perhaps) once were; they are beset by the same uncertainties as affect other disciplines. They also share similar hopes and strengths. If, today, Romance (along with Classics, Germanic, and Indo-European) no longer occupies center-stage, that is due, I suspect, to the fact that no single discipline, or set of related disciplines, can do so. I doubt whether indeed any longer there is a center-stage. Current Trends 1963-, an encyclopedic survey of activity in the linguistic disciplines alone, comprises over a dozen large volumes and, literally, thousands of pages; the range of this activity is enormous, to all intents and purposes unassimilable by even the most well-meaning and competent specialist. In the present essay I shall deal with uncertainties as well as with hopes

6

Karl D. Uitti

and possibilities. Without attempting to be programmatic, I shall reopen the question of Romance linguistics and philology in their relationship; I shall do so with a view toward describing what, for lack of a more adequate term, I shall call the 'propriety' of these studies. Whenever possible I shall refer to work that has been done in connection with work that is being done, though, to be sure, exhaustiveness on this, or on any other, score will be out of the question. In conclusion I shall hint briefly at what might - or ought to - be done. In Current Trends 9.2 (1972) no less an authority than Yakov Malkiel, mentioning the "tremendous appeal to Western and Central Europe's intellectual elite" exerted by Romance philology - an appeal that lasted "several decades" -, ascribed to "comparative Romance linguistics" a position characterized as Romance philology's "indisputable core discipline" (Malkiel 1972: 835). Romance philology is thus conceived broadly; comparative Romance linguistics lies at its heart - or, at least, did so during its heyday in Europe and in such other regions of the world where, "with limited success", it has been cultivated. Romance philology includes comparative Romance linguistics but is not identical to it; meanwhile comparative Romance linguistics is - or was - privileged: it furnished disciplinary models, a kind of bed-rock, a control. Of course the ways linguistics was made to fit into the looser scheme of Romance philology varied a great deal from time to time, from culture to culture, and, even, from temperament to temperament. Friedrich Diez was far more the 'compleat philologist' than either Gaston Paris or Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke, blending, as he did, linguistic and literary research with a thoroughness and a harmony that, to my mind, has subsequently never been equalled, with the possible exception of the late Ramon Menendez Pidal. Indeed, as Malkiel himself has pointed out, the conservatism inherent in the Hispanic tradition has tended to characterize Spanish filologia and filologo as something rather different from the Anglo-American philology. Whereas the latter is defined a bit narrowly as 'critical study of ancient texts, within the matrix of cultural history, - frequently as a preliminary step toward literary or linguistic analysis', Spanish usage almost equates filologia with English Humanities and "makes filologo a counterpart of 'humanist'" (Malkiel 1968: 158). Meanwhile, until recently at least, British use of philology, with respect to the modern languages, came virtually to mean 'historical linguistics'. Until the close of the last century a rather free to-and-fro movement,

Introduction

7

or give-and-take, epitomized tone-setting Romance studies. That is to say, historical considerations dominated most research, and scholars were necessarily involved in textual matters - the establishment and interpretation of documents: textual criticism, linguistic analysis, and historical considerations progressed jointly and, so to speak, empirically within the Romance domain, though belle-lettristic and culturehistorical concerns claimed the lion's share of the energies of some scholars whereas, for others, the relations between such philological investigation and general linguistics (as it was understood at the time) were emphasized. The reconstructed forms we find in etymological dictionaries as well as the 'regularities' propounded in historical grammars of the time betray a close intellectual affinity with, e.g., W. Foerster's "reconstructed" literary champenois in his great editions of Chretien de Troyes or the mid-eleventh-century "Old French" of G. Paris' version of the Vie de Saint Alexis. Similar creativity - an analogous spirit - pervades Bartoli's 'invention' of Dalmatian (1906), his two-volume historicodescriptive presentation of a near-extinct Romance language once thriving on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. As Malkiel (1972: 855) has put it, Bartoli's (re-)construction of Dalmatian conjoins "the remnants of Vegliotic dramatically elicited from its last surviving speaker with the older records of that Adriatic emporium Ragusa (Dubrovnik)". By the turn of the century, however, the emphases mentioned above tend paradoxically at once to broaden the scope of Romance philology and linguistics and to foment more neatly circumscribed specializations. Though dependence on textual documentation could never be entirely eliminated - nor would such elimination in the Romance field ever be appropriate - the rise, on the one hand, of neogrammarian-style historical grammar and, on the other hand, of linguistic geography imparted greater autonomy to more purely linguistic research than has previously been the case. Texts were increasingly relegated to a purely documentary role; they were seen to provide the raw material for linguistic analysis. In short - and I realize that I am over-generalizing somewhat written documents (poems, charters, inscriptions, etc.) furnished evidence for historical linguistic constructions in a fashion analogous to the ways the geographers (e.g. Gillieron) utilized interviewers in the field for their atlases, dialect studies, and comparisons. Romance linguistics, along with its myriad subdisciplines, gained an impetus of its own. With the assimilation of newly-discovered texts starred forms could be eliminated from the historical dictionaries, word-histories were more accurately traced, and steps in both morphological and phonetic change were

8

Karl D. Uitti

more detailedly delineated. The 'method' worked. Meanwhile, of course, the linguists continued to be of service to textual critics and literary historians. Linguistic evidence gave the surest grounds (along with various types of external evidence) for proper dating and locating of texts as well as for the glossing of difficult passages. Finally, a linguisticbased cultural archaeology came to constitute, by the turn of the century, and subsequently, one of the important by-products of the study of 'words and things' (Wörter und Sachen); or rather, it might be said, such study encouraged the amalgamation of linguistic investigation and cultural history: cultural artifacts and the words designating them, particularly in remote areas of Latinity, lent themselves to sharply denned analysis. When properly pursued - i.e., with the requisite acumen and linguistic control - such study revealed itself capable of reuniting varied research techniques in original ways and of palliating somewhat the possible ill-effects of neogrammarian-styled abstraction. To at least some extent the Wörter und Sachen approach may be viewed as a philological, though not invariably literary, enterprise. The very notion of 'Romance' was, to all intents and purposes, a French idea further developed and perfected by Central Europeans (German-speakers, in particular). At the beginning of the last century, Madame de Stael's landmark distinction (1800) between literature of the 'south' and that of the 'north' prompted a regrouping on linguisticonational lines of West-European culture into two principal branches, 'Germanic' and 'Latin'. Revival of interest in medieval civilization, Romantic historicism, post-Napoleonic nationalism, as well as the birth of Comparative Historical Linguistics (Indo-European studies) all contributed to the rise of Romance studies. It is said that Goethe, the last true cosmopolitan of the old school, encouraged the young Friedrich Diez to undertake the study of Romance philology. For Goethe and Diez the posited existence of Germanic - language family and culture - justified viewing together and on an historico-linguistic basis Proven?al, French, Castilian, Portuguese, Italian, and Balkan Romance. One 'bloc' called for the creation of another. Nowadays, the erstwhile triumph of this Romance studies model has appeared to some as naive, even detrimental; criticism has at times been acerbic, even nonsensical to the point of hysteria (see Brooks 1972). Yet the Romance ideal has survived, albeit in less monolithic form, largely, I think, because of the high quality of the scholarly monuments it has furnished and because, within a certain compass, it provides a framework for dealing with an immensely varied and fascinating set of realities and problems: there is something

Introduction

9

for many different tastes. However, without this certain compass, or what I earlier referred to as 'propriety', so important a work as Curtius 1948 would have never seen the light of day. (Though he professes admiration for Curtius' genius, Brooks, incidentally, finds his masterpiece to be methodologically and spiritually quite ill-conceived.) It is, I think, fair to say that the 'theoretical' justifications for Romance philology and linguistics - for their very existence - have changed substantially over the years from what they were, or might have been, for those who collaborated with, and succeeded, Gustav Gröber at the Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (1877-present) and, above all, on that extraordinary collective project, Gröber 1888-1902. Yet, in some important sense, much has remained the same. Let it be noted, as Curtius himself reminds us (1960: 433n) that Gröber's Romance Grundriss was followed - copied - in 1891 by H. Paul's Germanic version and, in 1896, by G. Bühler's, devoted to Indo-European. Interestingly, for our purposes, it is clear that the Grundriss itself was rather more encyclopedic than truly programmatic; the work underwent considerable modification during subsequent revisions and additions: Gröber's "Vorwort" (1887) to the first volume (1888) speaks of an "Überblick über das Ganze der romanischen Philologie", of a "romanistische Realencyklopädie". Perhaps indeed, as Curtius suggests (1960: 432), the programmatic element of this enterprise reflected above all the spirit of the new - and innovating - German university located in recently annexed Strasbourg - a university where linguistic research was especially stressed as "Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft" and in connection with which the publishing firm of Karl Trübner was particularly important. The study of language and literature was tone-setting those days in the Strasbourg intellectual community. As contrasted with G. Korting's somewhat earlier (and shorter) three-volume work (18841886), which devotes Book I (some 115 pages) to abstract, or theoretical, questions of language, writing, literature, philology, and methodology before tackling Romance philology proper, Gröber's Grundriss is quite down to earth. Eschewing theory for its own sake, its orientation is disciplinary; it begins with a history of Romance philology, a history comprising five periods: (1) 13th to 15th centuries; (2) 16th and 17th centuries; (3) 1700 to 1814; (4) 1814-1859; (5) 1859 to the present; both continuity and change are thus built into philological activity. Next come some 165 pages devoted to philological research and its documentation (written and spoken) as well as to methods (linguistic research, philological research, and literary history are simultaneously distinguished from one

10

Karl D. Uitti

another and grouped under the rubric "Die Behandlung der Quellen"). Only then do we proceed to Part III, "Darstellung der romanischen Philologie", which in turn comprises almost 700 pages on Romance linguistics (the basic discipline); 96 pages on Romance "Sprachkunst" (where E. Stengel acknowledges the primacy of study given over to Romance "grammar": without understanding this latter, nothing of worth may be said, e.g., of metrics, prosody, rhyme, etc.); 1578 pages on Romance literary history. Part IV of the Grundriss deals with "ancillary disciplines", with the ethnology of the 'Romance peoples' and their 'history' - political, cultural, artistic, and scientific. Vaste projet! How research is conducted determines, to a considerable degree, the materials of that research. However, conversely, certain subdisciplines constitute the foundation of the entire edifice and, of equal importance, the factuality of the material studied, its concreteness and its intricacy, deserves ultimate respect. Finally, let me add that the Grundriss - a work described by Curtius as a "treasure house" - surveys the field according to its own lights, to be sure, the lights of the fin de siecle, but the survey is conceived in such a way as to encourage by further study and research, a continuous process of revision. I do not mean 'revisionism', in the present-day sense of the word, but rather a constant modification, through unceasing and collaborative disciplinary activity, of knowledge and perspective. Consequently, the strong, though by no means exclusive, genetic bias present in Gröber's Grundriss - an attitude that has become unfashionable today- turns out to be far less significant than this work's intellectual daring, its testimony to the value of authentic philological enquiry. The first edition of once-influential Wellek-Warren 1949 included a chapter - a shameful piece of prose - on the study of literature in the American graduate school. This chapter was subsequently suppressed because, one suspects, within a few years victory had been won, at least, alas, at Yale. In this chapter the authors bewail graduate school insistence on "philology" and "old-fashioned positivist" medieval study. Modern literature has been neglected because of this stress, they averred, and the proper critical study of literature, comparative and national, has been stifled. Works like Gröber's Grundriss, it is implied, are to blame. Yet, not only might one object that no contemporary academic literary project is more 'positivistic' than Wellek's own (and admirable) History of modern criticism (1955) but, with respect to the 'nefarious' consequences of training in Romance philology, one might once again cite the work of Curtius, Gröber's finest student - especially

Introduction

11

his work during the 1920's: brilliant essays on Proust, Claudel, Valery, T. S. Eliot; a learned correspondence with Ortega y Gasset; one of the first really "modern" studies of Balzac. It was only after Hitler's rise to power that Curtius returned - and for very cogent reasons - to the study of Romance pre-Modernity. Given Curtius' affectionate memory and appreciation of what Gröber and his collaborators stood for - his expression, even, of the moral dimension adhering to their work - no doubt may be entertained as to his life-long and enthusiastic loyalty to Romance philology. He certainly felt no need to undo, or overcome, his training; on the contrary! Other examples, from various fields, also come to mind: Spitzer, Auerbach, Malkiel, Dämaso Alonso, Amado Alonso, Weinrich, Segre, et al. But, to return to my subject, I should like to analyse in some detail two works dating from the close of the nineteenth century which, in my opinion, serve to represent and to illustrate the variety and the intellectual quality - the 'experimentally' - of Romance philology at that time. The first is a study written by one of France's (and Switzerland's) foremost linguists, Jules Gillieron; the other is by the great philologist Joseph Bedier. Gillieron's contributions to Romance - especially French - linguistics require no lengthy summary here. Gillieron 1902-1910 and 1918, along with numerous other essays and monographs, helped usher in a new era in linguistic study: "the new discipline [linguistic geography] . . . forthwith attracted workers and continues to flourish vigorously today" (lordan-Orr 1937: 153, also 144-278). A purer 'linguist' among students of Romance would indeed be hard to find; and, in fact, Gillieron was a linguistic specialist, or became increasingly so, rather than an authentically 'balanced' philologist. Nevertheless as a young man Gillieron published a very promising article (1883), not only proving his general philological competence but also revealing an exceptional originality and capacity for literary analysis - an originality which amateurs of his linguistic work will recognize as akin to the spirit informing his contributions to linguistic geography. This little-known article illustrates beautifully the mutual interpenetration of poetic and linguistic techniques of analysis as applied to a knotty problem of textuality, and, though restricted to a small textual corpus, its theoretical ramifications are considerable. Though 'inconclusive', as we shall see, it constitutes a brilliant example of Romance philology. Working with several dozen versions of La claire fontaine, a charming chanson populaire, which, of course, he compares to one another, Gil-

12

Karl D. Uitti

Heron encounters difficulties. He would like to establish the text of the 'lost original', or a close approximation thereof, a concern typical of older textualists. Variants and contresens abound, usually, though not always, confined to hemistichs. (Gillieron notes that this is a characteristic of Oral' poetry; in effect he has hit on something close to what nowadays we should probably call 'formulaic diction'.) He mistrusts printed versions of the song: "Je dois 1'avouer, les recueils imprimes ne m'inspirent, pour la plupart, qu'une mediocre confiance. Lorsqu'un collectionneur entend plusieurs versions d'une chanson, il importe qu'il indique soigneusement toutes les variantes, qu'il ne se contente pas de choisir entre les lecons qu'il a recueillies 'celle qui lui parait la plus belle, la plus energique', qu'il se garde aussi defondre ses versions en une seule" (322; emphasis mine; this is the same Gillieron who, later, will fulminate against neogrammarian reconstructionism!). Why? "Dans les deux cas, il fait oeuvre de critique sur des materiaux tout ä fait incomplets . . . Quelquefois les collectionneurs avouent avoir use de ce precede d'elimination, mais c'est le cas le plus rare. Je suis persuade qu'ils en ont use partout oü ils disent avoir entendu la chanson de diverses personnes, dans differentes localites ... II m'est arrive de relever deux versions de la chanson dans le meme village: presque jamais elles n'etaient completement identiques, souvent elles differaient considerablement." The song exists, then, largely in its performance (and, importantly, as an idea); if it is a truly "popular" (= folk) song, textual variants are the rule, not the exception, and this applies even when such variants introduce enigmas which yet other performers try to patch over by introducing new variants. However, these variants are constrained by the metrical scheme. This reality underlies everything. Even to the point that, in certain cases, when one translates the song into a prose summary, as Gillieron did with La claire fontaine, it is not understood: "Le recit qui est la base [or is it?] de toutes ces versions, recit fort rapide, fort concis, n'a ete compris par aucun des chanteurs que nous connaissons" (308). Indeed - and once again Gillieron hits upon a new idea - "toutes les alterations importantes qu'a subies la chanson dans le cours de ses peregrinations ä travers tous les pays francais sont dues ä cette circonstance." The principle of variety underlies both the diffusion and the transmission of the 'text'; this fact constitutes what Gillieron, somewhat haltingly, hints at as being the characteristic process of perhaps all orally transmitted texts. (He also recognizes that the categories of 'popular' and 'learned' are hardly watertight, since certain versions of his song

Introduction

13

betray learned traits, or interferences [326].) Thus, though ostensibly working in terms of 'traditional' textual criticism, i.e., endeavoring to establish the 'Urtext' of his poem and explaining its 'meaning', in point of fact he is led to a quite different activity. (He goes so far as to conclude by rejecting his own tentative interpretation according to which the singer is not a maiden but a young unhappily married woman, a mal-mariee [331].) Analyzing the poem according to the method and the criteria I have just summarized, Gillieron suggests something new: more important than genetic criticism, or at least more appropriate to this kind of text(uality), is a description of what might be called 'structural process', i.e., the description, within a given corpus, of the relationship of constraints and innovations which systematically inform the production of that corpus. The purely 'genetic' method simply does not work here: "L'insucces de mes recherches est peut-etre imputable ä leur insuffisance [Gillieron has simply failed to amass enough material], mais je suis plutöt porte ä croire qu'il faut I'attribuer a une autre cause, d'ordre superieur, cause dont je devenais de plus en plus conscient ä mesure que j'avangais dans mon travail, a l'impuissance de la critique [traditionnelle] en general en matiere de textes transmis oralement, de ces textes qui, vrais jouets de la fantaisie populaire, sont constamment remaniables et renouvelables, et qui ne permettent d'etablir aucune base d'operation critique" (329; emphasis mine). This very early publication by Gillieron, a 'literary' study, already contains in nuce the doctrines which would undergo such considerable elaboration in his later studies of linguistic geography - doctrines already promulgated in part, however, in his pioneering work, Gillieron 1881. A closer-knit collaboration between 'linguistic' and 'literary' study (nor a more creative one) could hardly be asked for. In my opinion, the framework provided by the existing structures of Romance philology during the 1880's sustained Gillieron in these innovative researches. He was a faithful contributor to Romania; indeed he is responsible for its first - and very intelligently organized - Index 18721881. He was moreover a disciple of Gaston Paris, the master of French textual criticism (and himself the student of Diez). No better illustration of the intellectual excitement and generosity typifying the philological activity of the period can be found than in these words which this older scholar, then, along with P. Meyer, editor of Romania, appended to Gillieron 1883 (note Paris' 'conservative' stance, but also his recognition of Gillieron's merit): "Les efforts ingenieux de M. Gillieron ne reussiront sans doute pas ä persuader les lecteurs, puisqu'ils ne suffisent plus

14

Karl D. Uitti

ä le persuader lui-meme; mais son travail meritait d'etre communique au public qui s'Interesse a ces etudes, comme le premier de ce genre qu'on ait entrepris ou au moins publie. E n montrant les detours, peutetre inextricables, du labyrinthe oü il s'est engage, l'auteur, j'en suis convaincu, n'aura fait qu'encourager d'autres, et lui-meme, ä chercher un fil sür pour y penetrer de nouveau. L'article de M. Gillieron est precieux par mille details, et je ne puis trop engager notamment les collecteurs de chants populaires ä mediter les avis qu'il leur donne" (331; emphasis mine). Though the results of Gillieron's study tend to undermine the very edifice of the kind of philology practised by Gaston Paris, this did not prevent the teacher from appreciating the originality and the value of the pupil's undertaking. Gaston Paris stresses, implicitly and explicitly, the importance of cumulation in research - the philological community; this emphasis, which of course is also central to Gröber's Grundriss, constitutes an essential trait of what I earlier described as the propriety of Romance studies: here, its tradition. Finally, let me add, Gaston Paris' generosity was certainly reinforced also by the nature or the quality of the respect paid by Romance philologists to matters of theory. The theoretical construct, though important, is not overwhelmingly so; it admits - rather humbly perhaps - to the constant control, or oversight, exercised by data - data, as we have seen, derived from a multiplicity of sources. No theory can 'handle', or 'account for', everything. Paradoxical as this may sound, such were the theoretical underpinnings that allowed Gillieron to make a theoretical breakthrough and that prompted Gaston Paris to understand him. Joseph Bedier's (1883) study of the (usually) short, rhymed narratives that flourished from the late twelfth to the early fourteenth centuries in France and that are couched in an anti-courtly, even scabrous, diction, constitutes yet another example of brilliant philological originality. Bedier was, of course, one of Gaston Paris' most gifted students a textual critic and literary historian, however, and not a linguist. He dedicated his study to his master. Though Bedier's conclusions contradict entirely what Paris had taught concerning fabliaux - Paris, along with many others, believed in the Indian origin of these tales and, consequently, in the priority of the study of their transmission via the Middle East and Spain to medieval France - Bedier's words of respect for his teacher are extraordinarily moving. He praises Paris' intellectual probity and generosity: "L'etude des fails m'a conduit ä des conclusions contraires. Je sens combien elles sont temeraires, se heurtant ä une si redoutable autorite. Je ne les exprime pas sans tremblement: je les

Introduction

15

exprime pourtant" (22). Then, more precisely: "Par la du moins, M. G. Paris me reconnaitra comme de son ecole. Parmi ceux qui la forment, il n'en est pas un qui soit ä son egard comme \efamulus passif du docteur Faust. Tous ont appris de lui la recherche scrupuleuse et patiente, mais independante et brave, du vrai: la soumission du travailleur, non ä un principe exterieur d'autorile, mais aux fails, et aux consequences qu'il en voit decouler; la defiance de soi, la prudence ä conclure, mais aussi, quand il croit que les faits ont parle, l'honnetete qui s'applique ä redire ce qu'ils ont dit" (23; emphasis mine). Belonging to Gaston Paris' school, i.e., adhering to the fundamental philological principle that facts control theory, has made possible the youthful Bedier's departure from what his master taught and his invention of something quite new. The orientalist hypothesis concerning the origin of the fabliaux is, in Bedier's words, a system, a coherent and closed - but false - way of looking at things (11): "II faut done conclure ä la polygenesie des contes. II faut renoncer ä ces steriles comparaisons de versions, qui pretendent decouvrir des lois de propagation, ä jamais indecouvrables: car elles n'existent pas. II faut abandonner ces vains classements qui se fondent sur la similitude en des pays divers de certains traits forcement insignifiants (par le fait meme qu'ils reapparaissent en des pays divers) - et qui negligent les elements locaux, differentiels, non voyageurs, de ces recits, - les seuls interessante" (15). Bedier is fully aware of the methodological implications present in his work: "Toute critique de methode est bonne; car il arrive souvent que les partisans d'un Systeme, trop convaincus de l'evidence de leurs principes, n'aient pas conscience qu'ils ont neglige de les rendre egalement clairs pour tous" (17). A subject is never 'done', or 'exhausted'; philology is an on-going, never-ceasing activity. Thus, though Bedier himself, influenced surely by Taine, wished to restore the fabliau to the race, milieu and moment of medieval France (and thereby recognized the Englishness of Chaucer, the Italian-ness of Bandello) - concerns that are out of fashion today - he would certainly recognize that in fact his study of the structure of the fabliau and its generic character opened the way for later poeticostylistic analyses of medieval narrative fiction. (See, e.g., for the fabliau itself the important works by Per Nykrog (1957) and Jean Rychner (1960); they continue Bedier's effort as, I believe, did, at an earlier date, V. Propp's (1928) analysis of the Russian folktale.) One has no need to read too deeply into the following statement to find a defense of textual integrity: "S'il est vrai que la science des traditions populaires doive etre debarrassee de l'obsedant probleme de l'origine des

16

Karl D. Uitti

contes, les savants qui s'occupent de novellistique cesseront de croire que toute leur täche doive consister a etudier, a propos de Chaucer, le Cukasaptati" (18; emphasis mine). Bedier's "novellistique" - a very recent-sounding word! - is resolutely synchronic; it implies description, categorization, and analysis. Not surprisingly, then, Bedier proceeds to define the fabliau generically in terms of sets of oppositions; it is, first of all, what it is not. Bedier puts some order into medieval literary terminology (fable, lai, dit, roman, miracle) - he does this a bit arbitrarily - in order to isolate the kind of recit (31) most accurately exemplified by the tag fabliau. (This is of course necessary, since fabliaux may no longer be defined merely as licentious tales derived from Sanskrit sources. A typology is required.) Genre is thus in effect viewed as a cluster of distinctive formal features; it is in this sense, and in this sense only, that the fabliau is defined as a 'conte ä rire en vers'. Montaiglon and Raynaud's collection of fabliaux is increased by six and reduced by sixteen: 147 in all. However, the criteria are not water-tight: "Tel lecteur pourra ajouter cinq ou six contes, tel autre en supprimer cinq ou six autres. On le voit: le desaccord ne pourrait porter que sur un nombre infime de contes" (37). The classification is functional; it is also designed to take stock of'doublets', i.e., different 'versions' of the 'same' fabliau. The concepts of synchrony, of functional or typological classification, and of novellistique are all used by Bedier in order (1) to demolish the orientalist 'system', i.e., the very principle of genetic study as applied to this type of story; (2) to delimit and describe the fabliau as genre; (3) to set up conditions for a more profitable analysis of the genre. An amusing experiment is even pressed into service; it merits being recounted here in some detail (230 ff.). Gaston Paris had studied (in 1878) the Lai de l'Epervier, a story that may be summarized briefly as follows: "A wife has two lovers. While her husband is away, the first lover visits her, then the second. The first hides. While she chats with the second, the husband returns, but she has the presence of mind to play out a scene with her lover, pretending anger. The lover rants and raves, theatens her, and leaves. The surprised husband asks his wife to explain. She answers coolly: 'The man who just left was pursuing another who took refuge in our house. I hid him because otherwise he would have been killed. Here he is.' (She calls the first lover out.) The husband is reassured." According to Paris, the story takes different shapes in India (the lovers

Introduction

17

are father and son), Sinbad and the Gesta Romanomm (the lovers are related 'domestically', as master and slave, knight and squire), etc. He works out these relationships - there are many of them - and proceeds to link the various stories genetically, "avec une rigueur et une ingeniosite saisissantes". Bedier's experiment refutes his teacher's findings, however. Bedier gives the story (in the outline provided above) to a group of friends and students, asking them to develop it in full narrative form: "Je leur ai demande de se placer en presence de ces donnees comme des ecoliers devant une matiere de narration ä developper, de la motiver, de l'orner ä leur gre." Here are the astounding results: "Le plus important des elements qui servent aux groupements de M. G. Paris est dans le rapport qui unit les deux amants. Mes correspondants ont imagine une serie de rapports tres varies. Parmi leurs inventions, il en est qui ne sont pas representees dans les versions sanscrites, arabes, allemandes, etc. ...: mais la reciproque n'est pas vraie: il nest pas une des combinaisons reelles qui n'ait ete reproduite, apres Boccace, apres le fabliau, apres Pogge, par un ou plusieurs de mes amis" (emphasis mine). All the attested combinations were spontaneously reinvented by Bedier's informants. Bedier, it is true, did not fully exploit in Les fabliaux all the implications of his method; nor did he develop, as he might have done, a fully elaborated theory of narrative paradigm/textual realization. He did not study minutely the crucial question of verbal variants (as Rychner would do so aptly over six decades later). To our tastes, his "etude litteraire" is perhaps vitiated by a premature over-emphasis on somewhat gratuitous socio-literary history (e.g., "Les fabliaux naissent dans la classe bourgeoise, pour eile et par eile" (371), an assertion convincingly denied by Nykrog). After all, the years comprised in the span 1159-1340, the period Bedier assigned to the fabliau, also, as he himself suggested, constitute the age of courtly diction - a diction opposed, and therefore related, fabliau diction. In short, it may be said, the young Bedier was too taken up with the negatively critical side of his enterprise (nine chapters as contrasted with six devoted to the literary study) - an enormous contribution in its own right - in order properly to handle these matters of poetics. Yet, as we have just observed, the elements of an authentic poetic analysis are already present in his work; Bedier furnished the basis for a learned, informed, and pertinent examination of Old French narrative. His sensitivity to pattern (see, e.g., 261-272, especially), his grasp of structural relationships, his capacity to generalize, and what I should call his sense of narrative form shine on virtually every page of

18

Karl D. Uitti

Les fabliaux. These virtues, joined to a sense of history and controlled by a strict and rigorous philological respect for the factual, combined to produce a landmark book, a book that is simultaneously typical of the finest Romance studies can boast and far-reaching in its general repercussions. Limitations of space preclude my offering further examples of the vitality and 'experimentality' of pre-1900 Romance philology. However, I hope to have illustrated sufficiently that at its high-water mark Romance linguistics and literary study ought to be viewed really as having been a non-monolithic and resolutely open-ended set of related and constantly changing disciplinary activities characterized by very considerable intellectual quality. Those who have failed to recognize this, for polemical or other reasons, simply do not know what they are talking about. To be sure, pedantry and wrong-headedness can easily be detected in the memoires and dissertations of the time; not all scholars can be a Bedier, a Meyer-Lübke, or a Menendez Pidal. But to condemn a field of study on such grounds would be similar to denouncing the poetry of Rimbaud and Mallarme because of the minor Symbolist doggerel that cluttered the pages of the little reviews during the 1890's. And, just as no age is entirely free from bad poetry so no age can proclaim itself devoid of third-rate scholarship. The works we have glanced at - Gröber's Grundriss, Gillieron's little article, Bedier's Les fabliaux - suggest, as we noted, that disagreement, even a total upsetting of previously held verities, in no way threatens the continuity of the discipline. Nykrog is as 'faithful' to Bedier as Bedier was 'faithful' to Gaston Paris, and Curtius to Gröber. Analogously, the late Americo Castro 'continued', often in violent opposition, the work of Meyer-Lübke or that of Menendez Pidal. Malkiel's immense oeuvre, stressing as it does etymology and subtendencies in the history and structure of grammar and phonology, constitutes a response to the great Romance historical grammars (and, ancillarily, to the somewhat dessicated descriptive linguistics of the Bloomfieldian school as well as the generative grammar of that school's successors in fashion). Such a system of response, along with, of course, intellectual rigor and concern for realia, lies, I believe, at the heart of the tradition of Romance studies. (Witness Bedier's reaction to Lachmannian textual criticism or Menendez Pidal's anti-Bedierist "neotradicionalismo".) This system of loyalty/disagreement - an intensely liberal outlook, one might add takes precedence over purely theoretical considerations. Conversely, it must be recalled, theoretical concerns have never been entirely absent

Introduction

19

from Romance philological activity. It has always been a matter of degree. Thus, it is difficult, e.g., not to perceive a close relationship - a kind of underlying analogy - between Menendez Pidal's fascination for substratum theory in the area of Spanish historical phonology and his resolute defense of 'poesia latente' as a concept capable of accounting for, and explaining away, apparent and annoying discontinuities in the Old French and Old Spanish epic 'traditions'. Similarly, the methodological 'idealism' of, say, Karl Vossler - a 'theory' systematically opposed to the positivistic neogrammarian outlook represented by Meyer-Lubke - sought to reorient linguistico-philological research by conjoining linguistics and stylistics in a highly idiosyncratic and aprioristic, even philosophical, program. Vossler and certain disciples were, along with various Italian scholars of the 1920's and 1930's, among the most monolithic and uncompromising Romanists in the history of the discipline. Yet, for this very reason (and not, I think, because they were 'unscientific'), the Vosslerians hardly can be said to stand in the mainstream of Romance philology. To be sure - as I have previously suggested - the entre-deux-guerres period saw the emergence of various totalitarian approaches to linguistic and philological inquiry in the Romance domain. (Though not invariably related directly to contemporary political trends, such approaches, especially in Italy and Germany, at times reflected the antiliberalism of the period, particularly certain rightwing manifestations. Post-1945 avatars of totalitarian types of research tend, on the other hand, to betray affinities with leftwing politics.) The influence of Genevan and Prague-School structuralism also began to be felt during this period, either in what might be described as ad hoc ways (e.g., in given phonological investigations) or as providing attractive and global systems (a palliative to 'atomistic' research). Early training in 'traditional' Romance philology, combined with other influences (Dilthey, etc.), led Americo Castro to develop his monolithic and systematic historiography; one of his major works was translated into English, quite symptomatically, as The structure of Spanish history (1954). Indeed, for some so strong was the pull of system - the idea of system - that, paradoxically, in the case of Leo Spitzer a kind of impressionistic intuitionism came to be formulated as a system in and of itself, applicable at once to literary analysis and to etymology. Nevertheless, a kind of pluralism of systems resulted; no one school held sway. Meanwhile, of course, vast projects (etymological dictionaries such as Wartburg's FEW; numerous linguistic atlases ranging from Rumania to Italy to Switzerland to Spain were undertaken; edi-

20

Karl D. Uitti

torial ventures such as Roques' CFMA, Armstrong's Alexandre project) continued to engage the attention of some of the finest scholars in Romance. New and exciting perspectives were opened. Thus, Lucien Foulet, a matchless scholar, blended interests in textual criticism, literary history, poetic analysis, and linguistics over a period of many years in studies involving the Roman de Renart, Marie de France, Villon, and, especially, Old French, which he was among the first to consider as a 'language' in its own right, a 'language' corresponding to a carefully chosen corpus of twelfth- and thirteenth-century (mainly) verse texts, not as a mere and genetically conceived way-station between Latin and Modern French. His work on Old French syntax (1919,1923) constitutes one of the shining examples of innovative, philologically-based research during the first half of the twentieth century. It may be affirmed, then, that by and large liberalism prevailed between the two wars. It should be noted that already lordan-Orr (1937) quoted Schuchardt to the effect that 'crisis' in linguistic research ('Sprachwissenschaft' is Schuchardt's term) was probably a good thing; the 'positivism/idealism' opposition can be valuable if, by 'positivism', we mean "a thorough and secure knowledge of the facts" and if by "'idealism', in its etymological sense of general conceptions, leading up to the philosophy of language", we understand "our goal". Our "truth", they add, "though essentially the same, is forever changing, inasmuch as it is conditioned by continually changing methods and conceptions" (390; emphasis mine). These statements apply, of course, to the end of the entre-deux-guerres period, i.e., they voice, typically, a desire for reconciliation. The emphasis is placed - to my mind, most interestingly - on "linguistics", on, more specifically, Romance linguistics. No mention is made of "philology". For lordan and Orr "philology", quite simply, is integrated into Romance Sprachwissenschaft - into the intuitionist "stylistics" of the "idealists", into the careful factual documentation of the "positivists". There was no need to oppose "philology" and "linguistics"; in fact, such a dichotomy would have been unthinkable to lordan and Orr in 1937 - an impropriety. The lordan-Orr formulation is thus terminologically the reverse of Malkiel's above-quoted statement (Malkiel 1972: 835); for Malkiel, we recall, "Romance linguistics" lies at the core of a more widely conceived "Romance philology". Have, then, our "methods and conceptions" changed sufficiently since the Second World War to merit taking another look at the implicit assertion of lordan-Orr and at Malkiel's reformulation? The answer, of course, is both Yes and No. Let us see why.

Introduction

21

Despite charges of irrelevance and fears of crisis expressed by practitioners and critics alike, Romance scholarship, after World War II, continued to engage the attention of an ever-widening circle of scholars. To be sure, in both Western Europe and America scholarly fragmentation proceeded apace. Even when most broadly defined, Romance 'philology' and 'linguistics' no longer could claim to be coterminous with learned activity in the field of either linguistics (along with, e.g., IndoEuropean, Germanic, or Slavic) or literary study, even in 'Romance' academic departments. Indeed, currents present already in years past (Lansonian literary history in France; the history of ideas in America; increasing emphasis upon the 'modern', upon the national, and upon 'comparative' literature) came to prevail in postwar literary study; 'philology' was relegated in many institutions (and countries) to the status of but one specialty among several. (To a large degree Eastern Europe resisted this trend. Now, curiously, some present-day 'Romance' - or French - departments, particularly on the American Atlantic Seaboard, tend increasingly to abandon this kind of disciplinary pluralism in favor of more monolithically conceived teams devoted, essentially, to research in literary theory. East European traditions and their more recent avatars, filtered through Paris of course, have obviously been influential.) Nevertheless, perhaps due in large part to university expansion and favorable economic conditions, from 1950 to 1970 one witnessed a notable and absolute expansion in the production of learned articles, monographs, and books in the varied fields of Romance philology and linguistics. Many important projects, some initiated before 1939, were completed (e.g., the CFMA editions of Chretien de Troyes, the FEW, Corominas' etymological dictionary of Spanish, various linguistic atlases); new journals such as Romance Philology at Berkeley, and the Nueva Revista de Filologia Hlspanica in Mexico, took their place alongside older confreres; improved travel conditions led to a veritable proliferation of international meetings and congresses; established European-born scholars who had survived the 1933-1945 holocaust Spitzer, Wartburg, Tilander, Hatzfeld, Curtius, Menendez Pidal, Castro, to name but a few - continued their oeuvre during this period, and, though most of these are no longer alive or active, they were joined by two generations of younger scholars, at present, respectively, in their sixties and forties. This explosion of activity - Tilander once referred, quite acrimoniously, to a disciplinary "Papierflut" - was to a considerable degree

22

Karl D. Uitti

uncontrolled; bloated Festschriften, a few comprising over a thousand pages in length, and the published transactions of such international meetings as the successive Congresses of Romance Philology and Linguistics testify eloquently to the sheer volume and to the scattering of energies that characterized Romance scholarship from 1950 to the early 1970's. This material abundance renders the historian's job difficult: One has a hard time isolating important - e.g., lasting, original, valuable - trends within the philological disciplines. To be blunt, it seems to me that during the postwar years Romance philology has come popularly - and perhaps wrongly - to be delimited increasingly in terms of what it is not, at least to the degree that any proper defining at all has occurred. Thus, though - to speak broadly transformational-generative grammar has certainly influenced linguistics everywhere, including significant numbers of linguists concerned with Romance (and/or with individual Romance languages), it has in fact succeeded mainly in (1) integrating totally such Romance practitioners into its own disciplinary orbit (i.e., utilizing Romance materials in illustration of, or construction of, linguistic theory), or (2) adding to the liberal variety of 'approaches' open to the Romanist (i.e., providing a new formulative language for the restating of Old' problems such as the structure of the French partitive). By and large, the individual Romanist has remained rather steadfastly eclectic, rightly or wrongly suspicious of quantification and algebraic formulation. (Conversely, such linguists as prefer these tacks tend not to become Romanists, except, perhaps, occasionally.) Interestingly enough, it has been perhaps in the area of literary theory (and study) that certain (mainly) postwar developments in linguistics and sign-theory have exerted their strongest, or most perceptible, influence, though this 'influence' is not easy to characterize or even sort out. To be sure, in Romance linguistics proper, the work of Haudricourt and Juilland and, especially, that of Andre Martinet and the late Emile Benveniste brought to postwar France and, by extension, to other Romance-speaking countries (particularly Spain) the attitudes and values of Prague School, Scandinavian, and, even, of American descriptive structuralism, but the antitraditionalist and antiphilological bias of, say, Martinet precluded intense collaboration between practitioners of linguistics and those of literary study: there was little common ground shared by Martinet and, e.g., Roques or Frappier. Meanwhile, during the sixties, the 'linguistics' favored, and utilized, by various tone-setting literary theorists in Paris (e.g., Roland Barthes) - tone-setting in literary

Introduction

23

study and also in certain areas of anthropology and sociology (e.g., Claude Levi-Strauss) - harking back, via Benveniste and Roman Jakobson, to Prague and to Saussurean Geneva, downplayed traditional (Romance) philological techniques and values. Curiously, the antiphilological bent of literary and sociological structuralism served, during the 'sixties, at such American centers as Johns Hopkins, Columbia, and, lately, Cornell and Yale, to 'renew' (French) literary studies in opposition to the traditional curriculum, whereas in Italy and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Germany and Spain, Romance scholars took the lead in incorporating the new wave(s) into the mainstream of critical and philological study. At Johns Hopkins, Rene Girard, former chartiste, took the lead in the curricular and disciplinary revision I spoke of at the start of this essay, and, in so doing, abandoned what, presumably, the philology of the Ecole des chartes stands for. Conversely, Cesare Segre in Milan, student of the history of Italian prose, editor of the Song of Roland, semiotician (and critic of semiotics), deeply steeped in traditional Romance philology/linguistics as well as in Saussurean structuralism, felt able, in 1970, to co-edit (with Maria Corti) a remarkable symposium (1970), sections of which are devoted, respectively, to "sociological", "symbolic", "psychoanalytic", "formalist", "structuralist", and "semiological" criticism as well as to "la critica e la storia della lingua italiana". Collaborators include such Romanists as Gianfranco Folena, Gianfranco Contini, G. L. Beccaria, D'A. S. Avalle, U. Eco, and B. Terracini as well as other scholars (e.g., G. Devoto). The tone of / metodi is refreshingly nonpolemical; the work is cosmopolitan and informative. Similarly, in Germany, Harald Weinrich (certain of whose works have been translated into Spanish, French, and Italian) symbolizes a kind of reconciliation cum criticism of new trends in linguistics and literary study with the traditional concerns of Romance (and general) philology; he may be said to have pioneered in a philologically-based, yet innovative inter-disciplinary research centered on the study of language (1) as documented by (largely) literary texts, and (2) as related to the general study of signs. Also, in collaboration with an impressive group of German and foreign scholars (including the late Jean Frappier), the Konstanz-based Hans Robert Jauss has undertaken a massive research project - a Grundriss, devoted exclusively, however, to the medieval Romance literatures (and, implicitly, to matters of literary theory, not linguistics). Jauss' rigorous philological outlook is moreover tempered by his interest in contemporary critical methods and in philosophy; this has led him to develop a somewhat abstract hermeneutics

24

Karl D. Uitti

founded on what he calls the "esthetics of reception", which pays close heed to the structural function of the audience - or Publikum - that "receives" the text and thereby imparts meaning to it. Only by taking such matters into account, Jauss (1970) declares, will we be able to write a true literary history. Jauss' position is close to that of the New Literary History group concentrated at the University of Virginia. Once again, we observe, national traditions, academic organization (e.g., in Italy the distinction between filologia romanza and glottologia; in Germany the differentiation between romanische Philologie and Literaturwissenschaft, the emergence of new universities), and socio-political conditions (e.g., the Parisian evenements de '68) all seem to have played a discernible role. Thus, I repeat, at Johns Hopkins, Girard, following upon the postwar visits of Georges Poulet and other Genevans, overturned not only the established history-of-ideas tradition but also - in favor of French, and of general, literary theory - the old philology and even the somewhat idiosyncratic Romanistik of Leo Spitzer and Anna G. Hatcher; what took place was an abandonment. In Italy, however, philological strength has been able to accommodate, adopt/adapt, and criticize within the academic structure of intellectual life the revolutionary trends imported from abroad. Greater compartmentalization occurred in France, though recent appointments to the College de France and to the various Paris universities suggest that these trends have by now acquired real droit de cite. Innovations (though mainly in linguistics) were welcomed in Scandinavia - indeed, many originated in Denmark and Sweden! - while, in Great Britain (except in the new, experimental universities), the traditional curricula have undergone little change. Italy, then, offers an excellent vantage-point from which to observe a strengthening - an enrichment - of Romance philology through the critical assimilating of new trends in semiotics and in structuralist literary analysis. (And, as we shall see, Italian semiologia has retained much from the philological tradition.) In France, meanwhile, the Old' and the 'new' tended to be polarized, with little attention being paid by the nouvelle critique to the accomplishments of older philologists (e.g., Gillieron and Bedier) and with considerable apprehension voiced by traditional literary historians and textualists in regard to the nouvelle critique. Finally, as I noted, the sympathy felt by a considerable number of Romance or French departments at influential universities has favored the reception in North America of the new European critical trends. Extended and frequent visits by such critic-theorists as Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, Julia Kristeva, Gerard Genette, Umberto Eco, H. R.

Introduction

25

Jauss, and others have served to introduce, and to channel, the new European schools to the wider, largely comparatist, circles of literary study in the U.S.; similarly, it must be said, the 'structuralists' and 'poststructuralists' in Europe have succeeded in introducing to Europe the American New Criticism, descriptive linguistics, logical positivism, and, more recently, transformational-generative grammar. The 'influence' has travelled in both directions. Where, as in Italy, traditional Romance philology has remained innovative and open to renovation - particularly in literary study - a climate of intellectual tolerance tends to prevail and, to a greater extent than elsewhere, a freedom from jargon, a language of common sense. Such has not been the case in France where, to be sure, the tortuous language of a Kristeva - a language often verging on mumbo-jumbo - is an extreme case in point, especially when she gives vent to gratuitous affirmation, as she does in declaring, e.g., "L'Europe medievale a une vision masochiste de Pecriture" (1970: 143), or when she speaks of the "special complicity" between "novelistic structure" and the "apparatus of generative grammar". It is only when we realize her equally gratuitous ideological parti-pris that things cohere somewhat, as when she tells us that "le materialisme historique nous oblige [!] ä reflechir sur une TYPOLOGIE DES CULTURES irreductibles l'une ä l'autre, et, armes de cet instrument qu'est la semiotique (une science qui est en meme temps sä propre theorie), ä tenter de constituer cette typologie en 'fonction du type de relation qu'elles entretiennent avec le signe'." We are serving History by making poetic texts Relevant; History, the poetic, the Relevant are what we wish - or worse, feel impelled - to make of them. Conversely, in a sparklingly written article U. Eco (1970), explaining that semiological study ("una disciplina ehe studia tutti i fenomeni di cultura come sistemi di segni") cannot limit itself "allo studio delle opere d'arte", goes on to declare that even when it does examine (verbal) works of art, 'non pare avere le stesse finalitä di una indagine critica" (372). Built into Eco's definition of semiology, with respect principally to 'structuralist' analysis, is his awareness that the selfreferentiality of poetic artifacts renders these recalcitrant to structuralist and semiological study as poetic artifacts, that such study by its nature transforms its object of study since it translates the text into another kind of discourse, which, as discourse, takes its place naturally alongside other (e.g., critical) types of discourse. That which is 'poetic' is lost; it is not factored into the analysis and that, in turn, deforms the analysis. The semiologist should take a simpler tack; his "e quel tipo di approccio ai

26

Karl D. Uitti

fatti comunicativi ehe ci ha permesso di individuare il messaggio ai suoi diversi livelli, di individuare per ciascun livello un discorso proprio, e per tutti un metodo unitario onde collegarli tra loro. Consumato questo compito scientifico, la semiologia lascia spazio a vari tipi di critica" (379). Kristeva's 'history' becomes, as Eco seems to put it, something very closely resembling, in its rigor and in its flexibility, what we have been calling 'philology': "Quäle puö essere dunque il compito della coscienza semiologica rispetto alia critica delle opere d'arte realizzate per mezzo della lingua? Non tanto quello di individuare una tecnica nuova, quanto quello di individuare, grazie alia totalitä di visione ehe la semiologia si impone, dei livelli ehe siano sinora sfuggiti all'indagine critica" (379f). In short, Eco's semiology turns out to be a renewed philology, i.e., a unified science of signs, not to be confused coterminously with logic, largely, but not entirely, given over to verbal signs, and yet freed from the rather exclusively bourgeois European cultureboundness that typified so much philological enquiry before World War II. The concreteness of signs - of 'messages' - is entirely preserved. Texts may be taken apart in structuralist fashion but they are to be put back together again, not reassembled merely to 'say' anything the semiologist wants them to say. At times Eco reminds one of Gillioron, almost hauntingly: Infine, un territorio ampio e appassionante per la ricerca semiologica e quello delle comunicazioni di massa. Dal romanzo popolare al fumetto, dalla canzone alia stampa quotidiana, qui veramente la semiologia trova un suo campo ideale, dove la ricerca generate sui codici. E questo perche ci troviamo qui di fronte a messaggi altamente standardizzati ... Tanto ehe qualcuno, giä in Francia, ha fatto notare ehe probabilmente il territorio ideale della semiologia e quella dei messaggi a bassa quota di originalitä (miti, fiabe, prodotti di massa), mentre il territorio comunemente assegnato alia critica, quello delle opere altamente originali, sarebbe inaccessibile al discorso semiologico (1970: 381). So: " . . . il campo si allarga . . . in direzione di una attivitä critica ehe, al limite, non ha piü nulla a ehe vedere con la critica letteraria e artistica propriamente detta... Per cui proporremmo di sostituire alia locuzione 'critica semiologica' . . . la locuzione 'semiologica come critica della cultura'" (383). Eco's philologically oriented 'culture' is removed by light-years from Kristeva's neo-Marxist 'culture'. Yet, for both, linguistics, though of great importance, remains a kind of tool discipline;

Introduction

27

the scientific study of language in and for itself is no longer central; it is but a part of the wider, rather more totalitarian study of signs. One suspects, however, that for Eco descriptive linguistics and the presence of facts exercise greater control over affirmation than seems to be the case with Kristeva. We might well recall at this point that Curtius (1948 [English translation 1963 - from which subsequent quotations are taken]) develops a kind of critical 'Kulturgeschichte' on the basis of philological analysis, something, as he puts it himself, not to be confused with the "irresponsibly interpretive 'Geistesgeschichte' which took the place of philology in Germany after the first World War" (381). The polemical, or critical, underpinnings of this opus magnum were already present in his earlier essays on modern French literature and culture and, as well, in Curtius 1932. Curtius' concern for the state of European culture during the rise of Nazism led to his creating "what I should like to call a phenomenology of literature . . . something different from literary history [one is reminded of Jauss], comparative literature, and 'Literaturwissenschaft' as they are practised today" (ix). Curtius' critique lies latent in what his book is: an organization of philological essays (as he seems to recognize in his "Epilogue"). But "in order to convince", he writes, "I had to use the scientific technique which is the foundation of all historical investigation: philology. For the intellectual sciences it has the same significance as mathematics for the natural sciences". (The 'social sciences' were then, as yet, in their infancy.) Indeed: "As Leibniz taught, there are two kinds of truths: on the one hand, those which are only arrived at by reason and which neither need nor are capable of empirical confirmation; on the other hand, those which are recognized through experience and which are logically indemonstrable; necessary truths and accidental truths, or, as Leibniz puts it, verites eternelles and verites de fait. The accidental truths of fact can only be established by philology" (x). To be sure, Curtius is dealing with European culture; consequently, his characterization of philology lends itself to accusations of 'culture-boundness', which, ideally, a more generally conceived semiotics (as a 'replacement' for philology) ought easily to avoid, yet Curtius' remarks on philology bear repeating in that they do constitute a defense and illustration of the veritos de fait as well as of their importance not only within the ambit of European culture but, presumably, elsewhere too. Interestingly enough, like Eco, Curtius is hardly concerned either with 'literary or artistic criticism'; as we noted above, his 1948 work constitutes an authentic "critica della cultura". What, then, does Curtius mean by 'philology'? And what

28

Karl D. Uitti

röle does linguistics play in relation to it? Rigorous discipline, grammatical and linguistic training, knowledge of ancient languages (without which Germanic, Romance, and English studies "are easy prey for the fashions and aberrations of the Zeitgeist"), observation (with a view to ascribing functions to phenomena encountered), establishment of facts (only these permit us to penetrate "the concrete structure of the matter of literature"), the deriving of synthesis from analysis ("and only a synthesis thus brought into existence is legitimate"), and, finally, receptivity in the student: this faculty, which "can neither be taught nor transferred", can, however, "be awakened, used, guided". Furthermore (and Curtius seems to echo Humboldt in these words): Analysis employs various methods according to the matter to be dealt with. If it is directed upon literature it is called philology. It alone penetrates into the heart of the matter. There is no other method of exploring literature. The controversies over methods in the last decades and the windmill battle against so-called 'Positivism' are liquidated by this fact. They merely show that there was a wish to evade philology - on grounds which we will not discuss. To be sure, there are good and bad musicians - and philologists. But it is generally possible to learn something even from the bad ones (383). Linguistics, here, is not in the least attacked; in and of themselves, however, the linguistic disciplines as purporting to represent the 'science of language' hardly constitute the core of philology. The philologist must know languages and grammar; he must be aware of linguistic change over time and space, indeed, even, of the history of grammatical thought (e.g., etymology as a way of thought). But this knowledge is to be placed at the service of textual analysis, which analysis, in turn, is called upon to lead to the historico-cultural synthesis (or interpretation) Curtius has in mind. It is because the European culture is - and/or has been - so profoundly literary that, according to Curtius, a philologically-based literary phenomenology, utilizing linguistics, can most effectively promote a proper understanding of that culture. (By the same token, we recall, Eco argues that the "highly standardized messages" characterizing "mass communications" [in the post-Goethean contemporary world?] lend themselves to "semiological discourse".) Thus, it seems to me that Curtius and Eco meet at many points; they appear to be authentically closer than, say, Eco and Kristeva. The important difference - not

Introduction

29

merely differences in vocabulary - lies in the fact that Eco seems to equate "semiologia" and "critica della cultura", whereas Curtius' "philology" remains an indispensable means; Curtius retains, at least in residual form, the notion of "content". Of present-day Romance scholars in Germany Harald Weinrich strikes me as approximating in intellectual tolerance as well as in innovation the spirit of Segre and Corti 1970; moreover, he is a member of the editorial board of Lingua e stile. Weinrich's roots lie deep in the tradition of Romance philology; his concerns involve both linguistics and literary study, as he was a student of Heinrich Lausberg. One-time professor of Romance studies at Cologne, he held for some time a chair at the newly established university of Bielefeld where he was Director of the Zentrum für interdisziplinische Forschung; he has more recently moved to the University of Munich. (Jauss' stance is also interdisciplinary.) Early works on Don Quixote (1956) and Andromaque confirm his literary interests while the much-debated Weinrich 1958, a study attempting to explore given phonological structures as they interact(ed) dynamically with what Weinrich calls 'structures of consciousness", shows the strong influence of both Lausberg and Andre Martinet, of German Idealism and Prague-style 'structuralism'. Philological and linguistic enquiry merge in Weinrich's work with a concern for psychological and theoretical matters as well as for recent developments in all these fields. Nowhere is the 'interdisciplinary' character of philological research more aptly illustrated. The essentially philological respect for data is borne out in Weinrich's case in an admirable, though neglected, essay (1970). This brief study provides an overview of past and present approaches to myth, focusing on Claude Levi-Strauss and noting at the outset that in "l'univers de la science, un je ne sais quoi de scandaleux s'attache ä tout ce qui est seulement narre". Why? Because "la science ne vise pas la sagesse, mais la connaissance" (26). Though, Weinrich avers, LeviStrauss and others have provided brilliant analyses of mythic structures, such work depends exclusively on paradigmatic formulations: La premiere demarche de la methode est toujours d'eparpiller le mythe en mythemes et le texte litteraire en je ne sais quels -ernes pour quitter le plus vite possible la sequence narrative [emphasis mine]. Le style narratif en tant que tel n'interesse guere des auteurs auxquels seul 1'ordre paradigmatique semble traduisible dans le langage argumentatif de la science (1970: 34).

30

Karl D. Uitti

Weinrich is reminded of the late thirteenth- (or early fourteenth-) century Ovide moralise, a work recounting Ovid narrationally in Old French - i.e., 'translating' him (imitatio) - then summarizing the tales morally, or argumentatively: transposing them, as it were, into a new register. The sequential linearity of narrative is here, as in the work of Levi-Strauss, shunted into a vertical paradigm. What, in the following paragraph, Weinrich calls "une linguistique textuelle" - a term inevitably reminding us of Curtius - hardly differs from our own "philology": Je dirai done qu'il importe pour I'avenir, tout en admirant les resultats obtenus par la methode paradigmatique en mythologie structurale, de la completer par une methode syntagmatique, egalement structurale . . . II nous faut, en un mot, apres la semantique, une syntaxe des mythes. Elle pourrait faire partie d'une linguistique textuelle, dans laquelle, cependant que seraient retenus et developpes les resultats obtenus dans 1'ordre paradigmatique des signes, 1'ordre syntagmatique rencontrerait la meme attention methodique de la part des chercheurs. Weinrich's "attention methodique", or "theory", is thus made to conform more closely to the factual, or material, nature of what is to be studied: mythic narrative. Narrative linearity - the fact that a 'myth' is a narrative, i.e., something told or extant in the 'telling' - shapes what a myth is. While Levi-Strauss deliberately downplayed the dramatic character of Oedipus Rex, one assumes that Weinrich would stress precisely that character. 'Surface' structures are all-important, or rather, at least as important as underlying structures, the detection of which reflects largely the ethnologist's need to build up his own discipline: ethnology. Once again Weinrich seems to be following Curtius' advice when, in his important work dedicated to Lausberg (1964), he analyzes a number of texts (written and spoken) with a view to establishing a dichotomy between a reality seen as 'commented upon' by language and a world (more objectively) 'narrated'. (Studies in language acquisition by children are also pressed into service here.) The analysis of facts - of textual facts - precedes the elaboration of syntheses, demonstrating what surely must lie at the heart of the philologist's creed, namely, that linguistic 'creativity', or generating patterns, in human beings can profitably be approached through the study of creations - of that which has been spoken/written, of texts - and not only through the application of an aprioristic methodological grid (a theory, a 'science'). Weinrich's dichot-

Introduction

31

omy resembles in some important ways Benveniste's (1959) distinction between "discours" and "histoire", but with some equally important differences (mainly having to do with Benveniste's restrictions of person/ tense combinations). Present, present perfect, and future (plus future perfect) constitute the 'tenses' of the 'besprochene Welt' - the 'commented' world - while the 'narrated' world is expressed by the preterite, the imperfect, the conditionals, and the pluperfect. The discourse of very young children, Weinrich explains, is largely confined to the diction of the commented world; ability to 'narrate' comes much later. The ramifications of this distinction are worked out and studied in considerable detail, as Weinrich accounts for such processes as literary genre, metaphoric transformations, etc., and as he takes stock of many factors and various languages. His perspective, however, remains rigorously textual. Thus, unlike most grammarians and lexicographers whose grammars and dictionaries are but systematically and paradigmatically reordered fragments of texts (i.e., language 'restructured' according to methodological principles of classification), Weinrich's "Textlinguistik" seeks to cope with the reality of discourse, to factor this reality into his analysis. Phonology comprises more than the syllable, semantics involves more than the word, and syntax (above all) ought not to be confined to the sentence. The text - the corpus or set of corpora - does much to determine what we should understand about phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, and syntagmas; the corpus retains a kind of canonical function. Needless to say, there is no question here of doing away with paradigmatically structured linguistic studies - these remain indispensable. They simply should not be exclusive. (All this reminds me of Yakov Malkiel's work in the field of historical Romance linguistics as he defined its character in a 1962 essay [cf. Posner 1970: 441]: Whereas the older historical grammars operated chiefly with alternatives (e.g., substratum influence vs. internal sound change) the explicative grammar of the future after carefully isolating and defining each force that can possibly have been involved, will start from the assumption that in the majority of observable situations there have been at work configurations of contributing forces. The highest attainable level of analysis will then be a systematic enquiry into the tendential complementarity, i.e. co-efficiency, or mutual exclusion, of such isolable agencies. One notes the same regard for concrete fact, a similar suspicion of monolithically conceived grammars, a like procedural preference in going

32

Karl D. Uitti

from the isolation of data to analysis and only subsequently to synthesis. One senses as well in both Malkiel and Weinrich a common desire for disciplinary renewal.) Weinrich's Textlinguistik constitutes at once a program and a commitment; his work, as I have tried to show, illustrates the philologist's traditional recalcitrance with respect to what Posner (1970: 540) has called "the castles in the air constructed by theorists". Moreover, in Tempus as well as in his thought-provoking 1966 and 1971 studies, Weinrich operates in a characteristically philological terrain - the area in which concern for human speech cohabits with concern for humane learning and literature: what Curtius called 'culture'. Thus, rhetorical and contextual structures that lend themselves to description serve to differentiate between 'lying' and 'truth'. Yet, as is apparent from what we have observed - though sketchily - Weinrich's principal area of interest is not (as is the case with Jauss) the literature-centered culture of Curtius; like Eco, though in different ways, he is interested in (verbal) signs, in meanings as these derive from analyzable process, from operations. Such process, nevertheless, provides a key to meaning, indeed it creates meaning; meaning legitimately resides nowhere else. A priori schemes distort and obfuscate. Weinrich's philology is consequently open-ended; it is also conscientious. One has the impression that for him as well as for Malkiel, philological activity is in and of itself a value, that a sense of the objective - of the factual - is pre-eminent. The specificity of poetry - a Prague School notion - underlies still other research styles that have recently become fashionable in Romance circles, particularly, of course, in areas of literary criticism. Paul Zumthor (1972), for one, has attempted a sort of compendium (focusing principally on Old French literature) in which conventions of poetic diction and certain conventions of behavior are studied in terms of given generic and verbal permutations. Underlying this work is a kind of conviction that our modern concern for signs is in important ways analogous to medieval dictional practice. Like certain influential essays written in the 1940's and 1950's, by the Belgian medievalist, Robert Guiette, Zumthor's work may properly be considered as an up-dated participant in the tradition of such Romance scholarship as represented by, e.g., Faral 1924, a trailblazing work much utilized by Curtius and which called attention to conventionality in medieval poetic composition as well as to such matters as the canon ofauctores, etc. Faral's study is at once historical and formalist. Peter Haidu, the editor of a recent symposium (1974), goes even a bit further than Zumthor: "The antecedent of sophisticated

Introduction

33

modern fiction may just have been sophisticated medieval fiction" (3). Concomitantly, "whether he likes it or not, the medievalist undergoes the same vertige, personal and epistemological, as his modernist colleagues" (11). For Haidu, interest in the specificity of poetry (= poetic utilization of the conventions of diction and genre) implies a rejection of - or a step beyond - purely philological concerns, which, to all intents and purposes, are little more than preoccupation with textual establishment, simple glossing, etc. (But then, one might ask, what is an Old French 'text'?) Haidu's forcefully worded manifesto deserves fuller quotation at this juncture, for, in my opinion, his 'anti-philology' is quite deliberate. If it may be claimed that - and I very much oversimplify, of course - Leo Spitzer and, to a considerable degree, Erich Auerbach estheticized traditional Romance philology, at least as far as literary study was concerned, by aggrandizing (in Spitzer's case) the virtually uncontrolled intuitive power of the individual reader or (with Auerbach) by equating quite arbitrarily a series of explicative readings with the "representation of reality in Western literature", and (both) by their antipositivism, so, with Haidu, a similar, though more radical, estheticization occurs. For Haidu what he calls "theoretical problematics" takes precedence within "the critical operation", and this interest in "theoretical problematics" is to all intents and purposes defined as what bears "the characteristic mark of late twentieth-century criticism". We learn that "the brands of medievalism [medievalism?] in these pages are indubitably Ours', as complex, demanding, and even contradictory, as 'we' are." We - complex and demanding - are the North Star, the true, or only authentic, reference point. And our job - "the job of criticism" - is "the continual erection of new mediations between an evolving consciousness [= us] and a series of problematic texts that therefore are also evolving." The focus is sharply pinpointed on "us", presumably university teachers of Old French literature with a proclivity to keep up with the times, to maintain (or to destroy) as we see fit the relevance of, say, Floire et Blanchefleur by examining our reactions to it. "We" are "thoroughly selfconscious artisan(s)" (7). A certain tolerance and seemingly eclectic methodological stance pervade Haidu's pages, which I applaud. Yet, as Curtius might have said, eclecticisms can also be quite dangerous. 'Philologists' are excluded, really, from Haidu's 'us'. (To be sure, what he means when he uses the word 'philologist' is something actually very narrow.) But might not other, similarly capricious, excommunications be possible? Equally

34

Karl D. Uitti

serious: for all sorts of reasons, most of them quite deplorable, the elucubrations of Julia Kristeva, ranging from Le Petit Jehan de Saintre to the status of women in China, are taken seriously in various influential intellectual circles. Nothing in Haidu's esthetic of scholarship - she is a selfconscious critical artisan if there ever was one - permits the denunciation of her varieties of aberration. No real renewal of poetics, I fear, can be securely based on such self-conscious artisans, nor, a fortiori, on Haidu's estheticist grounds. Esthetic eclecticism of this sort leads either to totalitarianism or to extreme liberalism: le papier souffre tout. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that studies concerned with matters of poetic specificity do offer a genuine and all too neglected - as well as intellectually exciting - challenge to Romance philology and linguistics. A challenge, moreover, that reflects our own period's fascination for matters of literary theory and sign-theory. A challenge, finally, in responding to which Romance philology might well have a pertinent and unique answer, of interest and value to many of our sister disciplines. Let me explain. Edmond Faral (1924) defended the study of 'style'; he wrote: "C'est une matiere qui, dans les textes, se prete ä un examen aussi scientifique que les phenomenes linguistiques et grammaticaux et qui, jusqu'ici, a etc trop negligee" (xi). And in the "Theses" of the Cercle linguistique de Prague (1929) we read: "Tous les plans d'un Systeme linguistique, qui n'ont dans le langage de communication qu'un röle de service, prennent, dans le langage poetique, des valeurs autonomes plus ou moins considerables" (19). Finally, Weinrich (1971: 233) observed that "the definite article has the function of directing attention to preinformation, while the indefinite article directs it to post-information" (in 'normal' usage). Yet, during the subsequent discussion of this paper, it was pointed out that in narrative fiction, especially at the start of the narrative, often the "article is cataphoric; it refers to information which will come afterwards" (as in the beginning of Ian Fleming's Goldfinger: "The man approached."). Weinrich felt compelled to agree that this requires our recognizing "the existence of a false or misleading anaphoric function" (239). (One might add that Fleming's text poeticizes a kind of cataphoric/anaphoric merger.) The poetic, then, would seem to compromise, or at least complicate, Weinrich's 'text'. Each in its own way these statements recognize what I have called the specificity of poetry as well as the possibility for serious and meaningful study of this specificity, or, at the very least, the necessity of such recognition. Faral argues on behalf of the rigorous analysis of poetic, or sty-

Introduction

35

listic, components in medieval literary discourse. The Prague "Theses" characterize that which is poetic in terms of a global view of linguistic even semiotic - phenomena. The Weinrich discussion hints at a poetic dimension that should be taken into account in the operations of Textlinguistik. (Analogously, we saw, Eco recognized that "semiologia" would be forced to pay special heed to poetically organized sign systems.) Now then, strange as this may sound, seldom have traditional Romance philologists and linguists, even when working with poetic texts, sought to define their character as poetry before going on to utilize the documentation they provide. To be sure, there are a few exceptions Bedier 1893, for one, and some recent work on courtly diction, the conventions of troubadour lyric, and formulaic style. Even Faral wrote rather abstractly of 'style' and literary building-blocks; he never actually analyzes a poem, he merely restates it. Nor does Curtius 1948; his concern, we noted, was literary and cultural history. Lucien Foulet 1919 (1923), an attempt to describe and to present late twelfth- and thirteenth-century French, was first based exclusively on verse texts (belonging, it is true, to various genres and dialects); only in the third edition does Foulet start to include several references to prose. What is being described, however, is a kind of literary koine, distilled from different authors, which Foulet claims must not have been "un langage de convention tres distinct de celui qu'ont employe leurs contemporains" in speech ("Preface"). The fact of writing, not to mention that of poetic organization, is minimized; the filter here is Foulet's extraordinary sense of literary Old French, and it is this literary Old French which he describes (or 'transcribes'). In short, then, poetically structured documents have usually been 'translated' by philologists and linguists into new types of discourse, or constructs, that reflect essentially the disciplinary needs of the philologists and linguists to come up with, e.g., a critical text (Foerster's reconstruction of Chretien or Menendez Pidal's Poema de Mio Cid), an Old French syntax or dictionary, an etymological monograph, a literary history, even biographies of given writers. Foulet's "langue du XHIe siecle", indispensable though it may be for our work, is his - and our - construct; it is our linguistic and philological tool. Foerster's Cliges permits us moderns to read Chretien's poem in a more or less modern way, much as we would read, say, a novel by Zola; it too is indispensable but it does much to hide the way(s) Chretien's work was experienced in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. If, as we now believe, reading imparts sense to a poem then surely the manner of

36

Karl D. Uitti

reading must be significant. (Editions more conservative than Foerster's - e.g., Roques' - have the merit at least of providing a fairly authentic version of an old text; yet seldom do they provide the wealth of information and intelligent commentary one finds in Foerster.) In his edition of La Vie de Saint Alexis Gaston Paris utilized a number of more or less adequate manuscripts dating from the twelfth century; I say "utilized" because what Paris actually did was to rewrite the poem in terms of what he thought the lost Urtext must have been, in an archaic Old French - Paris' ingenious invention - presumably dating from c. 1050. Poematically, however, the Alexis really existed - and still exists in another framework, in a dynamic set of relationships, for which the surviving MSS provide evidence, e.g.: (1) within a pan-European Alexis tradition; (2) with respect to a Latin Vita tradition; (3) as exemplifying the hagiographic paradigm and a legendary corpus; (4) as incarnating a rhetoric involving poet/narrator and public. MSS L and V (the latter unknown to Paris) recount Alexis' reunion with his virgin bride in heaven at the close of the poem; MS A lops off this ending in a rather puritan effort to remain faithful to the clerkly Vita which, of course, coexisted with the new vernacular tradition (see Uitti 1973: 3-64). Each MS version contains and, as it were, argues the poem. Recently, certain Romance scholars have begun to take these matters very seriously. The poetics of the codex (what texts in what version are copied together, by whom and for whom, and in what order); the application of given stylistic procedures (amplificatio, descriptio, etc.) by copyists: scribes are no longer viewed exclusively as more or less accurate transmitters of a sacrosanct Urtext but also as participants in the literary process (see Elspeth Kennedy's penetrating 1970 analysis of the poetics of scribal transmission with regard to the Prose Lancelot). Recognition of the fact of poetic modes of existence in the Middle Ages has thus given rise to what might be called a new centering of philological interest upon textuality (as distinguished from traditional concentration upon monolithically conceived texts). Textualists, like Peter F. Dembowski (1977), have begun once again to edit traditions, not only single works, so as better to show the kinds of relationships I have been suggesting. Similarly, questions of genre and literary history have been reopened from the standpoint of poetic textuality: the hagiographic paradigm in the Old French vernacular is worked out through narrative though in symptomatically different ways - in, say, the Alexis, Wace's Saint Nicolas, and Rutebeuf; meanwhile, Jehan Bodel's Saint Nicolas constitutes a theatrical response to this narrative tradition as well as a

Introduction

37

poetic renewal - a generic transformation - of the paradigm (see Uitti 1975). These new perspectives permit, it seems to me, significant reappraisals of such works as the Romance of the Rose where the conflation of lyric and narrative and where a built-in self-conscious defense of poetry constitute, to all intents and purposes, what that great work is all about. Thanks to analyses of such matters carried out along these lines we are beginning to understand more clearly - and articulate more firmly - the nature of literary influence, tradition, and creativity. (One thinks of Gianfranco Contini's recent studies of Dante and the Rose tradition; of Folena's work on troubadour language.) We have come to realize that the emergence of vernacular prose in early thirteenth-century France is closely linked to the 'crisis of poetry' taking place at that time: (narrative) verse had become suspect in some quarters; it was regarded as untruthful. Thus, questions of poetic theory are intimately related to crucial matters of literary and linguistic history. What I have called our new sense of the specificity of poetry, then, and our realization that somehow this specificity ought to be understood and worked into our scholarship have, I believe, contributed to usher in a very promising new era in Romance philology. I stress Romance not only because it is our field but mainly because the documentation available to Romance scholars and the wealth of our resources in general are not paralleled elsewhere. Our texts and their textuality range far and wide; we must continue to learn from them, always retaining faith in their propriety, which is, of course, our propriety. I have concentrated upon medieval texts because they are central to the Romanist's activity. Yet, I am not convinced that study, say, of the Alexis poem(s) and of medieval narrative is irrelevant to the study of modern fiction (e.g., Flaubert's Trois conies, Galdos' Misericordia). On the contrary! Also, I have dealt principally with literature. Nevertheless, I am certain that what I have been speaking of is of importance to linguists too - or should be - particularly as regards the kind of documentation (Weinrich's 'text') linguists use and how they use it. A few examples should suffice to illustrate what I am driving at. As is well known, countless studies have been devoted to the problems of tense sequence in the old Romance vernaculars. Scholars have been puzzled by - inter alia - the seemingly gratuitous jumble of presents and perfects, imperfects, futures, and so forth within given syntagmas or paragraphs. All too often the symmetrical and patterned model of tense sequence, say, in Bossuet was taken as the proper norm from which Old French, an "infant language", deviated. At times abstract models,

38

Karl D. Uitti

almost philosophical in their complexities, were fashioned in order to systematize apparent anomalies in terms of theories of tense/time or of aspect, etc. Textual editors often emended their base MS in order to regularize the most glaring deficiencies. Yet, until recently, scholars tended to neglect the poetic nature of the texts serving to document their studies. Thus, e.g., the older MSS of the Life of Saint Alexis show a low degree of contrast between the present, perfect, and preterite forms, as though these tenses were deliberately commingled: MS L (v. 56) reads "Com veil le lit esguardat la pulcele" (veil emended to vit by Paris who followed MSS A and P); other inconsistencies: v. 62, L and P giveprwi, A reads prent; v.72 L offers cumandet (P, cunmande), as against A 's duna. A 'past' action is thus situated in the past and yet made relevant to a present-day audience. Each of the MSS agrees to 'mix up' the tenses; none of the scribes cared how the mix-up was brought off, just so long as the text did in fact bring it off. The past/present mixed relationship is all they sought to maintain. Meanwhile, curiously, in vv. 476-495 of the same poem Alexis' bride vents her despair in a very elaborately constructed planctus, including verbs in the present indicative, future, imperfect, present perfect, preterite, imperfect subjunctive, pluperfect subjunctive, etc., and respecting 'normal' French tense sequence in a manner of which Corneille or Bossuet would have been proud. This delicate and intricate text, i.e., its deployment of verbs, is almost exactly reproduced in all four MSS (L,A, P, V), with virtually no mix-up at all; the scribes took special care to duplicate the tense order. The contrast between vv. 476-495 and vv. 56ff. is striking, to say the very least. What, then, does this contrast tell us about Old French'? First, obviously, that Old French - early literary Old French - permitted a generic and poetic exploitation of what might be called tense neutralization, and second, that when required, an elegant oratorical tone could be achieved by the poeticization of extremely complex syntactical elaborations: the bride's planctus, a text-within-a-text, of course, whose order resides on a level higher than that of the mere sentence (= the figure oratio recta). Tense mix-up, meanwhile, occurs only when the clerk-narrator is, as it were, speaking man-to-man to the audience, when - to use Weinrich's terms - he is narrating/commenting (both, simultaneously) the Alexis tale. What we have just observed works quite straightforwardly in the Alexis, sophisticated though this poem may be. Clearly, the poetic considerations I have pointed to must precede any utilization of the Alexis in discussions of Old French grammar and syntax. By the same token any

Introduction

39

editor who, failing to take into account these poetico-syntactic data, might arbitrarily emend, or 'regularize', the tense sequence in the narrative portions of the text would be little more than a butcher. Yet, Old French', it seems to me, is not merely Our' construct, our paradigmatically deployed interpretation of data furnished by χ texts. Another organization is possible too, and, as I see it, very much worth exploring. Lack of space precludes much detail here; a few hints will have to suffice. As in the Alexis so in the MS Ο of the Roland does one find considerable utilization of tense neutralization. The 'implicit' narrator - in all probability a clerk of the Alexis type (though represented by a jongleur) - presents "Carles U reis, nostre emperere magnes" (ed. Bedier, v. 1); v. 2 contains a present perfect; v. 3, a preterite; v. 4, a present; v. 5, an 'ambiguous' present present perfect ("Mur ne diet n'i est remes a fraindre"), etc. Once again, a 'past' action (a story) is brought into the present through narrative/commentary: the presence of narrator and public. But verb tense is not the only linguistic means: 'Charles the king, our great emperor'; the conjunction of the quasi-religious and timeless (though 'historical') nostre (as in Nostre Seignor) with, in v. 2, ad estet 'has been', plays up the presentness of it all. Narrative is squeezed into commentary, about as far as it will go and still remain narrative. The implicit narrative je is exploited for all it is worth, as is the vous/nous of the public/narrator-public. The Oxford poet intensifies the straightforward procedure we observed in the Alexis: a syntactic figure is elaborated, and, of course, it will dominate the entire poem. The concept is even more highly sophisticated, by which I mean that within Old French' the Oxford Roland may be viewed as constituting a sort of response to, or development of, the Alexis. (This 'response' may or may not have been self-conscious; we shall never know, but that is not particularly important. What is important is the system of relationships and possibilities as well as the description of these.) Chretien's Le Chevalier au Lion (Yvain) participates in this system too. The narrator figure remains (at least ostensibly) implicit; alone among Chretien's five romances, Yvain contains no explicit prologue (exordium). A nos (ed. Roques, v. 2) apparently indicates a Roland-like community made up of narrator and public: a "good king of Britain", Arthur (v. 1), is he "whose prowess teaches us prowess and courtesy". He - like Charles at "Cordres" - holds court, or rather, held court (narrative), one Whitsuntide, at Carduel, in Wales. A good-old-days topos similar to the one used by the Alexis poet (Bons f u li siecles al terns ancle-

40

Karl D. Uitti

nourjquarfeiz i eret ei justise ed amours [ed. G. Paris, vv. If.]) contrasts the knights and ladies of yore who were true disciples of the covenant of Love (v. 16) with nowadays (mes or i a molt po des suens [v. 18]). Past and present are deftly but quite ambiguously distinguished since Arthur's prowess does indeed teach us (by its example) to be "preu et cortois". And the narrator's job is to reveal (by narrating) that example to us who stand in sore need of learning (vv. 18-28). Nothing as explicit as this didactic commentary occurs in Alexis or Roland; Chretien's narrator thus undermines the implicit narrator figure: he makes sure we get the point, though he relies still on a kind of editorial/communitarian 'we': "Mes orparlons de cez quifurentjsi leissons cez qui ancor durent" (vv. 29f.). He shifts into a first-person singular: "For ce meplest a reconter" (v. 33), and begins his narrative proper: an astounding story, told mainly in the narrative past, of Arthur's incivility towards his guests and of his Round Table entourage's discourtesy. The double complicity of author/subject matter and narrator/public is totally undermined, as is, for that matter, the tense/time structure of the narrative/commentary. Narrative and commentary are opposed on at least two levels within the poem. The text is centered upon itself, quite self-consciously. The 'truth' of the text - there is no 'Arthurian truth' - lies more deeply embedded in the verbal artifact than in that to which this artifact supposedly refers. Verbal play and writing constitute the locus of meaning, as Chretien himself seems to state, in naming both himself and his text (finally) in the closure: Del Chevalier au lyeon fine Crest'iens son romans ensi; n'onques plus confer n'en οϊ neja plus n'en orroiz conter s'an n'i valt mangonge ajoster (vv. 6804ff.). In Chretien's Yvain - indeed, perhaps in courtly romance in general present and past, as temporal categories, are purely fictional and are utilized as such. Both narrative and commentary are entirely poetic; the linguistic forms designating them are, in a sense, being played with, just as the types of exordium we described in Alexis and Roland are being played with. In short, the denotative functions of language are subverted - ironized - by Chretien; the Alexis and the Roland had meanwhile poeticized these functions. It is within this context that the more 'realistic', and the neater, contrast between past and present displayed by Yvain must be understood. The highly self-conscious literary character of courtly diction - in

Introduction

41

romance as well as in lyric - is closely related to, even determinative of, I think, the extraordinary amount of verbal play one finds in courtly, as well as in self-consciously anti-courtly (fabliaux, Renard), texts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Paranomasia, manipulation of suffixes, mock elegance, games with rhyme, contrived figures and tropes - these epitomize (anti-)courtly diction every bit as much as the learned tricks of the trade (sententiae, monologues, debates, descriptions, etc.). Chretien's Cliges, romances by Jehan Renart, the grand chant courtois, the Rose, and, especially, the lyric and narrative verse of Rutebeuf are replete with examples, as Malkiel and I observed some years back (1968). Indeed, the story of -OW creu), the raising of e and ο before a nasal plus a consonant, the treatment of -D-, -TY- and -C'-, of -G-, etc. Since 1950 Coromines has made available part of the materials of his *Gramatica historica catalana on two occasions. First, in an

Catalan

211

article published shortly after the two grammars discussed above (1952a), he pointed out the following phenomena: (a) there was a double pattern in the evolution of -TR- as dr and r depending on whether the group was of Latin or Romance origin ;w (b) the change of 0 to open g seen in a number of words obeyed certain tendencies; (c) the initial CE became ci (as in CERASEA > cirerci), evidently because of the palatal quality of the reflex of CE-;91 (d) the final unstressed -o of a good many words was genuinely Catalan and had developed within the language;92 (e) the evolution of -TY-and -C' had gone through the stage of dz before becoming confused with δ from -D-, rather than through a stage of dz > z,93 and (f) the -LD and L + C' resulted in -ul. In a recently published book (1976-1977), Coromines includes three new articles, two of which dealt with questions not previously studied. The first, "Hist ri de dues parelles de consonants antigues; C' i SS: YL i LL" (1976-1977, 1: 13-51), deals with the confusion of ts (< C'-, cons. + CY or TY) with s, and the merging of the reflex of -LY-, C'L-, (which continues as i in north-east Catalonia and the Balearic Islands) with λ from -LL- and L-. Through a microscopic examination of data from hundreds of documents, Coromines has been able to map out the slow invasion of the s and λ in the territory of ts and yl respectively. In, "La palatalitzacio de la L-: Data, origen i extensio antiga del fenomen" (1976-1977, 1: 51-85), he determined with the same thoroughness the extension of the phenomenon in question through the medieval period. One important conclusion is that Menendez Pidal's theory (of widespread peninsular palatalization of L-) is unfounded and that where this change occurs - namely in Leonese and Catalan - it must have been due to pre-Romance influence. The third article: "Tractament de la A t nica" (1976-1977, 1: 85108), examines mainly the results of A+J from different sources, and offers explanations for the chronological disparity. It also looks at whether the change of a to e seen in some forms was, as suspected by some linguists (section 4.2), due to the palatal quality of the old Catalan a, and it comes to a negative conclusion. Coromines has thereby put in jeopardy Alarcos's theory on the unusual development of E and E in Catalan. 4.2 E. Alarcos Llorach's two structurally oriented studies introduced new perspectives to Catalan historical phonetics.94 The first, (1958) attempted to account for the major consonant changes in the system at different stages. Alarcos made very skilful use of the bibliography avail-

212

Joseph Gulsoy

able up to the mid-fifties. Some of his conclusions were not borne out by later research (see Rafel and Gulsoy below), but this first structural treatment of Catalan consonantal evolution is basic for all future work in this area. The second article (1960) focuses attention on the most characteristic development in this language, that is, the unusual evolution of E to ς and of Ε to e, contrary to overall Romance change.95 The idea of a spontaneous diphthongization in Ε and E, as an underlying factor in the development, emitted by Fabra (1906) and defended by Fouche (1925), was not endorsed by other linguists, among them Schurr (1955, 1968). Meyer-L bke (1925), followed by Kuen (1932-1934: 89ff), went along with the process suggested by Brekke (1888: 91-95), which postulated the closing of e into a schwa, as a first step, and its later opening into an ς. Structuralists such as H. Liidtke (1956: 270ff) tried to explain the change into schwa as a result of pressure from e (e was very likely shortly after 1100 (section 4.3). 9.10 The history of Catalan in the medieval period involves, on the one hand, the development of the literary language, and on the other, the description of the linguistic scene and evolution. The literary language, as is well known, has followed different paths in poetry and prose. The Catalan poets of the 12th and the 13th centuries wrote in Occitan, and the tradition was maintained until the early 15th century243 with the Provencal element showing a constant decrease.244 R. Aramon i Serra, who has edited a good many poetic texts (1938,1964, 1966, etc.), has often dealt with their language as well (especially 1973: 41-48); a number of problems have yet to be investigated in detail.245 Literary prose, already fully developed in the hands of Ramon Llull246 acquires sophistication, precision and unity in the chancery of Pere el Cerimonios, imbued with Renaissance culture, to culminate in the classical and elegant expression of Bernat Metge (see Riquer, forthcoming). This was the period when many translations from the Latin classics were made (see section 5.11). J. Rubio i Balaguer showed eloquently how Latin syntax had influenced the writings at the chancery of

248

Joseph Gulsoy

the 15th century (section 4.6), and before him Margal Olivar had dealt with the Latinization of Catalan prose (1936). This Latinization manifested itself in the use of words whereby the vocabulary was enriched and refined. Margarita Morreale in her article on the Catalan translations of the Bible (1960) called attention to the frequent cultismes in the early 15th century translation of the Bible by Bonifaci Ferrer; these forms stood in marked contrast with the words of hereditary origin of the older translations. A comprehensive study of cultismes in Catalan has yet to be undertaken. 9.11 The medieval language is fairly well known to us from the existing diachronic studies (section 4.0) and from the testimony of conservative dialects. Let us note in this connection Moll 1960b on Majorcan. However, a great many points and details need more exploration and substantiation. To begin with, a good synthesis of current knowledge in the form of a manual of medieval Catalan, would greatly enhance future research.247 Some basic studies already exist to help form such a manual. We are thinking of Coromines's linguistic study of the Vides de sants rosselloneses, now amplified and completed by Charlotte Maneikis and E. J. Neugaard (1977-1978). Considerable information is also available in Russell-Gebbett's introduction to his 1965 anthology, and we have moreover a comprehensive syntax of medieval Catalan based on the prose works of B. Metge by A. Par (1923), who also analyzed briefly the linguistic features of the 15th century text Curial e Guelfa (note 53). A comprehensive study of medieval Catalan will be possible only when we have at our disposal an analysis of the linguistically important texts. The deficiency in this area was vigorously deplored at the I Col. loqui Catalä (Strasbourg) and scholars expressed an urgent need for a collection of linguistic documents like that prepared by Menendez Pidal for Spanish (1919) or Clovis Brunei for Proven£al. So far only a few texts or authors have been studied, and some only partially: J. de Oleza's monograph on the Catalan version of Sant Graal (1928),248 Moll and Badia's short study on the language of R. Llull (1960), Veny's on Regiment depreservacio of Jacme d'Agramont (1971), P. Bohigas's on Miracles de Maria (1955, 1956), and A. Gokgen's on Homilies d'Organya (1977) and a few others (e.g. Montoliu 1916a). The texts published in the collection, Els nostres classics, often touch upon the linguistic peculiarities which appear interesting or divergent from the common mold (as, for instance, Soberanas 1968). For the study of the 15th century language G. Schib's Vocabulari de

Catalan

249

Sant Vicent Ferrer (1977) is of great importance; further investigation of this saint's language, which has many popular elements, remains a desideratum.249 In this connection, note that Badia's edition and study (1950-1953) of the Regies d'esquivar vocables of Bernat Fenollar, a 15th century Appendix Probi, has added a great deal of information on popular or substandard or dialectal usage.250 Notes 1. Milä's Catalan studies were collected in his Obras completas, III (1890); see also 1853/1882, 1861, 1874. More details on Milä can be found in Montoliu 1962: 113141. 2. A. Rubio's bibliography is given in I.E.C. (1935)' 242-246. He taught both at the University of Barcelona and the Estudis Universitaris Catalans, a centre created by private initiative in 1903 and still active; it published the philological bulletin Estudis universitaris Catalans between 1907 and 1936. 3. For information on J. Rubio, son of A. Rubio, see R. Aramon's "Prefaci" to the homage volume: J. Rubio 1967: ix-xiv. 4. Nicolau d'Olwer's bibliography is given in I.E.C. (1935): 294-296; a general appreciation of his contribution is given by R. Aramon, in the "Prefaci" to Olwer 1966: xixv. 5. For literary production from the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth centuries, see Riquer 1966 (and from volume IV, Riquer - Comas). Comas also deals extensively with the philological activity of the eighteenth century in the latter volume. Of interest also are: Miquel i Verges 1938 and Serra i Rafols 1968. 6. Those bonds were weakened when each of the realms of the old Kingdom of Aragon became responsible first to Toledo then to Madrid (instead of Barcelona), after the union of the crowns of Castile and Aragon. Roussillon was annexed by the French in 1653; Minorca was under British rule for close to a century (1708-1802), and Alguer [Alghero] fell to Italy definitely in the eighteenth century. The appellative llemosi, which had been employed in reference to Old Catalan in the sixteenth century especially in Castilian circles, found great acceptance in Valencia and the Islands, and to some extent even in Catalonia itself, to designate the language common to all of them, while el Valencia, el mallorqui, and even el menorqui, were the normal names used in the respective regions. Lexicographers from Valencia, Majorca and Minorca wrote fully-fledged dictionaries of their dialect as if they were entirely separate languages. On the question of names given to Catalan in the past, see Sanchis Guarner 1933/1967: 21-38. 7. After the defeat of the Catalan-speaking realms in the wars of succession against Philip V (1705-1716), the use of Catalan was almost eliminated from public offices, and an edict of Charles HI in 1768 had declared Castilian the sole language of education. 8. These are: "La filologia catalana a principios de siglo" (1974: 32-37), "La filologia catalana por los anos 20" (44—51), "La dialectologia, la toponimia y los estudios etimologicos catalanes de la posguerra" (95-97), "Las gramäticas historicas y el Diecionari catala-valenciä-balear" (194-197). 9. See Rohlfs 1957: 240-246; Planell 1974; Badia 1964/1966: 31-51; and, especially, "El Catalan, lengua-puente", in Baldinger 1958/1972: 125-160, which gives the most detailed account. 10. Let us quote the words of Coromines who, pointing to the Catalan character of the toponymy of Catalunya, says: "De retop es comprova la falsedat total de la teoria vella, encara acceptada parcialment, timidament acariciada per algun romanista,

250

11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Joseph Gulsoy segons la qual la nostra llengua seria un dialecte occitä importat de l'allra banda dels Pirineus grades a la Reconquesta franca de Barcelona, que hauria recoberl un parlar romänic de tipus semblanl a I'aragones-castella" (1965-68, 1: 29-30). For a fuller discussion of ihe problem wilh a more complete bibliography, see Baldinger 1958/1972: 125-160. M. Aguilo directed the Biblioteca catalana, a series in which he published Catalan medieval classics, edited to very high standards moslly by himself. He also compiled a calalogue of books prinled in Calalan belween 1474 and 1860, published posthumously (1923). A collector of folk-songs, he published a small portion of his materials in one volume (1893). The printing of the book (Forteza 1898) was interrupted in 1898 at page 352 because of the death of the author, who had yet to write the chapters on synlax and orthography. The book was made available by Mn A. Alcover in 1915 with a "Proleg", which reviewed the Romance and Catalan bibliography. Similar in intent to Forteza's undertaking and likewise still valuable for its documentation is Nonell i Mas 1895. Alart left unedited materials of extraordinary wealth; for further information, see Vilar 1896, and for an assessment of his work, Gulsoy 1979. On Morel-Fatio's Catalan contribution, see the necrology by J. Masso Torrent, Anuarid'I.E.C. 7(1921-26): 388-389. Gröber 1888-97, 1: 669-88; Morel-Fatio also wrote the literary article on Catalan (2: 70-128), still very useful for its information on Catalan manuscripts. These were mainly Mila 1875, Alart 1877, Morosi 1886, and A. Mussafia's analysis of the language of the Libre de set savis (1876; pages 152-166 contain the study of phonetic features). Gröber 1904: 841-877; important reviews by Fabra (1907a), Mn. Alcover (1909); see also Saro'ihandy 1906b, 1907 and 1908, the latter on the dialects of Ribagorza, which he knew well. The L'Aveng group included J. Masso i Torrents, J. Cases Carbo, Pompeu Fabra, etc; on the literary activity of the group, see Pla i Arxe 1975. Several biographies exist on this important personality, the best of which is Miracle 1968; see also, on his philological work, Coromines 1971: 393-417. Its full title was: Diccionari de la llengua catalana. Lletra de convit que a tots els amichs d'aquesta llengua envia Massen Antoni M.° Alcover, Pre. Vicari General de Mallorca (Palma 1901), 47 pages. Fourteen volumes were published between 1901-1926; in 1933 F. de B. Moll resumed its publication once more and maintained it until 1936. On the life, activities and work of Mn. Alcover, see Moll 1962. Alcover's full bibliography is given on pages 299-312. Present were: A. Morel-Fatio, J. Saroihandy, R. Foulche-Delbosch, Amadde Pages, K. Nyrop, P. E. Guarnerio, A. R. Gonjalves Viana, K. Vollmöller, F. Holle, E. Vogel, etc; from Madrid came R. Menendez Pidal and A. Bonilla. Eight volumes were published between 1907 and 1927-1931; the contents of volumes 1-7 can be seen in I.E.C. (1935): 84-114. However, Mn. Alcover's presidency came to an abrupt end in 1918 because of personal differences; for a detailed account see Moll 1962: 95 ff. We have two reports on the work done: Report dels treballs fetsper les Oficines Lexicogräfiques durant el bienni 1913-14, and another one for 1915-16. Twenty four volumes were published between 1913 and 1936; with volume 19 it began its 'Segona £poca' with Fabra and J. Coromines and Griera appearing as editors; Griera resumed its publication in 1942 (see section 3.10). Sixteen volumes were published during 1913 to 1924; volumes 6 and 7 (1916-1917) are entitled Estudis Romanics ( = ER, first series), and volume 13 contains indi-

Catalan

251

vidual articles; the rest are editions and monographs. 30. Converses filologiques consisted of short newspaper articles discussing divers problems of language; reprinted 1954-55. His articles on questions of literary language were collected in Fabra 1932b; note also his important study of 14th century chancery documents (1926). 31. The editing was carried out mainly by Montoliu; Montoliu was also entrusted with the publication of Balari's lexical materials, which began to appear in 1927 with the title Diccionari Balari (1927-1936), but unfortunately remained incomplete at the letter G; Montoliu did some work on etymology (note 49), on toponymies (1914, 1917, 1922), and on verb forms (1916b) including the periphrastic preterite (1916a). After 1920, Montoliu chiefly devoted himself to literary questions and made a very important contribution (see his bibliography in Torres Brull 1951). 32. Vols I-V (1923-39), it ends with the map 858 "Fregar la ropa"; its questionnaire contained 2886 items; more recently Griera, using the services of A. Pladevall and with a shorter questionnaire of 500 items, completed the atlas (vols VI-X, ending map 1276, 1962-64). Griera also published an Atlas linguistic d'Andorra (1960) containing 1232 maps; on the serious shortcomings of this extravaganza, see G. Colon, ZRPh 77 (1961): 49-69. Griera published moreover an Atlas linguistic de la Vail d'Aran (1973). 33. Favourable reviews were given by K. Jaberg, Romania 50 (1924): 278-295, and by A.-L. Terracher, RLR 1(1925): 440-467; a detailed analysis is given in Pop 1950, 1: 364-374. 34. The ALCat was criticized: for the poor distribution of localities; for having given preference to larger centres and district capitals; for having used one informant; and for the employment of phonetic symbols ill-suited to Catalan; see Sanchis Guarner 1955b and Veny 1973: 289-305. 35. A good part of Barnils' phonetic studies and some of his dialect articles were collected in AORLL 6 (1933). His important phonetic studies are: 1912a, 1914b, 1915, 1917a, 1917b, 1917c, 1933. Aside from his thesis (1913a) Barnils did further work on the dialect of Alicante (1912b, 1914a, 1929 - all reprinted in AORLL 6); and wrote on Catalan dialects in general (1919) and in particular on Fraga (1916b) and apitxat (1913b). 36. They were mostly published in Bulleti de la biblioteca catalana (= BBC), seven volumes, published between 1914 and 1927. 37. See Bohigas 1926-31; the project, now in collaboration with Amadeu J. Soberanas, is still in progress. 38. Details in Report dels treballs fets per l'oficina de toponimia i onomastica durant el bienni de 1922-1923 (Barcelona 1923), 13 pages. 39. The series was originally intended for a wide public and in the early publications some alterations or omissions were made; after volume 27 (1930) the policy of strict respect for the text was adopted, and since then ever-increasing attention has been paid to informative introductions, learned notes and glossaries. Today, with over 110 volumes published to the most demanding standards, Els nostres classics is the most tangible achievement of Catalan scholarship, and its director, Sr. Casacuberta, who often supervised the actual editing, has contributed immeasurably to the formation of Catalan specialists both native and foreign. 40. One example is Griera 1932b, where he touched upon 63 instances of homonymic clash, some of which he had treated earlier. About his ideas on the subject, see Griera 1965, 1967. 41. For example: a reprint of eleven articles by H. Guiter, in BDE 51 (1972), and the proceedings of the VII Congres International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (Barcelona 1953), as BDE 33-34 (1953-55). 42. Schädel was very well informed on Catalan philology. He reviewed the Catalan

252

43.

44. 45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

Joseph Gulsoy publications of 1890 to 1908, literary and linguistic, for the Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie, 7-12 (1902-1903 to 1907-1908). On Schädel's life and work, see the necrology in Iberica (Hamburg), 6 (1926): 1-5; and for his contribution to Catalan linguistic studies, see Moll 1965b. He published only 23 pages of his Habilitationschrift (1904). His important study of Pyrenean dialects (1909) remained incomplete. Evidently, his disappointment with the Catalan students he was training (section 3.5), the War years, and his precarious health and early death cut short his Catalan contribution. Note also 1911; 1908d has little of value for today's student. See 1934, 1957a; 1962: 199-222 deals with Catalan-speaking regions and has an extensive bibliography on ethnography and folklore. Note also his work on 13th century weaponry (1928, 1936, 1941). Those published were by M. Thede on Albufera (1933) and by W. Spelbrink on Eivissa [Ibiza] and Formentera (1936-37); note also Klesper 1930. See Amades 1931, Amades - Roig 1924, 1934; and, for part of the bibliography of this prodigious folklorist, Giese 1962: 216. See Violant i Simorra 1934, 1943, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1958, and the bibliography in Giese 1962: 217. In connection with Violant 1949, which gives a synthesis of ethnographico-folkloric aspects of life in the Spanish Pyrenees, see Caro Baroja 1955a. NPhM 13 (1911): 151-174; 14 (1912): 12-34, 161-177; 16 (1914): 3-6. Compare Montoliu's remarks in BDC 2 (1914): 36-39; 4 (1916): 53-56. Estudis universitaris Catalans 6 (1912): 282-295; 7 (1913): 104-117; BDC 1 (1913): 34-47; 3 (1915): 40-51, 61-72; 4 (1916): 15-22. Spitzer 1918, 1920,1921,1923,1958. A list of the words studied up to 1924 is given in Griera 1925a: 102-103. Reviewed by Spitzer, Literaturblatt für germanische und romanische Philologie 51 (1930): 289-290. A critical review was given by M. Grammont, RLaR 62 (1923-24): 485-490; see also F. Krüger, ZRPh 46 (1926): 460-466 and A. Par, RFE 16 (1917): 402-412. Par also wrote articles on que and qui in Ibero-romance (1929a, 1929b). From 1928 onwards, Par collaborated with R. Miquel i Planas, the editor of the (Nova) Biblioteca Catalana - a series in which the latter published a good number of Catalan medieval texts - and provided a brief linguistic analysis to the edition of Curial e Guelfa (Barcelona 1928-32), 461-180. Toponymic articles then available were: Montoliu 1914, 1917, 1922; and more importantly, Meyer-Lübke 1923; Vidal 1913. Among the members of the Oficina romanica were A. Griera, P. Barnils, M. de Montoliu, the Jesuit J. Calveras, A. Par, R. Miquel i Planas, and F. deB. Moll; note that the Biblioteca Balmes publishes Analectasacra tarraconensia (= AST), devoted to ecclesiastical history but includes articles of interest to linguists as well. Seven volumes were published between 1928 and 1934; volume 6 (1933) contains a selection of studies by Barnils; the Anuari was directed by J. Calveras, a self-taught linguist who published several articles (1928, 1929-30). The volume was intended for 1938, the seventieth birthday of the famous philologist, but the circumstances of the period delayed the publication date. Note that at the beginning of his career, Moll translated into Spanish Grandgent's Introduction to Vulgar Latin (1907). A full account of this great achievement is given in Moll's autobiography (1970, 1975); see also Moll 1965a and Sanchis Guarner 1953. Both were honoured with the Premi d'Honor de les Lletres Catalanes in 1971 and 1972 respectively. An excellent review of Coromines's complete bibliography is given by M. Cahner

Catalan

253

(1976), who also prepared the bibliography of the DECLC. 62. Coromines 1925; from his thesis (1928/1931) he recently extracted "Introduccio a l'estudi de 1'aranes", 1976-77, 2: 5-28; for his other studies on Aragonese, see Cahner1976. 63. For details, see Catalan 1972/1974: 87-88. 64. Among these: Rohlfs' Le Gascon; Ernout-Meillet's Latin etymological dictionary; Planta-Schorta's Rätisches Namenbuch; Rohlfs' historical grammar of Italian; Navarro Tomas's Aragonese documents; Tilander's Vidal Mayor, etc (all reprinted in Coromines 1972a). 65. The edition and the study of the text was completed by C. Maneikis Kniazzeh and E. J. Neugaard (1977-78); volume 1 contains the linguistic study and vocabulary. 66. For the activities of this period, see Malkiel 1968: 204-205, notes 97-99. 67. The list of reviews is given in Malkiel 1968: 206, note 100. 68. For instance, El libra de buen amor, Homilies d'Organya, and the Obres of his father P. Coromines. etc; see Cahner 1976. 69. His many articles have been collected in: Coromines 1965-70,1971,1972a, 1976-77. 70. For his bibliography, see Sanchis Guarner 1976: 279-287. 71. See Giner 1933 on Valencian conjugation, and also 1943, 1955. 72. He was one of the main authors of volume 1 of the ALPI (1962; the only one published so far); Sanchis Guarner dealt with linguistic geography in the peninsula and with the ALPI on several occasions (1955b, 1961, etc). 73. Seven volumes were published, between 1951 and 1962-1966. 74. Fifteen volumes were published between 1947 and 1970. 75. Aramon is the director of the Unesco sponsored project, Corpus des Troubadours, which is being carried out by the Union Academique Internationale (Brussels). 76. The proceedings were published in two volumes, as DDE 33-34 (1953-55). 77. See Hubschmid 1954,1955; many of his studies on the substratum lexicon bear upon Catalan facts as well. Baldinger 1958/1972:339-349, outlines the content of his work. 78. Badia and Marsä announced the project for a * Corpus de toponimia catalana at the Barcelona congress (see BDE 33-34: 823-826), but it was later abandoned. 79. See BDE 33-34: 655-660, and also Orbis 1 (1952): 403-409; but Colon withdrew from the project and Badia continued with Joan Veny and others (section 6.0). 80. See especially 1948-49, 1952a, 1953 on syntax, and the bibliography he compiled of his own publications, 1971a. 81. It is being published in the series Biblioteca Torres Amat of the Department of Catalan Philology, University of Barcelona. 82. J. Webster edited Regiment de Princeps (part of Dotze del Crestia), chapters 467544; it is about to be published by Ed. Barcino in the ENCl series; J. Gracia edited chapters 353-430 of Terg del Crestiä, and a good part of this thesis has now been published (1977). 83. Beata Sitarz has completed her thesis on a critical edition of part of the poems of Cerveri de Girona; and Catherine Ukas is about to finish her partial edition of the Biblia rimada. 84. Colon edited with Arcadi Garcia the Furs de Valencia (1970); also edited Llibre d'hores (1960a), and is currently preparing in collaboration with members of the Romanisches Seminar an edition of the Consolat de mar. 85. Curt J. Wittlin edited the Catalan translation of Brunetto Latini's Llibre del tresor (1971 - ); he has also prepared an edition of the Catalan translation of Livy's Histories romanes; on this work, he has an article, ER 1 (1963-68): 277-315, and on the translation of Cicero's De officiis, BABL 35 (1973-74): 125-156. Gret Schib edited Ramon Llull's Doctrina pueril (1972) and has worked on the Sermons of Sant Vicent Ferrer (1975,1977) and prepared a selective and analytical vocabulary of the Saint's works (1977); see also Ramirez 1968, 1970.

254

Joseph Gulsoy

86. Also signs his name as Enric Guiter. For his bibliography, see Guiter 1970a and the eleven articles reprinted in BDE 51 (especially 1972c - f). 87. Serra d'Or (Juny 1972) which was dedicated to "G. Ferrater in memoriam" has an article by Joan A. Argente on his linguistic work: "Comentaris a la seva obra lingiiistica" (27-28). 88. The complete list on Badia's book can be found in Badia 1971a: 186; here are a few: E. Alarcos Llorach, Archivum (Oviedo) 2 (1952): 433-435; G. Rohlfs, ASNS 190 (1953): 171; H. Guiter, RLaR 71 (1954): 347-353; M. Sanchis Guarner, RFE 37 (1953): 260-264, etc. On Moll's book, see: W. C. Atkinson, BHS 29 (1952): 235236; S. Gili Gaya, RFE 37 (1953): 278-279, etc. 89. Prof. Badia informs us that he is now preparing a second edition. 90. Coromines has also studied the double results in French: "El resultat del grup de consonants TR entre vocals en frances", 1976-77, 1: 120-126. 91. Badia 1960a is a rejoinder, attempting to pinpoint the palatal stage that caused the closing. 92. Par 1930 had attributed the final -o of the first person present indicative forms to Castilian influence. 93. Badia 1952b defended this thesis before the publication of Coromines's study; Guiter 1966b also operated from the same basis. 94. In this connection, mention must be made of Martinet 1952 and Jungemann 1955. 95. As is known, this was the east Catalan solution; in west Catalan, Valencian and Algherese the result of E is a close e, and in the Balearics a schwa, while the continuation of E is e in all dialects, though it kept its open timbre before original -L, -RR-, -N'R-, and the -# from -D-, -TY-, -C-, 96. Note also Alarcos 1961, in which he reflects on the two forces causing phonetic change - substratum influence and internal structural pressures. 97. This was originally Rafel's llicenciatura thesis; note also 1976. 98. For a generative assessment of the approach of Rafel and Alarcos, see Lleo Mascarö 1976, especially pages 71-80. 99. This evolution is examined in detail by Rafel (1968) and Gulsoy (1977) in their articles on the origin of u (see section 4.3). 100. We have Guiter 1965, showing that participles like torcit beside the normal /ore«/ cannot be genuine. Noteworthy morphological studies not on verb forms include: Giese 1968, Gulsoy 1965. 101. The conclusions of Mourin 1969 are taken up in Iliescu 1970 and further rejected in Boysen 1971, though the letter's proposals are no more satisfactory. 102. Soldevila 1968 only lists the examples found in Muntaner's Cronica. 103. Let us remember Fabra 1912,1918b, 1926; Klesper 1930; Par 1923,1929a, 1929b; on the use of the relative que note also Calveras 1929-30 and, on the prepositions a, en, ab, 1928. 104. Badia 1952c refers to general tendencies in Catalan during its formative period as a literary language. 105. R. Aramon (1959) promises a more comprehensive treatment in collaboration with J. Carbonell on ser and estar. 106. A good deal of material is already available for writing such a manual; in addition to Barnils's studies (note 35), we have Fabra's little-noticed 1897 article; note also the booklet Un cursillo de fonetica catalana (Barcelona, 1968), which Adolfo Florensa published from notes taken in Fabra's classes. For Valencia we have the excellent description by Navarro Tomäs and Sanchis Guarner (1934), and the letter's chapter on phonetics in his Gramätica valenciana (1950b: 63-100); for Majorca and Minorca, Moll 1932, 1955, 1960b; for Lleida, Gili Gaya 1932; for Roussillon, Guiter 1966a; for Alguer [Alghero], Kuen 1932-34. 107. In his review of the two historical grammars; in his article, "Sobre I'elocucio cata-

Catalan

108. 109.

110.

111. 112.

113.

114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

123. 124. 125. 126.

255

lana en el teatre i en la recitacio", Coromines gives many useful hints on good Catalan pronunciation and stress structure (reprinted, respectively, in 1971: 246248, 94-105). As a first step towards that end he made radiocinematographic recordings of phrases at the laboratories of Strasbourg University, he himself serving as the model, and he has put these at the disposal of his students and others. In this connection let us note that the phonetic status of is in its dialectal reflex has been discussed by Rafel i Fontanals in his thesis (1973) and by Colon (1970a) on the dialect of Castello; compare also Cerda's article on palatal fricatives (forthcoming). It is of interest to note that Fabra (1898: 21) had observed the opposite phenomenon, that is, pronouncing with s such words as endinsar, alsina, etc, and also in words such as entusiasme, explosio, frase, etc, a fact which he attributed in this last case to Castilian influence. Note also the thesis of Eric E. Vogt (1970). Excerpts published as Vogt 1972 brought a rejoinder in Phelps 1973. Mariner 1963 gives an analysis of such doublets as the dialectal definite articles lo, los versus el, los; the verbal endings -am, -an versus -em, -eu; vos versus voste; si tingtäs versus si tenia (see also note 226 and Mariner's phonological work: 1958, 1976). Let us note his other studies reprinted in Mariner 1975: "El fernem' d'indeterminacio" (43-74), "Influencia eufemica que priva sobre el sistema: la conjugacio pronominal de verbs de funcions fisiolögiques" (141-155), and "Situacio del neutre romänic en l'oposicio des generes" (75-96; Spanish version in Revista espanola de lingüistica 3: 23-38). Ferrater translated Chomsky's La lingüistica cartesiana (Barcelona, 1970) and Bloomfield's El llenguatge (forthcoming). See Nadal 1975, 1976, Argente 1974; J. A. Argente also translated Jespersen's La llengua en la humanitat, la nacio i I'individu (Barcelona, 1969). S. Oliva-Llinäs devoted to Fillmore a note in Serra d'Or (Agost 1972): 36. A list of the recent Catalan grammars is given in Badia 1976a: 68-69, note 3; the earlier ones in I Col.loqui: 182-183. Mention must also be made of Carlsson 1970a, 1970b and of Barg 1963, which deals with quan, mentre and com without any new data. A sizeable number of papers given at the Primer congres of 1906 (section 3.4), touched on this problem. Badia 1976a: 161-176 gives a bibliography of Catalan sociolinguistics over the last 25 years, including (162, notes 1-3) a short section on aspects of Castilian migration. See also note 121. A revised and amplified version of Badia 1974a. The new version contains a bibliography of most of the work done to date (27-31). The first volume, subtitled "L'enquesta, la llengua i els seus condicionaments" contains Part I "Enquesta" (29-202), and a portion of Part II, "Els condicionaments de la llengua" (205-420), and documents (423-684). Volume II is in preparation. Badia 1976c is related to this project. See, among other works, Bernardo 1975. J. Carbonell dealt with literary activity in Minorca during the period of Decadence (1961). On Esteva Fabregat's fairly extensive bibliography, see p. 116 of his article; also 1973. J. Fuster in addition to his work as a historian of literature (1971), wrote on the life and culture of Valencia of the 15th to 17th centuries and on Moriscos and their society (see 1968, passim).

256 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146.

147.

148.

Joseph Gulsoy Among Vallverdu's many and substantial publications, see 1968, 1970. Lluis Aracil, who chaired the section in Toronto, has written on questions of bilingualism in Valencia and Catalonia (1976; see the bibliography in Badia 1977 (ed.): 31). The editors must remember that the data collected for the atlas are becoming quite old, and will be out of date if publication is further delayed. See the review by J. Gulsoy, RomPh 22 (1968): 189-194. The themes discussed are the ieisme (i < -C'L-, -LY-), the change from tonic schwa to open in some Majorcan dialects, and the factors underlying some lexical differences. Among them we should single out A. J. Soberanas's detailed study of the MS A of the Diälegs de Sant Gregori (1968). For a general picture of the dialects, Alcover 1909 and his verb materials published in Moll 1929-32, continue to be the stock information sources. J. Veny informs us that he is now preparing such a manual. This article thus supersedes Griera's historical introductions to each dialect in his book (1949), as well as such studies as J. Aguilo 1908 and Barnils 1919. See Schädel 1905, Niepage 1909, Griera 1913, Barnils 1914b, 1915, Moll 1932 (and also section 3.16). Moll's 1974 article, though written for the general public, brings the subject up to date. Note also Moll 1965c, which includes words from Minorca and Ibiza. See the important review by Moll, ER l (1947-48): 230-234. Predating the 1950 text are the studies: Sanchis Guarner 1936a, 1936b, and Navarro Tomäs - Sanchis Guarner 1934. The three notes on the characteristics of the speech of Monöver (southern region), of Castello, and of Baix Paläncia, that Sanchis Guarner published in different places are now collected in 1976: 215-249. Veny also examined here the speech of La Vail de Gallinera and Tarbena, which were settled by Majorcans in the 17th century (1976: 166-179); it was also studied by Barnils (1912b). Colon gave an account of his enquiries in 1952a, 1952b. From the same region we have: Salvador 1943 and an incomplete Vocabulari del Maestrat by Garcia Girona (1922). Three papers on Roussillonese were read at the Primer congres: by E. Casaponce (325-330), by J. Delpont (536-537) and by J. Blazy (550-552). Let us also note Grando 1943 and Griera 1915. The editor, Pasqual Scanu, has much material ready for publication on Algherese folklore and literature. Note also Griera 1955; anon. 1906; and Arques 1910. The zone occupies the area around the river Ribagorzana to the river Esera, with the linguistic frontier running through from north to south and dividing the territory into three sectors. About one half is Catalan-speaking, about one quarter Aragonese-speaking, with some admixture of Catalan, while the rest forms a mixed region where elements from both major linguistic territories criss-cross. The dialect mixing appears to be fifty-fifty in the northern area of the Benasque Valley, sixty (Catalan) - forty at Isävena Valley, with a greater Aragonese element towards the south to Aganui and Calassanf. For a sample of this dialect, see Castro y Calvo 1955. He also refers amply to Old Ribagorzan in his article, "Nuevas fuentes del conocimiento del alto-aragones y del Catalan occidental pirenaico" (1972a: 227-251). Coromines hopes to publish his extensive materials on Ribagorzan with the title, El passat i el present del ribagorfa. One of the rare studies from this region, Pallares 1921, was very brief.

Catalan 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155.

156. 157.

158.

159. 160. 161.

162.

163.

164. 165.

257

See the chapter, "Hacia una renovacion de la dialectologia", in Catalan 19121 1974: 306 ff. For general information on these dialects, see the article, "Xurro, -a", by J. Gulsoy in Gran Encidopedia Catalana. Natividad Nebot, a native of Torralba in Alto Mijares, has just recently completed her Madrid University dissertation on the speech of the area (1978). Sanchis Guarner 1968 and Gulsoy 1968; Gulsoy in collaboration with Sanchis Guarner is preparing an extensive study of these dialects. A good part of sections 3.0 to 3.6 of our survey is related to lexicographical activity. Colon 1977a refers briefly to the work done so far, but accords greater space and weight to what still remains to be tackled. A. M. Badia's several articles relating to Fabra's dictionary and his lexicography are now collected in Badia 1973a. This *Diccionari general was to have had two alphabetic lists (as in Webster's English and Petrocchi's Italian dictionary), consisting of the current words on the one hand and, on the other, old or dialectal words or castilianisms, to be given in the lower part of the page. For this information, see Fabra's "Prefaci" to the first edition of this dictionary, which is generally reproduced in later editions. Volumes I-II were completed by 1932; the publication of the rest was carried out by Moll with the collaboration of M. Sanchis Guarner, who together published volumes III-X between 1950 and 1962. Then, a new edition of volumes I-II was made, with revisions and the normal orthography (1964 vol. II; 1968 vol. I). Its bibliography as it appears in the second edition of volume I includes well over one thousand texts of all descriptions, old and modern. The history of the project has been written in several places (ibid., ix-xxii), in Mn Alcover's biography by Moll (1962), in Moll's own autobiography (1970,1975) and also in a paper by him (1965a). Its characteristics are also discussed in Sanchis Guarner 1953. Volume 9 was reserved for a comprehensive bibliography by Montoliu, but with the intervening Civil War it never got off the ground. Volume I has a provisional list (viixv) containing a small portion of the texts used by Aguilo. A brief review by F. de B. Moll of the first fascicules, A ORLL 2 (1929): 339-340, assesses its value and suggests some corrections. The materials of this important dictionary appear to have been lost. These materials were collected by correspondence by means of 157 questionnaires which Griera had adapted into Catalan from L. Gauchat's own questionnaires for the Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande; more information in the Report for 1913-1914 of the Oficines Lexicogräfiques (note 27). Some of these vocabularies were formed by Griera himself from the aforementioned materials; they included, in addition to his word compilations already cited (1923a, 1928b, 1929, 1932a), a vocabulary on the names of winds (1914b), on fire (1919), on fish names (1923b), on the plough and tilling (1923c) and on ailments (1931b); a complete list of the vocabularies employed is given in the Preface of the author to volume I. In this connection, note Coromines's words: "Esfuerzo malogrado: publica los valiosos materiales del Diccionario de Dialectos del Institut d'Estudis Catalans, pero esquematizando arbitrariamente las definiciones, suprimiendo o generalizando la localizacion (sobre todo en los Ultimos tomos) y agregando otros materiales de segunda tnano (1953-57 1: xliv). Among these, Valles 1947/1962 gives Castilian, French and English equivalents as well. The other dictionaries are by Miquel Arimany, Josep Miracle, Santiago Albert!, etc; see Badia 1976a: 77, note 16. Compilations by S. Pey Estrany (1970), M. Franquesa (1971), Joana Easpall de

258

166.

167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172.

173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181.

182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187.

Joseph Gulsoy Cauch6 and J. Riera i Sans (1972), A. Jane (1972), M. Arimany (1975) and also in the Vox series (1973); details in Badia 1976a: 77-78, note 17. Manuel Corachan's Diccionari de medicina (Barcelona, 1936) was recast in a new Vocabulari medic (Barcelona, 1947) by J. Alsina. See also Fontsere 1948 on meteorological terms, and the comments in Coromines 1961. Other technical compilations are listed in Badia 1976a: 80. See the review by Colon, BSCC 34 (1958): 290-305. Texts by A. Albert Torellas (1960, 1965); S. Alberti (1961, 7th edition 1974); J. Miracle (1969); A. Jand, etc; details in Badia 1976a: 78-79, notes 18, 19. One in Arimany publications (1968/1974), and also Creixell et al 1974. The Catalan-English pocket dictionary by J. Colomer is very brief and defective. These two dictionaries retain their value, since Alcover-Moll did not exploit them systematically. BDC 21 (1933) contains an index of the contents of the word-lists published in the first twenty volumes, many of them by Griera (see note 162). Others include: Amades 1931; Amades - Roig 1924, 1934; H. Costa 1921; Flores 1943; Moll 1934, 1936; Rokseth 1923; Violant i Simorra 1934, 1943, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1958. Its bibliography does not, however, refer to Garcia Girona 1922, or to Salvador 1943. After the death of M. Bassols de Climent, its direction was taken over by Prof. Bastardas; the other collaborators vary in each fascicule: M. Arnan Castells, M.a C. Catal Poch, D. Condom Gratacos, T. Gracia Sahuquillo, E. Rodon Βίηυέ, etc. His other works include: Bastardas 1953,1956,1961,1968,1973; see also section 9.5. His 1943 monograph contains interesting words from mostly non-literary little known texts; his edition of the medieval cooking book, Libre de Sent Sovi, contains a critical glossary of 150 words. The most extensive list of fish names remains Griera 1923b; for other lists and sources of information on fish names, see Veny 1977, notes 4—6. Part of the proceedings, including the papers by Colon, Fernandez Sevilla, Nieto and Veny, are published in Alvar 1977 (ed.). The basic vocabulary so far is Salient 1922; other important sources are given in Sanchis Guarner 1956b. Reviewed by Sanchis Guarner, RVF4 (1954): 77-80, who also noted the absence of the important Valencian compilation by L. Pardo Garcia (1930-32). For sources of information on plant names, see the bibliography in Masclans 1954: 27-31 and in Bolos 1968. Plant names in Castilian, Catalan, Portuguese and Basque are given in abundant variations in Font i Quer 1962. Useful information can be found in Rohlfs 1961 and in Wilmer 1952. For old documentation of plant names, important is Faraudo de Saint-Germain 1956 (glossary 51-54), and Alpera 1968, on which see the review article by M. Roy Harris (1972) and the shorter notice by Colon, ZRPh 85 (1969): 483-85. Let us note some earlier compilations: Matons 1922 on olive growing; Rokseth 1923 on cereal cultivation in Majorca; Marx 1912 on cork production; Griera 1925c on wickerwork; and Hegener 1938 on hemp cultivation and processing. On plough and yoke, see also Griera 1923c and Violant i Simorra 1958. J. L. Fossat's study on pancreas (1966) has little of interest for Catalan. A similar comparison was made by Rohlfs (1954) and his conclusions in respect of Catalan were criticized by Colon, ZRPh 74 (1958): 285-294. See Gulsoy 1962aand 1964a dealing with Valencian dictionaries; Griera 1917c, 1946; Alpera 1966; Massot 1968. Soberanas at the IV Col.loqui (Basel 1976) read an excellent paper, "La transcripcio lexicografica catalana a traves dels vocabularis i impresos (segles XVIXVIII)"; but he published an enlarged version of only part of it (1977). On 16th

Catalan

259

century lexicography, note Fernandez Sevilla 1977. Studies by F. J. Michatsch, ER 2 (1917): 176-233; by R. Grossman in Alcover 1932: 137-165; by H. Flasche, BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 267-284, and by L. Kleiber in Rubio i Lluch 1936, 3: 81-86. 189. A brief examination of the letter B in the third edition reveals that the following Catalan words are not listed: bagra, balandrejar, baldrita, balafiar, barrejar, barrella, barriscar, basarda, bassetja, bastina, batzegar, bell man, etc. The following wrongly spelled words suggested for correction by Tallgren and Moll were not corrected: aucel 828, battle 888, bez for be 1068, etc. The mistaken cereia of the first edition was removed but the correct cirera not included. For the Ibero-romance etymologies of the REWnote the opinion of Coromines: "Libro de importancia capital, pero con deficiencias considerables, muy graves en lo iberoromanico" (DCEC 1,1), and the same author under the section "Obras bäsicas de consulta, rectificadas aclaradas" of the DCEC has more than 950 references to the REW (DCEC, IV, 1109-1115). 190. Aebischer 1948a shows Catalan as intermediary; "Argentum et plata en ibiroroman" (1963: 85-95), suggests that Spanish plata may have been taken from Catalan; note also his attempts to explain the presence of germa, germana, ancle and tia (1968a). 191. A second edition of the DCEC, enlarged with materials from Portuguese, Galician, Leonese, Basque and Mozarabic, was prepared by Coromines with the collaboration of Prof. Josd Antonio Pascual, and is now being published with the title Diccionario etimologico castellano e hispanico (Madrid: Credos, 1980-). 192. In the reviews of the earlier fascicules by W. von Wartburg, Archivum Romanicum 13 (1929): 402-406; by O. J. Tallgren, NphM 28 (1927): 248-251; by Spitzer, LbRomGermPhil 49 (1928): 32-34; and in two other notes, "Glanures dans le Diccionari Alcover-Moll", Bolleti del Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana 16 (1934): 140142, 149, and "Zu den Etymologien des 'Diccionari' Alcover", in Alcover 1932: 465-472; many reservations were expressed about some of the etymologies of the DCVB, most of which were signed by Mn. Alcover. Sr. Moll improved upon most of the etymologies of Mn. Alcover, who had little preparation for this task. 193. G. Colon collaborated in the last volumes of Wartburg's FEW, having written a good number of its articles. Among his studies of individual words and expressions, see: 1958b, 1960b, 1961b, 1961d, 1962a, 1962b, 1963a, 1963c, 1964a, 1964b, 1966b, and Lüdtke - Colon 1964. 194. Note also Coromines's list of catalanisms in Spanish in DCEC IV, 1101-1102. 195. These are reprinted in the following order: 1954 (revised to take account of an improvement suggested by Coromines), 1971b, 1973c, 1973f, 1968, 1971c, 1966a, 1973e, 1961c, 1973d, 1973b. Colon's other etymological studies include: 1952c, 1953, 1956, 1958a, 1960c, 1963b and 1973g. 1%. In his article, "El concepto de otono..." (1954), Colon attributed the generalization of tardor 'autumn' in Catalan as against the reflex of AUTUMNUS, to an absence of an assertive influence from the literary language during the period of decadence (see the comments and additions in Coromines 1961a: 148-150). His study of the reflexes of NUPTIAE and VOTA (1973e) touches upon the problem of the beginnings of the Castilian influence from the 15th century on; and in "Del ave a la nave .." (1973d) he tests the validity of the widely accepted semantic development from a bird to a ship. 197. Eberenz's 1972 Basel dissertation (published 1975) is a fundamental contribution, adding considerably to Vidos 1939. Metzeltin's 1970 thesis remains unpublished. See also their joint article on esquif(l97Q) which however introduces little new; and Metzeltin 1967, 1968. 198. For work on toponymy, see also Badia 1976a: 90-106; Griera and Badia undertook 188.

260 199.

200. 201. 202.

203. 204.

205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211.

212. 213. 214. 215. 216.

Joseph Gulsoy the onomastic bibliography of Catalan for Onoma from 1950 onwards. Volume I of the ELH contains: "Toponimia preromana", by J. Hubschmid (447493); "Toponimia fenicio-punica" by J. M. Sola 5 1 (495-499); "Toponimia latina" by A. Montenegro Duque (501-530); "Toponimia germantca" by J. M. Piel (531-560); "Toponimia aräbiga" by J. Vernet Gin6s (561-578); "Hagiotoponimia" by L. Lopez Santos (579-614); and "Toponimia de reconquista" by F. Marsä (615646). Reference will be made to articles in their respective area; let us note the general orientation: "Introduccio a l'estudi de la toponimia catalana", 1: 7-30. (Barcelona: Aedos, 2nd ed. 1964, 3rd ed. 1966), 593 pages. Note also Nomenclator geogräfic del pais Valencia (Valencia, 1970). A very important source for old documentation is Sanchis Sivera 1922. The three prepared a preliminary list (1933). A second list, drawn up in 1936 with the collaboration of M. Sanchis Guarner who worked on Valencian names, appeared as an appendix to Coromines 1954a (the revised editions give a more complete list). See also Sanchis Guarner 1966. Alart left materials for a *Dictionnaire topographique des Pyrenees Orientales, and gave abundant documentation of toponyms in such studies as 1856, 1860, 1872-77, 1877, 1878, 1880. For other compilations by these authors, see Moreu-Rey 1974a and Badia 1976a: 90106. Mn. Julia Pascual and Ramon Amigo have a study pending publication on the toponyms of the large municipal territory of Vilallonga de Ter (more details in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 68). Among them are: Rius Serra 1946 (on which see also Griera 1954); Sanchis Sivera 1922; and Junyent 1955. More titles can be found in Badia 1976a: 100-101. Coromines 1959a, on the names of the Aragonese part of Catalonia, can give an idea of how the articles are to be structured, but they will have additional geographic details. Let us note: 1958b, 1960,1961b, 1976. In fact, many of Coromines's reviews, such as those of Schmoll and Martin de Duque and others, make frequent reference to toponymy; for details, consult the indices of his collected articles and 1961c. A summary of earlier ideas is given by Balari 1899/1964, 1: 57 ff. Recently, the historian F. Udina i Martorell wrote, for the general public, El nom de Catalunya (1961). Caro Baroja 1955b reviews the problems and some of the solutions suggested; see also note 239. Note also Menendez Pidal 1955, which illustrates correspondences between Valencian and west Catalan toponyms. Coromines (1965-70,1: 84, note) expresses the opinion that in some cases a basis in a personal name, as argued by Rohlfs, may be probable; but his own research tends to confirm the thesis of Menendez Pidal. Later in the same work (2: 60-61), he repeats the same conviction and adds quite a few names with -ui or -ue not mentioned by Rohlfs. See the review by J. Hubschmid, ZRPh 77 (1961): 204-211. For comments on Hubschmid's article, see Coromines 1965-70, 1: 69-71. Badia also wrote on the toponymic prefix mal- (1949); on mala, see Coromines 1965-70,2: 124. Aebischer's other toponymic studies include: 1929,1930,1931,1934a, 1934b, 1936a, 1936b, 1950, 1960, 1964. Map II in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 239, shows the distribution of toponyms from -ANUM and other similar suffixes, while pages 233-238 give a list of them. The suffix -en(a) was attributed by Meyer-Lubke (1925, § 163) to an Arabization of -an(a) (through imela); Menendez Pidal (1940) saw in -en(a) a pre-Romance suffix, which must have been common alongside -anum, -a. He defended the same thesis in

Catalan

217.

218. 219. 220.

221. 222. 223. 224.

225. 226. 227.

228. 229.

261

his 1955 paper. The existence of -enus from a substratum origin is not ruled out, but in Arabicized areas its presence is explained (by Pabon, Rohlfs, Coromines) through the influence ofimela (see Rohlfs 1956: 17, note 1). It contains 1868 toponyms. Coromines says of it: "Llibret mediocre, atapeit d'errors, amb el merit, perö, apreciable de dar-nos a coneixer bones etimologies inedites trobades pels seus predecessors Simonet, Codera, Casiri, etc., ben rarament, quasi mai, d'ell mateix, home llec en linguistica" (1976-77, 2: 229, note 14). Vernet Ginis 1960 is based mainly on Asin; it also reproduces in an appendix maps by H. Lautensach showing the density of toponyms of Arabic origin in the peninsula (originally published in Die Erde 3-4 (1954): 219-243). See also next note. He did, however, map the Catalan toponyms of Arabic origin and gave a list of them (1965-70, 1: 265-279, map V, and sections A - E). The names of Berber origin in the peninsula were formerly studied by C. E. Dubler (1943). Coromines has not yet published a paper he gave in Majorca (May 1969) on the Mozarabic toponymy of the Balearic Islands. He maps and lists the toponyms of Mozarabic origin in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 251-258, map IV, and sections A, B, C (259-263). A. Griera wrote compilations entitled "Nombres de santos y de lugar" of a good number of provinces, published in BDE 26, 28, 29, etc. M. de Montoliu's youthful foray into hydronymy (1922) is of little worth; see also his article on the workings of the suffixes -etum and -ellum (1917). Udina Martorell 1960 tries to see the influence of the early Catalan pronunciation on the written Latinized forms. Entwistle 1936 gives in a short, but dense and very readable chapter the main outlines of the history of the Catalan language within the limits of the information available in the mid thirties. A translation of that chapter was made by R. Ferreres with a few additional notes: Estudio lingüistico del Catalan y valenciano (Valencia: Institute Alfonso el Magnänimo, 1954). Moline 1911 is deficient; see the review by Montoliu, EUC6 (1912): 69-82. See for instance Joan Sola's recent bibliography (1976b). M. Sanchis Guarner, author of several historical studies (1950a; section 9.2), is about to publish a manual for the general public; we hope it will lead to a more comprehensive undertaking. There are two chapters on Catalan bibliography under Obras generates (261-266), and Obras especializadas (294-302); also under Adiciones (409-411). The bibliographies of the main contributors are given in Baldinger 1958/1972 as follows: P. Bosch-Gimpera (328-330); J. Caro Baroja (331); J. Pokorny (361-362); A. Tovar (375-383) [see also next note]; J. Untermann (383-384); U. Schmoll (365369); L. Michelena (359-360); R. Lafon (353-354); M. Lejeune (354-355); and of the Romanists, R. Menendez Pidal (356-359); G. Rohlfs (363-365); J. Coromines (332-334); J. Hubschmid (339-350) [see also note 229]. Tovar 1968 outlines the division of the early linguistic history of the peninsula. His extensive bibliography, up to 1971, with an appendix of his works in press, appears in Tovar 1972: 9-38. His important articles are collected in different volumes. Hubschmid informs us that he had seen only the first two volumes of Coromines DCEC and part of volume III. Baldinger (1958/1972: 339-350) outlines succinctly the content of each monograph of Hubschmid, one of the most active investigators of pre-Romance lexical elements. Of special interest to Catalan is Hubschmid 1954. The importance of Hubschmid's contribution is recognized by all distinguished authorities, among them Coromines; but it is also pointed out that quite a few of Hubschmid's family associations - based on two ill-defined Mediterranean substrata, one Hispano-Caucasian (Pyrenean-Alpine-Anatolian-Caucasian) and the other Euro-

262

230.

231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236.

237. 238. 239. 240. 241.

242.

243. 244. 245.

246.

Joseph Gulsoy African (Afro-Sardo-Iberian) - have given rise to considerable scepticism; see Craddock 1969: 42-44. It must be noted, however, that Miquel Terradell, a distinguished archaeologist and a student of Bosch-Gimpera, has offered some revisions to his teacher's theories about the distribution of the pre-Romance peoples in Catalonia (1962); note also his 1965 article. Coromines lists (DCEC, IV, 1106), "Vasquismos, iberismos y voces prerromanas hispänicas". Note also 1955b. See his review of the DCEC in BSVasc 10 (1954): 373-384, 11 (1955): 283-297, 12 (1960): 366-373, and 13 (1961): 494-500. Let us note Coromines's Basque studies: 1972b, 1972c, 1972d, 1973c. Pokorny 1935-38; Menendez Pidal 1939, 1952b - on MP's pre-Romance work see A. Tovar, Cuadernos hispanoamericanos 238-40 (1969): 17-26; Schmoll 1959 - on which see Coromines 1961c. On this question, see Blaylock 1968; Blaylock's 1964 study on the monophthongization of AE is also noteworthy. Steiger 1943,1949,1955; his 1967 study also deals with these problems and the adaptation of Arabic elements. Steiger's full bibliography appears in VR 15 (1956): 9-17 and 22 (1963): x-xii. See however the notes by Moll who makes corrections in the Catalan words cited by Steiger, Boiled del diccionari de la llengua catalana 16 (1934): 106-111. Coromines in appendix I to his article on Catalan words of Arabic origin (1967-77,3: 155-173) made additions and corrections. Let us note the recent complete collection and critical edition of the jarchas by J. M. Sola-Soli (1973). Originally a University of Chicago thesis written under the direction of J. Coromines; Griffin identifies the Mozarabic element of this important text as being from the region of Levante. For instance, Menondez Pidal in his toponymical article (1955) interpreted similarities between Valencian and west Catalan place names as a confirmation of the theory of western resettlement in that area. For the history of the Catalan Reconquest and resettlement, see Abadal i de Vinyals 1926-50, 1955, 1958; Font Rius 1969. One of the most assiduous publishers of old documents was the historian J. Miret i Sans (see the list Aramon gives in I Col. loqui: 39, note 54), but they must be used with caution; more trustworthy are P. Pujol's documents (see Aramon in I Col.loqui: 39, note 55). P. Russell-Gebbett has retranscribed Pujol's documents 1973. When Menendez Pidal was writing the first edition of the Origenes (1926) there was hardly anything available on Catalan; for the third revised edition (1950) he seems to have used Griera's historical grammar (1931a) and Coromines's studies on the Aranese dialect (1925, 1928, the latter a thesis written under his direction) and also on Cardos and Vail Ferrera (1935b). Sanchis Guarner 1962 points to some remains of Provencal declension in the language of Ausiäs March; see also Bohigas 1969. A good outline is given by Marti de Riquer (1955; see also forthcoming); note also Colon (forthcoming). It is often stated that Catalan troubadours were deficient in their use of Provencal case endings; Ms Beata Sitarz, who wrote her dissertation on Cerveri de Girona's poetry (University of Toronto), has shown that Cerveri, considered the last of the troubadours, had handled the case endings without error. R. Brummer (1959) examines the possible sources that might have influenced Llull. A. M. Badia in a magnificent article (1967) throws a good deal of light on the pristine

Catalan 247. 248. 249.

250.

263

stages of Llull's language. Note also Moll - Badia 1960. Griera's historical grammar (1931a) is very poorly organized, so that its usefulness is quite limited. Oleza refined the observations of V. Crescini and V. Todesco in their earlier edition of the text (1917), Ixv-lxvii. See Fuster 1954; Coromines (1971: 206, note 9) states that his study of the manuscripts of the Sermons of Sant Vicent has convinced him that the scribes who set down these texts were from Morella and the Horta de Valencia. See on this also my remarks in my study of the subjunctive forms (Gulsoy 1976: 35). See also Sanchis Guarner's note on the same text, 1967b.

References [Editor's note: in this bibliography, the following common abbreviations, no longer current in the BL, are used: A FA Archive defilologia aragonesa (Zaragoza, 1945-) AORLL Anuari de l'Oficina Romänica de Lingüistica i Literatura (Barcelona, 19281934) BDC Butlleti de dialectologia catalana (Barcelona, 1913-1936) BDE Boletin de dialectologia espanola (Barcelona, 1942- ) BSCC Boletin de la sociedad castellonense de cultura (Castello de la Plana, 1919-) I.E.C. Institut d'Estudis Catalans RVF Revista valenciana defilologia (Valencia, 1951-)] d'Abadal i de Vinyals, R. 1926-1950 Catalunya carolingia (Barcelona: I.E.C., vol. 1 1926, vol. 2 1950). 1955 Els comtats de Pallors i Ribago^a (Barcelona). 1958 Els primers comtes Catalans (Barcelona: Teide). XIACILPR 1968 Adas del XI congreso de lingüistica y filologia romanicas. 4 vols (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). XII ACILPR 1970 Actele celui de al XII-lea congres international de lingvisticä j/' filologie romanica, 2 vols, ed. A. Rosetti (Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei). XIII ACILPR 1976 Actes du XIII congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes,two vols (Quibec: P. U. Laval). Adams, K. 1969 "Considirations nouvelles sur les plus anciens noms germaniques d'origine septentrionale en Catalogne au neuvieme et au dixieme siecles: le tomoignage des documents de YArchivo Condalae. Barcelona", RIOno 21: 81-104. Aebischer, P. 1928a "Etudes de toponymie catalane", Memories de l'I.E.C. 1: 125-287. 1928b "Essai sur I'onomastique catalane du IXe au XIP siecle", AORLL 1: 43-118. 1929 [Hydronyms Gavarra and Gavarresa], BDC 17: 66-78. 1930 "Le Catalan turo et les d6riv6s romans du mot prolatin taurus", BDC 18: 193216. 1931 "Toponymie et 6pigraphie: L'origine du nom Perpignan et le gentilice Perperna", BDC 19: 1-18. 1934a ["cerquus I quercus], RFE 21: 337-360. 1934b "Deux noms de lieu Catalans d'origine religieuse: Madremanya et Marquixanes", BDC 22: 36-58. 1936a [Toponympania],flZ)C24: 148-157. 1936b [Reflexes ofpadule], in Rubio i Lluch 1936, 1: 161-174.

264

Joseph Gulsoy

1943 "Autour de l'origine du nom de Catalogue", in Fabra 1943: 1-26. [Also in ZRPh 62 (1942): 49-67 and, with slight additions, ZRPh 66 (1950): 356-368.] 1948a "Par quelle voie basque est entro en espagnol", ER l (1947-48): 69-74. 1948b Estudios de toponimia y lexicografla romanica (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.). 1950 "Crexenturri. Note de toponymie pyre"ne"enne", Pirineos 6: 67-78. [Reprinted in Aebischer 1963: 253-264.] 1953 "Un cas de couple Roland-Olivier dans une charte de Sant Cugat del Valles", BABL 25: 165-170. 1956 "L'entrde de Roland et d'Olivier dans le vocabulaire onomastique de la Marca Hispanica d'apres le Liber Feudorum Maior et d'autres recueils de chartes catalanes et francaises", ER 5 (1955-56): 55-76. 1960 "Les graphics toponymiques Sebre et Balaguet dans la Chanson de Roland, Ms. Digby", BABL 28 (1959-60): 185-209. 1963 Miscelanea Paul Aebischer (Sant Cugat del Valles: L'Abadia). 1964 "A propos de quelques noms de lieux de la Chanson de Roland", BABL 30 (196364): 39-61. 1968a "Sur quelques noms de parentö en Catalan", ER 13 (1963-68): 13-25. 1968b Linguistique romane et histoire religieuse (Sant Cugat del Valles: L'Abadia). Aguilo, Mn. J. 1908 "Fronteres de la llengua catalana y estadistica dels qui parlen catalä", Primer congres internacional de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 638-643. Aguilo i Fuster, Marian n.d. Diccionari Aguilo. See Fabra - Montoliu (eds) 1914-34. 1893 Coroner popular de la terra catalana: cannons feudals cavallaresques (Barcelona: Verdaguer). [Second ed., rev. R. Aramon, 1947.] 1923 Catalogo de obras en la lengua catalana impresa desde 1474 hasta 1860 (Madrid: Rivadeneyra). Alarcos Llorach, E. 1953 "Sistema fonemätico del Catalan", Archivum 3: 135-146. 1958 "Algunas consideraciones sobre la evolucion del consonantismo Catalan", Miscelanea homenaje a Andre Martinet II, ed. D. Catalan (P. U. de La Laguna), 5-40. 1960 "La constitucion del vocalismo Catalan", Homenaje ofrecido a Damaso Alonso I (Madrid: Gredos), 35-49. 1961 "Historia y estructura en los sistemas vocälicos hispänicos", ER 8: 105-116. 1973 "De fonologia catalana: la vocal neutra", Archivum 23: 293-297. 1976 "El sistema verbal del catalä", in III Col.loqui: 15-25. Alart, Julien-Bernard 1856 "GeOgraphie historique du Conflent", Bulletin de la Societe Agricole, Scientifique et Litteraire des Pyrenees Orientales (BSASLPO) 10: 67-112. 1860 "G6ographie historique des Pyronöes-Orientales", BSASLPO 12: 67-130, 273-286. 1872-1877 "Documents sur la langue catalane des anciens comptds de Roussillon et de Cerdagne", RLaR 3(1872): 265-291; 4(1873): 44-61,244-256, 353-385, 502-514; 5(1874): 80-102, 305-329; 7(1875): 42-61; 8(1875): 48-70; 10(1876): 57-69, 241253; 11(1877): 173-177. [Reprinted in 1 vol. (Paris, 1881).] 1877 "Etude historique sur quelques particulars de la langue catalane", RLaR 12: 109-132. 1878 Notices historiques sur les communes de Roussillon (Perpignan). 1880 Cartulaire roussillonnais (Perpignan: Latrobe). Albertos Firmat, Maria 1966 La onomastica personal primitiva de Hispania Tarraconense y Betica (Salamanca: Ed. Univ.).

Catalan

265

d'Albranca, F. 1908 "Recorts de la dominacio mora en la parla menorquina", Primer congras international de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 400-403. Alcover, Mossen Antoni 1903 "Questions de la llengua i literatura catalanes". Bolleti del diccionari de la llengua catalana 1: 209-560. 1909 "Una mica de dialectologia catalana", Bolleti del diccionari de la llengua catalana 4: 198-304. 1915 Pertretper una bibliografia filologica de la llengua catalana (Palma de Mallorca). 1932 Miscelanea filologica dedicada a Don Antonio M. Alcover (Palma de Mallorca). Alcover, . Antoni - F. de B. Moll 1926-1962 Diccionari catalä - Valencia - balear I-X (Palma de Mallorca: Alcover). [2nd ed. vols I-II, 1964-68.] Algeo, J. E. 1969 Mood in the concessive clause in medieval Ibero-Romance. Dissertation, Wisconsin. 1971 "Pleonasm and the expression of reality in the concessive clause in medieval Ibero-Romance", RRLing 16: 287-297. Allieres, J. 1967 "Le subjonctif en -i- du gascon occidental et du Catalan oriental", Via domitia 1213: 15-25. 1968 "Le subjonctif en -o- du Catalan occidental", ER 12 (1963-68): 255-265. Alonso, Amado 1926 "La subagrupacion romänica del Catalan", RFE 13: 1-38, 225-261. [Reprinted in Alonso 1951: 11-100.] 1943 "Particion de las lenguas romänicas de Occidente", in Fabra 1943: 81-101. [Reprinted in Alonso 1951: 101-127.] 1951 Estudios linguisticos. Temas espanoles (Madrid: Credos). Alpera, Lluis 1966 "A proposit del Vocabulari dels Furs de G. Gil Polo i L. Llop", RVF 7(1963-66): 77-86. 1968 Los nombres trecentistas de botanica valenciana en Francesc Eiximenis (Valencia: Institute Alfonso el Magnänimo). 1969 "Conciencia y normalization lingüistica en el Pais Valenciano", Homenaje a Sanchez Escribano (Madrid: Alcala), 335-345. ALPI 1962- Atlas linguistico de la Peninsula Iberica, I (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). Alvar, M. 1954 "Dos cortes sincronicos en el habla de Graus", A FA 6: 7-58. 1955 "Catalan y aragones en las regiones fronterizas", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 132144. 1957 "Uxico aragonds del ALC\ AFA 8-9 (1956-57): 211-238. 1959 "Löxico de Benasque segun el ALC\ AFA 10-11 (1958-59): 67-76. 1961 "Poma y mal(t)iana en la toponimia de la Peninsula Iberica", BF20: 165-203. 1962 "Loxico Catalan en tierras aragonesas segun el ALC\ AFA 12-13 (1961-62): 333-385. 1971 "Un probleme de langues en contact: la frontiere catalano-aragonaise", TLL 9: 73-84. [Spanish version in AFA 18-19 (1976): 23-37.] 1973 "El atlas lingüistico de los marineros peninsulares", Studio Iberica: Festschrift Hans Flasche (Bern: Francke): 23-33. 1977 (ed.) Terminologia marinera del mediterraneo (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). Amades, Joan 1931 "Vocabulari dels pastors", B DC 19: 64-240.

266

Joseph Gulsoy

Amades, J. - E. Roig 1924 "Vocabulari de l'art de la navegacio i la pesca", BDC 12: 1-115. 1934 "Vocabulari dels veils oficis de transport i llurs derivats", BDC 22: 59-239. Amigo, Ramon 1958 Els norm de Hoc de les terres catalanes: Reus (Barcelona: I.E.G.). anon. 1906 "Le Catalan occidental", BHi 8: 396-398. Aracil, Lluis 1976 "La (pre)hist ria de la socioling istica", in XIII ACILPR, 2: 3-9. Aramon i Serra, R. 1930-33 Curial e Guelfa (Barcelona: Barcino) [critical edition]. 1934 Novel.letes exemplars (Barcelona: Barcino) [critical edition]. 1938 Canfoner dels Masdovelles (Barcelona: I.E.G.) [critical edition]. 1950 "La philologie romane dans les pays Catalans (1939-1948)", RPF, bibliographic supplement ed. M. de Paiva Βοΐέο (Coimbra: U. P.), 248-274. 1955 "Les edicions de textos Catalans medievals", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 197-266. 1957 "Notes sobre alguns calcs sint ctics en actual catal literari", Festschrift f r Ernst Gamillscheg (T bingen: Niemeyer), 1-39. 1964 "Els cants en vulgar del Llibre Vermeil de Montserrat", Analecta Montserratensia 10: 9-54. 1966 "Algunes poesies bilingiies en cangoners Catalans", ER 9 (1961-66): 85-126. 1968 Introduccio a la gramatica catalana (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1973 "Problemes d'histoire de la langue catalane", in I Col.loqui: 27-70. [Discussion, 70-80.] Aramon i Serra, R. - J. Vives 1929-34 "Bibliografia de la llengua i literatura catalana", AORLL 2: 353-375; 3: 351412; 4: 321-363 [in collaboration with F. de B. Moll]; 5: 337-366; 7: 271-352. Argente, Joan A. 1974 "De la linguistica a la poetica", Els Marges 1: 29-48. Arques, R. 1910 [El parlar de Les Borges d'Urgell], Bolleti del diccionari de la llengua catalana 6: 33-40, 49-56, 69-75, 85-94. Arteaga Pereira, J. 1915 Textes Catalans avec leur transcription phonetique (Barcelona: I.E.G.). Asin Palacios, Miguel 1940 Contribution a la toponimia arabe de Espana (Madrid: Maestre, second edition 1944). Avram, A. 1973 "Sur le Statut phonologique de la voyelle neutre en Catalan", RRLing 18: 399405. Badia i Margarit, A. M. 1945 Los complements pronominales-adverbiales derivados de IBI e IN DE en la Peninsula Iberica. (Dissertation, Madrid.) [Published 1947 as RFE, Anejo 38.] 1948-1949 "Ensayo de una sintaxis historica de tiempos:. I. El pretirito imperfecto de indicative", BAE2S: 281-300, 393-410; 29: 15-29. 1949 "Λ/α/- 'roca' en la toponimia pirenaica catalana", Adas, primera reunion de toponimia pirenaica (Jaca 1948) (Zaragoza: Ed. Univ), 33-58. 1950-1953 '"Regies de esquivar vocables ο mots grossers o pagesivols'. Unas normas del siglo XV sobre pureza de la lengua catalana", BABL 23 (1950): 137-152; 24 (1951-52): 83-116; 25 (1953): 145-163. 195la Gramatica historica catalana (Barcelona: Noguer). 1951b "L'extension du toponyme pri-romain NAVA dans la Peninsule Ibdrique", Melanges Albert Dauzat (Paris: d'Artrey), 33-39.

Catalan

267

1951c "Aspects mothodologiques de la contribution de la botanique la toponymie". Actes et memoires du III congres international de toponymie et d'anthroponymie (Louvain: Centre d'Onomastique), 3: 525-546. 1952a "Los demonstratives y los verbos de movimiento en iberroromanico", Homenaje a Menendez Pidal HI (Madrid: Gredos), 3-31. 1952b "L'Atlas linguistic de Catalunya i el problema de la sibilant sonora -s- (fon. z) precedent del llati -D- (i de -C1-, -TV-)", RVF2. 7-32. 1952c "Els origens de la frase catalana", Anuari d'l.E.C. 1952: 43-54. 1952d "Le suffixe -ui dans la toponymie pyreneenne catalane". Melanges Karl Michaelsson (G teborg: Bergendahls), 31-37. 1953 "El subjunctive de subordinacion en las lenguas romances y especialmente en iberrorom nico", RFE 37: 95-129. 1954a "Toponymie et histoire dans le 'Chemin de Saint Jacques' en Espagne", Actes et memoires du W congres international de sciences onomastiques (Uppsala: Lundequist), 2: 143-158. 1954b "Alcalde: difusion de un arabismo en Catalan", Homenaje a Millas-Vallicrosa (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.), 1: 67-82. 1955a "La filologia catalana entre dos congresos de ling istica (1906-1953)", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 99-109. 1955b "Les dorivos phonetiques et somantiques du latin FERIRE en iberoroman", ALA 19: 39-58. 1955c "Mas sobre la aportacion de la toponimia al 'Camino de Santiago' y su justification historica", RFE 38 (1954-55): 212-223. 1955d "Ramificacions sem ntiques del catal bregar", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 39-54. 1958a "Les donominations catalanes de la 'coqueluche'", Festschrift ,Walther von Wartburg (T bingen: Niemeyer), 43-58. 1958b "L'acte de reconnaissance de propriete du Monastere de Sant Joan de les Abadesses (an 913) et son importance pour I'onomastique catalane", Acta salmanticensia 11.1:357-375. 1959 "La versione della Divina commedia di Andreu Febrer (sec. XV) e la lingua litteraria catalana", Atti del VIII congresso internazionale di ling istica e filologia romanza (Firenze: Istituto di Glottologia), 2: 1-35. [Catalan version in Badia 1973d: 44-101.] 1960 "L'articulacio de la C' en catal primitiu, i la seva accio en el procos CE'- > CI'- (complement a una llei fonetica catalana observada fa poc temps)", ER 7 (1959-60); 1-9. 1961a "Toponymie de l'acte de reconnaissance de propri£t£ du Monastere de Sant Joan de les Abadesses (an 913)", SOnoM 3: 93-100. 1961b "Els noms de Hoc Catalans MACANA (i afins), a la Hum de la documentacio llatina medieval", ER 8: 157-174. 1962a Gramatica catalana, 2 vols (Madrid: Gredos). 1962b "Els termes de La Roca del Valles a la Hum de l'Acta de consagracio de la seva esglosia parroquial, de 1'any 932", Analecta montserratensia 9: 275-295. 1963 "Problemes de la commutacio conson ntica en catal ", BF 21 (1962-63): 213335. 1964 Llengua i cultura als pa'isos Catalans (Barcelona: Edicions 62). [Second edition 1966.] 1965 "Funcion significativa y diferencial de la vocal neutra en el Catalan de Barcelona", RFE 48: 79-93. 1966a "De nouveau propos des noms de lieux Catalans Μαςαηα, Μαςαηεζ, Μαςαηεί", Proceedings of the 8th international congress of onomastic sciences (The Hague: Mouton), 6-17. 1966b "Predominio de las vocales abiertas E y Ο en el Catalan de Barcelona", RFE 49:

268

Joseph Gulsoy

315-320. 1967 "Notes per a una caracteritzacio lingiustica dels manuscrits del Libre de contemplacio; contribucio a l'estudi de la llengua de Ramon Llull", ER 10 (1962-67): 99-129. 1968a "Ou en sont les etudes sur la langue catalane?" in XIACILPR: 45-101. 1968b "Algunes normes de prosödia catalana, segons les rimes de Carles Riba", Festschrift Walther von Wartburg zum 80 Geburtstag (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 1: 593-610. 1968c "Les vocals töniques E i O en el catalä de Barcelona: assaig d'analisi fonolögica de la situacio actual", ER 12 (1963-68): 119-172. 1969a "Algunes mostres de les igualacions = e i j = o en el catalä parlat a Barcelona", Philologische Studien für Joseph M. Fiel (Heidelberg: Winter), 24-29. 1969b "Rimas vocälicas anomalas en el cancionero Catalan", Cuadernos hispanoamericanos 80: 275-292. 1969c La llengua dels barcelonins. Resultats d'una enquesta sociologico-lingüistica, I (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1970a "Situacion actual de los estudios de lengua y literatura catalanas: lengua", Norte 11: 1-116. 1970b "Les oppositions phonologiques c/e et 3/0 du Catalan dans les rimes des poetes modernes", in XII ACILPR, 1: 341-374. 1970c "L'alternance sourdelsonore dans les realisations de /s/ en Catalan", Melanges offerts ä M. Georges Straka (Lyon-Strasbourg: 8 de Linguistique Romane), 1:32-^2. 1971 a "Antonio M. Badia Margarit: Notice bio-bibliographique ä occasion de son cinquantieme anniversaire", RLR 35: 182-196. 1971b "Comentari a les versions romäniques de VAssaig de cäntic en el temple de Salvador Espriu", Interlinguistica. Festschrift M. Wandruszka (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 628-638. 1972a "Eis prosedemes en catalä", Revista espanola de lingüistica 2: 17-34. 1972b "Langue et societo dans le domaine linguistique Catalan, notamment ä Barcelona", RLR 36: 263-304. 1972c "L'alternanca sordalsonora en els castellanismes del catalä vulgar amb consonant sorda originäria", Romanica (La Plata) 5: 7-12. 1973a "Phonetique et phonologic catalanes", in I Col.loqui: 115-166. [Discussion to 179.] 1973b "Morphosyntaxe catalane", in I Col.loqui: 181-229. [Discussion to 237.] 1973c "Le Catalan aujourd'hui", in I Col.loqui: 379-443. [Discussion 443-451.] 1973d La llengua catalana ahir i avui (Barcelona: Curial). 1973e "El castellanisme estrafet, recurs estilistic dins el Perot marrasqui de Carles Riba", In memoriam Carles Riba (Barcelona: Ariel), 47-60. 1974a "Proces i objectius de la sociolingüistica catalana", IbRom (n.s.) 1: 19-30. [Revised version in Badia 1977 (ed.): 15-35.] 1974b "De nouveau sur la sonorisation spontanee des consonnes sourdes en Catalan: les palatales", RLR 38: 20-25. 1976a Vint-i-cinc anys d'estudis sobre la llengua i la literatura catalanes (1950-1975), I: La llengua (Montserrat: Publicacions de l'Abadia). 1976b "Aspects de la description du verbe en espagnol et en Catalan", in XIII ACILPR, 1:293-309. 1976c "El catalä, llengua de relacio a Barcelona", in II Col.loqui: 231-254. 1976d "Nivelacion geolingüistica y lenguas en contacto", Revista espanola de lingüistica 6: 269-300. 1977 (ed.) Treballs de sociolingüistica catalana, l (1974-1976). Ponencies al Vllle congres mundial de sociologia (Toronto) (Valencia: Col.leccio 3 i 4).

Catalan

269

forthcoming "Sobre el proces d'anivellament del vocabulari rural catalä. Presentacio i comentari d'un cas concret [mongeta/fesol]". Badia, A. M. - M. Cardus de Badia 1969 "Sociologia del preterit simple en el catalä de Barcelona", IbRom 1: 273-298. Badia, A. M. - J. Veny i Clar 1965 Atlas linguistic del domini catalä. Qüestionari (Barcelona). Baguö, Enric 1975 Noms personals de l'edat mitjana (Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll). Bailan'n Cornel, A. 1966 "Vocabulario de Benasque [hasta estrus\\ AFA 16-17 (1965-66): 127-211. 1968 El volle de Benasque (Zaragoza: Ed. Univ.). Balari i Jovany, Josep 1899 Origenes historicos de Cataluna (Barcelona: Jepus). [Reprinted in Biblioteca Filologica Historica, ed. A. Griera (Sant Cugat del Valles: Publicacions de L'Abadia, 1964, 3 vols).] Balari i Jovany, J. - M. de Montoliu 1927-1936 Diccionari Balari [A-G] (Barcelona: Facultad de Filosofia y Letras). Baldinger, Kurt 1958 Die Herausbildung der Sprachräume auf der Pyrenäenhalbinsel (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). [Translated as La formation de los dominios lingüisticos en la Peninsula Iberica (Madrid: Gredos, 1963, second edition 1972).] Barg, M. 1963 "Notes sur quelques conjunctions de temps en Catalan moderne", Etudes romanes dediees ä Andreas Blinkenberg (Kstbenhavn: Munksgaard), 15-20. Barnils, P. 1912a "Etudes de prononciations catalanes ä l'aide du palais artificiel", Revue de phonetique 2: 50-64. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 21-46.] 1912b "Zur Kenntniss einer mallorkinischen Kolonie in Valencia", ZRPh 36: 601-607. 1913a Die Mundart von Alacant (= Biblioteca filolögica 2) (Barcelona: I.E.C.). [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933), 181-188.] 1913b "El parlar apitxat", BDC 1: 18-25. 1914a "Comentaris a la flexio alacantina", BDC 2: 24-33. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933), 257-265.] 1914b "De fonetica balear", BDC 2: 45-49. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 47-50.] 1915 "L'articulacio de la K i la G mallorquines", BDC 3: 73-79. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 51-57.] 1916a Vocabulari catalä-alemany de l'any 1502 (Barcelona: I.E.C.). 1916b "Del catalä de Fraga", BDC 4: 27-45. 1917a "La consonant r", Estudis fonetics 1: 211-221. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 89-98.] 1917b "Sobre l'articulacio de p, f, k", Estudis fonetics 1: 221-236. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 99-U2.] 1917c "Nasalitat i nasals", Estudis fonetics l: 201-211. [Reprinted in AORLL 6 (1933): 79-88.] 1919 "Dialectes Catalans", BDC 7: 1-10. 1929 "M£s materials de contribucio a Pestudi del catalä d'Alacant", BDC: 51-56. 1933 "Pronunciacions normals catalanes", AORLL 6: 163-174. Bassols de Climent, M., et al. 1960-1974 Glossarium mediae latinitatis Cataloniae ( -D) (Barcelona: Departamento de Filologia Latina). Bastardas Parera, Joan 1953 Particularidades sintacticas del latin medieval (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.). 1956 "Antroponimos condicionados por toponimos", RFE 39: 61-79.

270 1961 1968

Joseph Gulsoy

"Mots fantasmes en el llati medieval de Catalunya", ER 8: 1-8. "Els noms dels dies de la setmana en l'onomästica catalana", ER 13 (1963-68): 225-236. 1973 "Nota sobre la influencia dels Glossaris en el llati medieval catalä (segles XXI)", In memoriam Carles Riba (Barcelona: Ariel), 67-73. 1977 "El catalä pre-literari", in IV Col.loqui: 37-64. Berchem, T. 1968 "Considerations sur le periphrastique vado + infinitif en Catalan et galloroman", in XI ACILPR: 1159-1170. Bernardo, D. 1975 "Appareil educatif et langue autochtone: le cas du Catalan", LFr 25: 37-61. Bihler, H. 1950 Die Stellung des Katalanischen zum Provenzalischen und Kastilischen. (Unpublished dissertation, Munich.) Blaylock, C. 1964 "The monophthongization of Latin AE in Spanish", RomPh 18: 16-21. 1968 "Latin L-, -LL- in the Hispanic dialects: retroflexion and lenition", RomPh 21: 392-409. Blömer, B. 1970 Consecutio temporum im Katalanischen. (Dissertation, Bonn.) Bohigas, Pere 1926-1931 "El repertori de manuscrits Catalans", Estudis universitaris Catalans 11 (1926): 121-130; 12 (1927): 411-457; 15 (1930): 92-139, 197-230; 16 (1931): 82111,213-310. 1955 "La llengua dels Miracles de Maria, del manuscrit de Lleida", BDE 33-34 (195355): 285-296. 1956 Miracles de la Verge Maria. Col.leccio del segle XIV. Text, pröleg i notes (Barcelona: Biblioteca catalana d'obres antigues). 1969 "La llengua de Jacme i Pere March", Melanges Rita Lejeune (Gembloux: Duculot), 1:339-351. de Bolös, Oriol 1968 "La formacio del llenguatge botanic catalä", ER 13 (1963-68): 209-224. Bonfante, G. 1944-45 "El nombre de Cataluna, RFH 6: 382-386, 7: 389-392. Bosch-Gimpera, P. 1932 Etnologia de la Peninsula Iberica (Barcelona: Ed. Alpha). 1943 "Lingüistica i etnologia primitiva a Catalunya", in Fabra 1943: 102-107. 1944 La formation de los pueblos de Espana (Mexico: Ed. Univ.). 1956 "Iberes. Basques, Celtes?", Orbis 5: 329-338. 1974 Paletnologia de la peninsula iberica [= collected works] (Graz: Akad. Verlag). Boysen, G. 1971 "Le present du subjonctif en Catalan, en rheto-roman et en frioulan", SNPh 43: 521-531. Brekke, K. 1888 "L'e (e, i) latin en ancien frangais et en mayorquin", Romania 17: 89-95. Broens, M. 1969 "Arbre geneologique de Tet, Tech, et Ter, hydronymes de Pyren£es Orientales", Abhandlungen, X Internationaler Kongress für Namenforschung (Wien: Akad. Verlag), 2: 465-471. Bruguera, J. 1957 Notes per una valoracio del lexic de Ramon Llull [= offprint of Estudios Lulianos 1] (Palma de Mallorca). 1977 "Notes al vocabulari de la Cronica de Jaume I", in IV Col.loqui: 83-115.

Catalan

271

Brummer, R. 1959 "L'importance de la prose dans la formation de la langue littoraire catalane", Atti del VIII congresso internazionale di linguistica efilologia romanza (Firenze: Istituto di Glottologia), 2: 91-96. 1960 "Über die Eigennamen in der katalanischen Dante Übersetzung von Andreu Febrer", ZRPh 76: 231-246. Cahner, Max 1976 "Notes bibliogräfiques sobre l'obra de Joan Coromines", [= prologue] in Coromines 1976-77, 1: v-xxiii. Calvano, W. J. 1966 A phonological study of four Ibero-Romance dialects. (Dissertation, Cornell.) Calveras, J. 1928 "Variants de les preposicions a, en, ab en els dialectes Catalans", AORLL 1: 151178. 1929-1930 "La forma que del relatiu catalä", AORLL 2 (1929): 181-254, 3 (1930): 177-243. [See review by Krüger (1934).] Carbonell, Jordi 1961 "Notes sobre els Principis de la lectura menorquina de 1804", ER 8: 195-214. Cardus, Cristöfor 1956 Els noms de Hoc de les terres catalanes: Sant Pere de Riudebitlles (Barcelona: I.E.C.). Carlsson, Lennart 1970a "Le type Catalan Es el millor llibre que hagi escrit mai", SNPh 42: 157-173. 1970b "Sur usage des modes apres (me) parece que en castillan et (em) sembla que en Catalan", SNPh 42: 405-432. Carmody, Francis J. 1969 Iberic morphology (Berkeley [privately published]). 1971 "Toponymie catalane: noms pro-romains sur la cote est", Orbis 20: 162-197. Caro Baroja, J. 1946a Los pueblos de Espana. Ensayo de etnologia (Barcelona: Ed. Barna). 1946b Materiales para una historia de la lengua vasca en su relacion con la latino (= Acta salmanticensia 1.3) (Salamanca: Ed. Univ.). 1955a "La cultura material de los pueblos pirenaicos y la investigation moderna", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 699-706. 1955b "Sobre toponimia de las regiones ibero-pirenaicas", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 113135. 1958 Los vascos. Etnologia [second edition] (Madrid: Ed. Minotauro). de Casacuberta, J. M. - J. Coromines 1936 "Materiales per a 1'estudi dels parlars aragonesos", BDC 24: 158-183. Casaponce, E. 1908 "Diferoncies mes notables que hi ha entre el catalä parlat a Barcelona y el catalä parlat en el Russillö, especialment en el Vallespir", Primer congros internacional de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 325-330. Casas i Horns, J. M. 1955a "Lluis de , tratadista de la lengua", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 317-326. 1955b "Glossari llati-catala medieval", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 137-158. 1956 "Torcimany" de Lluis de Ave^o, 2 vols [critical edition] (Barcelona: Instituto Miguel de Cervantes). 1968 "Un predecessor de Pompeu Fabra", ER 12 (1963-68): 51-63. Castro y Calvo, J. M. 1955 "Un texto ribagorzano moderno", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 175-188. Catalan, Diego 1972 "Ibero-Romance", Current trends in linguistics 9, edited by T. A. Sebeok (The

272

Joseph Gulsoy

Hague: Mouton), 927-1106. [Translated and slightly rev. as, Linguistica iberoromanica (Madrid: Gredos, vol. 1 1974, vol. 2 forthcoming).] Gerda i Masso, Ramon 1967 "Apreciaciones generales sobre cast, /x/—»cat. /x/ en el Campo de Tarragona", RFE 50: 57-96. 1968a "L'estructura vocälica del catalä comu modern", ER 12 (1963-68): 65-117. 1968b "Algunas observaciones en torno a la definicion de r espanola", BFE 26-27: 1924. 1970 "Fuentes preverbales en los lenguajes poetico y cientifico", XII ACILPR, 2: 685-689. 1971 "La ciencia fonetica y sus relaciones con la fonologia y la informacion", BF 12: 43-57. 1972 El timbre vocalico en Catalan (= Collectanea phonetica 4) (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). [Revised dissertation, Barcelona]. 1976 "Observacions sobre täctica i productivitat en la fonologia del catalä", in II Col. loqui: 17-46. 1977 "Aspectos metodologicos de la taxonomia marina plurilingue en el Diccionario y en el Atlas", in V CIELM: 437-442. forthcoming Les fricatives prepalatals catalanes. Una mica de fonologia catalana [revised dissertation, Barcelona 1964]. Codera, F. 1909 "Apodos o sobrenombres de moros espanoles", Melanges Hartwig Derenbourg (Paris), 323-334. Codina, Rosa 1955 "Sobre algunos nombres que designan el buey", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 191-200. I Col. loqui 1973 La linguistique calalane (= Actes et Colloques 11) (Paris: Klincksieck). II Col. loqui 1976 Problemes de llengua i literatura catalanes. Actes del II Col.loqui internacional sobre el catalä (Amsterdam 1970) (Montserrat: Publicacions de l'Abadia). III Col.loqui 1976 Actes del tercer col.loqui internacional de llengua i literatura catalanes (Oxford: Dolphin). IV Col.loqui 1977 Actes del quart col.loqui internacional de llengua i literatura catalanes (Basilea 1976) (Montserrat: Publicacions de l'Abadia). Colon Domenech, Gerrna 1952a "Enquete linguistique sur le dialecte Catalan de Castello (Espagne)", Orbis 1: 116-119. 1952b "Castello i la seva llengua", BSCC 28: 362-368. 1952c "Cat. ant. conglap 'calamarsa'", ER 3: 231-235. 1953 "Valenciano calbot 'golpe en la nuca'", RVF3: 211-214. 1954 "El concepto Otono' en Catalan y su posicion entre las lenguas romances", RFE 38: 194-215,246-250. 1955 "El valenciano", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 137-150. 1956 "Cat. formiguer. Cast, hormiguero", BSCC 32: 97-102. 1958a "Rosellones ant. causol, resell, mod. cossol", ZRPh 74:275-278. 1958b "Espanol antiguo encobar, encobo, encobamiento", Etymologica. Festschrift W. von Wartburg (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 129-154. 196()a Llibre d'hores [critical edition] (ENCl) (Barcelona: Barcino). 196()b "Espanol basilea 'horca'", ZRPh 76: 499-505. 1960c "Acerca de la expresion anar a tresnuyta en Catalan antiguo", RFE 43: 203-210. 1961a "Le parfait periphrastique va + infinitif", BF 18: 165-176.

Catalan

273

1961b ' . Prov. dese", ER 8: 215-218. 1961c "Catalan rail, provenzal antiguo rezailh, frances (?) ray 'esparavel'", RLR 25: 137-143. 1961d "Latin medieval romanticus", ZRPh 77: 75-80. 1962a "Vicisitudes de un helenismo (maleconia)", BABL 29 (1961-62): 345-357. 1962b "L'etymologie organique dans le cas du franfais orin et de l'espagnol orinque", RLR 26: 170-183. 1963a "Llati escolästic synderesis, catalä senden", BSCC 39: 285-288. 1963b "Acerca de OPACUS en los Pirineos", ZRPh 79: 110-116. 1963c "Un hispanismo afortunado: frances entresol", RLR 27: 101-113. 1964a "El griego masaliota y los ornitonimos: acerca del frances compere-loriot y del alemän Pirol, Oropendola'", ZRPh 80: 269-282. 1964b "Une fois de plus compere-loriot et allem. Pirol", ZRPh 80: 288-290. 1966a "Un problema de prestamo: espanol turron", TLL 4.1: 105-114. 1966b "Sobre 1'origen del castellä artesano", A VT 7(1963-66): 175-176. 1967a "Occitanismos", in ELH, 2: 153-192. 1967b "Catalanismos", in ELH, 2: 193-238. 1968 "Aragones enemigo - alemän Neidnagel", Festschrift Walther von Wartburg (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 415-420. 1970a "Sobre el funcionament de les sibilants en el catalä de Castello", Melanges offerts a M. Georges Straka (Lyon-Strasbourg: Societe de Linguistique Romane), 1: 43-51. 1970b "El nom de fonts del poeta Ausiäs March", BSCC 46: 161-214. 1971a "Un aspecte estilistic en la traduccio catalana medieval del Decameron", Interlinguistica. Festschrift M. Wandruszka (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 648-660. 1971b "Rosicler y su inmediato origen frances", TLL 9: 229-249. 1971c "Sobre el mot petxina i sobre el seu manlleu pechina", Festschrift Harri Meier (München: Fink), 125-133. 1972 "El topönim Garamoxen", Boletin arqueolögico (Tarragona), 1971-72: 305308. 1973a "Quelques considerations sur le lexique Catalan", in I Col.loqui: 239-280. 1973b "Ein volkstümlicher Fortsetzer von INDAGARE", ASNS 210: 279-294. 1973c "i,Voces patrimoniales o voces doctas? Sobre los reflejos romances de LEGENDA", RLR 37: 110-125. 1973d "Del ave a la nave. Deslinde de una metäfora", ZRPh 89: 228-244. 1973e "Los primeros castellanismos del Catalan Acerca del NUPTIAE y VOTA en la Peninsula Iberica", Prohemio 4: 5-36. 1973f "Fr. casson et cassonade", TLL 11.1: 191-198. 1973g "Juli, Juyol i Juliol", BSCC 49: 325-334. 1975 "A propos du parfait periphrastique vado + infinitif en Catalan, en provengal et en frangais", TLL 13.1: 31-66. [Catalan translation in II Col.loqui: 101-144.] 1976 El lexico Catalan en la Romania (Madrid: Credos). 1977a "Lexicografia catalana: realitzacions i esperances", [inaugural address] IV Col. loqui: 11-35. 1977b "Ornitonimos y embarcaciones en el Mediterraneo [en torno a tartana]", in Alvar 1977 (ed.): 91-94. forthcoming "Limousin et langue d'oc dans la Catalogne medievale", to appear in Melanges Jean Seguy, in memoriam. Colon, G., - A. Garcia (eds) 1970 Furs de Valencia, 3 vols (ENCf) (Barcelona: Barcino); other volumes to follow. Coromines, Joan 1925 "Etimologies araneses", BDC 13: 64-70. 1928 Vocabulari aranes. Dissertation, Madrid. [Published privately (Barcelona,

274

Joseph Gulsoy

1931).] 1935a "L'aportacio forastera a l'estudi de la lingüistica catalana", La Revista (Barcelona), gener-juny 1935. 1935b "El parlar de Cardos i Vail Ferrera", BDC23: 241-331. [Reprinted, minus glossary, in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 29-67.] 1936a "Mots Catalans d'origen aräbic", BDC 24: 1-81, 286-288. [Reprinted in Coromines 1976-77, 3: 68-154, appendix 155-177.] 1936b "Les relacions amb Grecia reflectides en el nostre vocabulari", in Rubio i Lluch 1936, 3: 283-315. [Reprinted in Coromines 1976-77, 3: 178-222, postscript 222227, addenda 228-230.] 1936c Per a recull dels noms de Hoc de Catalunya (Barcelona). [Reprinted as an appendix to Igtesies 1953.] 1943a "Noms de Hoc Catalans d'origen germanic", in Fabra 1943: 108-132. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 31-65.] 1943b "Los nombres de la lagartija y del lagarto en los Pirineos", RFH5: 1-20. [Reprinted in Coromines 1972, 1: 252-284.] 1943-45 "Las vidas de santos roselloneses", Anales del Institute de Lingüistica de Cuyo 3: 126-211. [Catalan version in Coromines 1971: 276-362.] 1952a "Algunes lleis fonetiques catalanes no observades fins ara", ER 3 (1951-52): 201-229. [Reprinted in Coromines 1971: 183-216.] 1952b "D'alguns germanismes tipics del catalä", Malanges offerts a Mario Roques IV (Paris: Didier), 27-52. [Reprinted in Coromines 1976-77, 3: 5-44.] 1953 "UOnomasticon Cataloniae", Onoma 4: 44-49. [Reprinted in 1965-70, 2: 255270.] 1953-1957 Diccionario critico etimologico de la lengua castellana, 4 vols (Bern: Francke; Madrid: Gredos). 1954a El ques'ha de saber de la llengua catalana (Palma de Mallorca: Moll). [Fourth rev. ed. 1970.] 1954b "Germanic o romänic", Archivum 4: 53-73. [Reprinted in Coromines 1976-77, 3: 45-67.] 1955a "Sobre els elements pre-romans del domini catalä", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 401417. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 67-91.] 1955b "Information on Hispano-Celtic from the Spanish Etymological Dictionary", ZCPh 25: 30-58. [Spanish version with additions in Coromines 1972a, 2: 195235.] 1955c "Toponimia d'Andorra", Recueil de travaux offerts a M. Clovis Brunei (Paris: 5 de l'Ecole des Charles), 288-310. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 5-42.] 1958a "De gramätica histörica catalana", in Spitzer 1958: 123-148. [Reprinted in Coromines 1971: 245-275.] 1958b "Suggestions on the origin of some old place names in Castilian Spain", Romanica. Festschrift G. Rohlfs (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 97-120. [Castilian translation in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 68-113.] 1958c "La survivance du basque jusqu'au bas Moyen Age. Phenomenes de bilinguisme dans les Pyrenees Centrales". [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 93-151.] 1958d "Garant (scaranto), reliquia dels Urnenfelder alpino-pirinencs", Etymologica. Festschrift W. von Wartburg (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 155-160. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 207-215.] 1959a "Els noms dels municipis de la Catalunya aragonesa", RLR 23: 35-63, 304-338. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 43-141.] 1959b "Saso, sarda, seix, voces topogräficas de substrato", Papeles de Son Armadans 39: 291-310. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 175-193.]

Catalan 1960

275

"De toponomästica hispana: juicios, planes y tanteos", Homenaje Damaso Alonso (Madrid: Gredos), 1: 373-411. [Reprinted in Coromines 1972 1: 9-67.] 1961a "Llegint ei vocabulari meteorolögic catalä: addicions i comentaris", Miscel. lania Fontsere (Barcelona: Gili), 141-155. 1961b "Acerca del nombre del rio £5/0 y otros celtismos", NRFH 15: 45-50. 1961c "Schmoll's study on pre-Roman Hispanic languages", ZRPh 77: 345-374. [Reprinted in Coromines 1972a, 2: 236-282.] 1963 "El problema de Quatretonda i Quatremitjana i la toponimia mossärab del Maestrat", BSCC39: 340-352. [Reprinted in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 143-158.] 1965 "Miscel.länia de toponimia bascoide a Catalunya", in Coromines 1965-70, 1: 153-217. 1965-1970 Estudis de toponimia catalana (Barcelona: Barcino, vol. l 1965, vol. 2 1970). 1970a "Extensio i origen de catalä i Catalunya", in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 159-174. [Reprinted from Coromines 1954a: 67-83.] 1970b "De com pronunciem el nom dels nostres personatges histories", in Coromines 1965-70, 2: 237-254. 1971 Lleures i converses d'unfilöleg (Barcelona: Club Editor). 1972a Topica Hesperica. Estudios sobre los antiguos dialectos, el substrata y la toponimia romances, 2 vols (Madrid: Gredos). 1972b "De toponimia vasca y vascorromänica en los Bajos Pirineos", Fontes linguae vasconum (Pamplona) 12: 299-319. 1972c "Hurgando en los nombres vascos de parentesco", Fontes linguae vasconum 12: 299-319. 1972d "Breves notas vascorromänicas a proposito de la fonetica de Michelena", in Coromines 1972a, 2: 293-311. 1973a "De nouveau sur la toponymie occitane", BNFS: 193-308, + indices. 1973b "Sobre eis noms de Hoc d'origen bereber", In honorem Rafael Lapesa (Madrid: Gredos), 1: 207-218. [Reprinted in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 217-238, with a bibliography 235-238.) 1973c "Dos notas epigräficas", Fontes linguae vasconum 13: 5-19. [Catalan version in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 132-141.] 1975 "Les plombs sorothaptiques d'Arles", ZRPh 91: 1-53. [Catalan version in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 142-216.] 1976 "Elementes prelatinos en las lenguas romances hispänicas: El testimonio de la toponimia y el loxico residual", Acta salmanticensia 95: 87-164, 409-423. 1976-77 Entre dos llenguatges, 3 vols (Barcelona: Curial). 1977 "Toponimia antiga de l'alta vall de Camprodon", in Coromines 1976-77, 2: 68131. 1980-81 Diccionari etimologic i complementari de la llengua catalana, Vols 1-2 (A-C). Cortis, F. - Lluis Granell 1952 "Vocabulari Valencia del conreu, molinatge i come^ de l'arrös", RVF2: 67-97. Costa, G. 1976 "Un example d' interde~pendance domographique et linguistique en Roussillon", Atti del XIV congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza (Napoli: Macchiaroli), 2: 341-358. Costa, H. 1921 "Contribucio al vocabulari de la navegacio fluvial", BDC 9: 64-68. Craddock,J. R. 1969 Latin legacy versus substratum residue (= UCPL 53) (Berkeley: California U.P.). Creixell, Lluis, - B. Rieu - R. Dedies - D. Bernardo 1974 Diccionari basic frances-catalä (Perpinyä: Centre pluridisciplinari d'Estudis Catalans).

276

Joseph Gulsoy

Crescini, V. - V. Todesco 1917 La versione catalana della Inchiesta del San Graal (Barcelona: I.E.G.). Diez, F. C. 1836 Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (Bonn: Weber). [Second ed. 1856-60.] , Miguel 1960 "Antroponimia latina", in ELH, 1: 389-419. Dubler, Cesar E. 1943 "Über Berbersiedlungen auf der iberischen Halbinsel auf Grund der Ortsnamen", Festschrift}. Jud(Geneva-Zürich: Droz), 182-196. 1953 "Las laderas del Pirineo segun Idrisi", Al-Andalus 18: 337-373. Eberenz, Rolf 1975 Schiffe an den Küsten der Pyrenäenhalbinsel. Eine Kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Schiffstypologie und -terminologie in den iberoromanischen Sprachen bis 1600 (Bern/Frankfurt: Lang). Eberenz, R. - M. Metzeltin 1970 "Esquif\BSCC 46: 215-235. Ebner, Fred " 1968 "El cec i el llusc als parlars Catalans", ER 13 (1963-68): 127-145. 1973 Die Namen des menschlichen Kopfes, seiner Teile und derer Defekte in den modernen katalanischen Mundarten. Eine lexicalische Untersuchung. (Dissertation, Basel.) ELH 1960- Enciclopedia Lingüistica Hispanica, edited by M. Alvar, A. Badia, R. de Baibin, L. F. Lindley Cintra (Madrid: C.S.I.C., vol. l 1960, vol. l supp. 1962, vol. 2 1967). Entwistle. William J. 1936 The Spanish language, together with Portuguese, Catalan and Basque (London: Faber). [Second ed. 1962.] Esteva Fabregat, C. 1973 "Contribucions a una teoria del bilingüisme", In memoriam Carles Riba (Barcelona: Ariel), 165-183. Fabra, Pompeu 1891 Ensayo de gramaüca de Catalan moderno (Barcelona). 1897 "Etude de phonologic catalane (catalan oriental)". Revue hispanique 4: 5-30. 1898 Contribucio a la gramatica de la llengua catalana (Barcelona). 1904 Tractat de ortografia catalana (Barcelona). 1906 "Les e toniques du Catalan", Revue hispanique 15: 9-23. 1907a "Le Catalan dans la Grammaire des langues romanes de W. Meyer-Lübke et dans le Grundriss der romanischen Philologie", Revue hispanique 17: 1—45. 1907b "Sobre diferents problems pendants en Tactual catalä literari", Anuari d'I.E.C. 1:352-359. 1912 Gramatica catalana (Bilbao). 1918a Diccionari ortografic (= Biblioteca filologica 11) (Barcelona: I.E.C.). [2nd ed. 1923,3rd 1931,4th 1937.] 1918b Gramatica catalana (= Biblioteca filologica 12) (Barcelona: I.E.G.). [Seventh ed. 1933. Modernized as Aramon 1968.] 1926 La coordinacio i la subordinacio en els documents de la cancilleria catalana durant el segle XlVe (Barcelona: I.E.C.). 1932a Diccionari general de la llengua catalana (Barcelona: I.E.G.). [2nd, slightly rev. ed. 1954; 3rd ed. 1962; 4th ed. with few additions by the I.E.G. and J. Miracle, 1966: 5th ed. 1968; 6th ed. 1974 with appendix. 7th ed. revised and amplified by J. Miracle (Barcelona: Edhasa).] I932b El catalä literari (Barcelona: Barcino).

Catalan 1943

277

Miscel. lania Fabra; recall de treballs de lingüistica catalana i romänica dedicate a Pompeu Fabra, ed. J. Coromines (Buenos Aires: Ed. Conti). 1954-55 Converses filologiques (Barcelona: Barcino). [10 small vols.] 1956 Gramatica catalana, edited with an evaluative preface by J. Coromines (Barcelona: Teide). [6th ed. 1974.] Fabra, P. - J. M. de Casacuberta - J. Coromines 1933 Llista dels noms dels municipis del Principal (Barcelona). Fabra, P. - M. de Montoliu (eds) 1914-34 Diccionari Aguilo, 8 vols (Barcelona: Oficines Lexicogräfiques). Faraudo de Saint-Germain, Llufs 1943 "Consideracions entorn d'un pla de glossari raonat de la llengua catalana medieval", in Fabra 1943: 143-174. 1956 "Una versio catalana del Libre de les herbes de Macer", ER 5 (1955-56): 1-54. Fernandez Sevilla, J. 1977 "Ictionimia en el Vocabulario de J. L. Palmireno", in Alvar 1977 (ed.): 137-188. Ferrater, G. 1970a "Questions del mot", Serra d'Or (Juny): 45-46. 1970b "La composicio nominal", Serra d'Or (Agost): 31-32. 1972 "Les gramätiques de Pompeu Fabra", Serra d'Or (Juny): 27-28. Ferraz y Castän, Vicente 1934 Vocabulario del dialecto que se habla en la Alta Ribagorza (Madrid: Tipografia de Archives). Ferrer Pastor, F. 1960 Vocabulari valencia-castella (Valencia: Sicänia). Ferrer Pastor, F. - J. Giner 1956 Diccionari de la rima (Valencia: F. Domenech). Flores, Lluis P. 1943 "Vocabulari Valencia de l'art de la navegacio", in Fabra 1943: 309-348. Font i Quer, P. 1962 Planlos medicinales. El Dioscorides renovado (Barcelona: Labor). Font Rius, J. M. 1969 Carlos de poblacion y franquicia de Catalunya, 2 vols (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.). Fontserfc, E. 1948 Assaig d'un vocabulari meteorologic calalä (Barcelona: I.E.C.). Forteza y Cortos, T. 1898 Gramatica de la lengua catalana (Palma). [Second edition, with a prologue by A. Alcover, 1915.] Fossat, J. L. 1966 "Designations gasconnes et catalanes du pancroas", RLR 30: 97-107. Fouchd, Pierre 1924 Phonetique historique du roussillonnais, Morphologie historique du roussillonnais (Bibl. meridionale 2 sir. 21-22) (Toulouse/Paris). 1925 "La diphtongaison en Catalan", BDC 13: 1-46. 1929 "A propos du livre de Meyer-Lübke: Das Katalanische", Revue hispanique 77: 88-120. Fuster, Joan 1954 "Notes per a l'estudi de l'oratöria vicentina", RVF4: 87-118. 1968 Obres completes I (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1971 Literatura catalana contemporania (Barcelona: Curial). Gali, Alexandre 1943 "L'alliberament de la fräse: Notes per a una metodologia de la composicio", in Fabra 1943: 42-61.

278

Joseph Gulsoy

Gallina, Annamaria 1957 "Una traduzione catalana quattrocentesca della Divina commedia", Filologia romanza 4: 325-366. 1973-80 Divina commedia, 2 vols, translated by Andreu Febrer [= critical edition] (Barcelona: Barcino); vol. 3 to follow. Galmes de Fuentes, A. 1950 "El mozarabe levantino en los libros de los Repartimientos de Mallorca y Valencia", NRFH 4: 314-346r Gamillscheg, Ernst 1932 "Historia lingüistica de los visigodos", RFE 19: 117-150, 229-260. 1934 Romania germanica, 3 vols (Berlin-Leipzig: de Gruyter). 1967 "Elementes constitutivos: Germanismos", in ELH, 2: 79-91. Garcia Girona, J. 1922 Vocabulari del Maestrat (A-G) (Castello: Sociedad Castellonense de Cultura). Garriga, Paciä 1969 El catala sense lo neutre (Barcelona: Barcino). Giese, W. 1928 "Waffen nach den katalanischen Chroniken des XIII Jahrhunderts", Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 1: 140-182. 1934 "Volkstümlicher Gewerbe in Maestrazgo", ZRPh 54: 522-531. 1936 "Waffengeschichtliche und terminologische Aufschlüsse aus katalanischen literarischen Denkmälern des XIV und XV Jahrhunderts", in Rubio 1936, 1: 33-68. 1941 "Lexicologisches aus katalanischen Texten des ausgehenden Mittelalters", ZRPh 61: 126-134. 1955 "El Catalan en la Universidad de Hamburgo", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 111-118. 1957a "Contribucion al estudio de la cerämica y los tejares mallorquines", RDyTP 13: 50-63. 1957b "Syntaktisches und stylistisches in Josep Plas Coses visier", Festschrift für Ernst Gamillscheg (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 129-146. 1962 Los pueblos romanicos y su cullura populär (Bogota: Institute Caro y Cuervo). 1968 "Vosaltres, nosaltres", ER 12 (1963-68): 221-225. Gili Gaya, S. 1932 "Estudi fonetic del parlar de Lleida", in Alcover 1932: 241-255. 1955 "Notas sobre el mozärabe en la Baja Cataluna", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 483492. Gimeno, F. 1975 Sociolingüistica catalana: el habla marinera de Santa Pola Dissertation, Murcia. Giner i Marc, J. 1933 La conjugacio dels verbs en Valencia (Castello: Sociedad Castellonense de Cultura). 1943 "Les e töniques del Valencia", in Fabra 1943: 349-362. 1955 "La diptongacio en la Romania occidental i les ee toniques dins el domini catalä", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 289-304. Gökcen, A. 1977 "The language of Homilies d'Organya", Catalan studies volume in memory of Josephine de Boer (Barcelona: Hispam), 59-69. Gracia, Jorge J. E. 1977 Com usar be de beure e manjar. Normes morals contigudes en el Terf del Crestia' (Barcelona: Curial). Grandgent, C. H. 1907 Introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston;from 1934 ed., New York: Hefner). [Translated by F. de B. Moll as Introduccion al latin vulgar (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1928).]

Catalan

279

Grando, C. 1943 "Vocabulari rossellones", in Fabra 1943: 180-205. Griera, Mn. Antoni 1913 "Notes sobre el parlar d'Eiviga i Formentera", BDC 1: 26-36. 1914a Lafrontera catalano-aragonesa. Dissertation, Zürich. [Published in Bibliotecafilologica 4 (Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans).] 1914b "Els noms dels vents en catalä", BDC 2: 74-96. 1915 "El dialecte de Capcir", BDC 3: 115-136. 1916 "Paraules i coses: assaig lexicolögic sobre el gresol i el fester", ER (first series) 1: 84-90. 1917a "Guarä", BDC 5: 46-47. 1917b (ed.) Homilies d'Organya, = La vida cristiana 21-22. 1917c "Un Diccionari catalä d'autor desconegut", ER 2: 116-175. 1919 "Els noms del foe en catalä", BDC 7: 74-96. 1921 Diccionari de rims [= edition of Jacme March, Libre de concordanga, 1371] (Barcelona: I.E.C.). 1922 "Afro-romänic o ibero-romänic", BDC 10: 34-53. 1923a "Terminologia dels ormeigs de pescar dels rius i costes de Catalunya", Wörter und Sachen 8: 97-103. 1923b "Els noms dels peixos dels mars i rius de Catalunya", BDC 11: 33-79. 1923c "El jou, 1'arada i el llaurar", BDC 11: 80-101. 1923-64 Atlas linguistic de Catalunya, I-V (Abadia de San Cugat del Valles, 192339). Vols VI-X (Barcelona: Institute Internacional de Cultura Romänica, 196264). 1925a "Le domaine Catalan: compte-rendu rotrospectif jusqu'en 1924", RLR 1: 35113. 1925b "Castellä-catalä-provencal (Observacions sobre el llibre de W. Meyer-Lübke: Das Katalanische", ZRPh 45: 198-254. 1925c "Vocabulari del suro y de les industries derivades", BDC 13: 81-157. 1928a "Les itudes sur la langue catalane", Archivum romanicum 12: 530-552. 1928b "Feines i costums que desapareixen", BDC 16: 1-40. 1929 "Triptic: la naixenga, les esposalles, la mort", BDC 17: 79-135. 1931a Gramätica histdrica del catalä antic (Barcelona: Institucio Patxot). [Translated as Gramatica historica calalana (Sant Cugat del Valles, 1965).] 1931b "Noms d'algunes malalties", BDC 19: 241-256. 1932a "La casa catalana", BDC 20: 13-329. 1932b "Etüde de goographie linguistique", AORLL 5: 73-119. 1935-47 Tresor de la llengua, de les tradicions i de la cultura popular de Catalunya, 14 vols (Barcelona: I.E.C.). 1941 "El estado de los estudios de filologia romänica en Espana", BDE 25: 9-51. 1946 "Transfusion lexical en los vocabularios de Nebrija", Miscelanea Nebrija (Madrid), 1:293-296. 1947 Bibliografia lingüistica catalana (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.). 1949 Dialectologia catalana (Barcelona: C.S.I.C.). [Originally published as Contribucio a una dialectologia catalana (Barcelona, 1921).] 1954 "Les Rationes Decimarum, source de valeur considerable pour l'otude de la toponymie", Actes et memoires du IV cong^s international de sciences onomastiques (Uppsala : Lundequist), 256-290. 1955 "Las caracten'sticas mäs salientes del Catalan oriental y del Catalan occidental", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 121-125. 1955-60 Miscelanea filologica dedicada a Mons. A. Griera (Barcelona: vol. 1 C.S.I.C., 1955; vol. 2, Instituto Internacional de Cultura Romänica, 1960). 1959 "Medio siglo de filologia catalana", BDE 35: 11-23.

280

Joseph Gulsoy

1960 Atlas linguistic d'Andorra (Andorra). [Reviewed, unfavourably, by G. Colon, ZRPh 77 (1961): 49-69.] 1965 "Influence de l'homonymie sur 1'evolution des langues et des dialectes", Actes du X congrte international de linguistique etphilologie romanes (Paris: Klincksieck), 1073-1084. 1967 Homonimies (Barcelona: Poligrafa). 1973 Atlas linguistic de la Vail d'Aran (Barcelona: Poligrafa). Griffin, David A. 1961 Los mozarabismos del "Vocabulista" atribuido a Ramon Marti (= Al-Andalus 23-25 (1958-60)) (Madrid/Granada: Ed. Univ.). Gröber, G. 1888-97 Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, 2 vols (Strasbourg: Trübner). [Revised ed. 1904-06.] Grossmann, Maria 1969 "La adaptation de los fonemas ärabes al sistema fonologico del romance", RRLing 14: 51-64. Gual Camarena, M. 1968 Vocabulario del comercio medieval. Coleccion de aranceles aduaneros de la Corona de Aragon, siglos XIIIy XIV (Tarragona: Diputacion). Guarnerio, P. E. 1886 "II dialetto catalano d'Alghero", AGI 9: 261-364. Guillen Garcia, J. 1974 El habla de Orihuela (Alicante: Institute de Estudios Alicantinos). Guiter, Henri [Enric] 1943 Etudes de linguistique historique du dialecte minorquin (Montpellier: Imprimerie de la Charite). 1948 "Algunes infiltracions del lexic occitä en el domini linguistic catalä", ER 1: 153-158. 1952 "Faits de fermeture vocalique dans quelques hautes valloes catalanes", RLaR 71: 159-170. 1955a "Eis altres Capcirs", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 707-735. 1955b "Eis noms de l'arada en rossellones", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 335-346. 1958 "Alguns topönims en relacio amb l'aigua a Cerdenya i Conflent", Ada salmanticensia 11.1: 287-294. [Reprinted in BDE 5l (1972): 113-119.] 1961a "La famille des toponymes cerdans termines en -ja", SOnoM 3: 317-322. 1961b "Manifestations de Substrat basque dans la toponymie des Pyre"ne"es Orientales", BPhH: 337ff. 1963 "Les suffixes de localisation dans la toponymie des Pyrenees Orientales", Atti del VII congresso internazionale di scienze onomastiche (Firenze: Istituto di Glottologia),2: 109-117. 1965 "Quelques participes passos anormaux dans le Catalan du Roussillon", Actes du X congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes (Paris: Klincksieck), 399-414. 1966a Atlas linguistique des Pyrenees Orientales (Paris: CNRS). 1966b "La z intervocalique caduc en Catalan", TLL 4.1: 233-244. 1966c "Quelques parametres caracteristiques des systemes vocaliques", RLR 30: 3956. 1966d "Essais d'etymologie toponimique dans la region pyreneomediterraneenne", Proceedings of the 8th international congress ofonomastic sciences (The Hague: Mouton), 213-219. 1969a "Concordances linguistiques et anthropologiques", RLR 33: 89-94. 1969b "Correlation de signifiants et de signifie"s dans les langues romanes", TLL 7.1: 131-159.

Catalan

281

1970a Notice sur les litres et travaux de M. Henri Gutter (Montpellier: l'Auteur). 1970b "Sur les relations frequence-rang", BSL 65: 1-13. 1970c "La situacio del catalä entre les llengües romäniques", Miscellanea barcinonensia 25: 35ff. 1970d "El limit nord-oriental del catalä", Miscellanea barcinonensia 27: 29-51. 1971a "Froquences verbales dans les langues romanes", RLR 35: 358-387. 1971b "Un exemple du jeu des demonstratifs chez Joan Maragall", Melanges de philologie romane dedies ä la mömoire de Jean Boutiere (Liege: Sol£di), 2: 767772. 1972a "Dictionnaire de frequence du Catalan", Via domitia 8: 13-49. 1972b "Auxiliares verbales y caracterizacion de los romances hispänicos", Romanica (La Plata) 5: 149-160. 1972c "Alguns ensenyaments del lexic pages", BDE 51: 25-54. 1972d "Vocabulari de la cultura de la vinya al Rossello", BDE 51: 55-100. 1972e "La llengua del Fenollet abans del tractat de Corbell", BDE 51: 101-108. 1972f "Hagiotoponimia rossellonesa", BDE 51: 120-126. 1973a "Atlas et frontieres linguistiques", Colloque national du CNRS, Paris 1971 (Paris: Klincksieck), 61-107. [Catalan version in Miscellanea barcinonensia 31 (1972): 7-53.] 1973b "Questions d'onomastique catalane", in I Col.loqui: 339-367. [Followed by discussion and maps, 367-378; Catalan version in Miscellanea barcinonensia 21 (1969): 83-115, and BDE 51 (1972): 127-155.] Guiter, Henri - Sor Anna Sardä 1975 "L'Atlas linguistic de Catalunya i la fragmentacio dialectal del catalä", Miscellanea barcinonensia 40: 93-112. Gulsoy, Joseph 1961 "El sentido del valenciano atzucac", RomPh 14: 195-200. 1962a "Lexicografia valenciana", ÄVT6 (1959-62): 109-141. 1962b "El origen de cat. corruixa(r)", RomPh 15: 284-292. 1964a Diccionario valenciano-castellano de Manuel Joaquin Sanelo. Edicion, estudio de fuentes y lexicologia (Castellon de la Plana: Sociedad Castellonense de Cultura). 1964b "Corominas' research for his Onomasticon Cataloniae", HR 32: 247-255. 1965 "The descendants of Old Catalan and Proven9al ab 'with'", RLR 29: 38-59. 1967 "Nuevos datos sobre el imperativo segunda persona plural en Catalan", BSCC 43: 153-177. 1968 "L'origen dels parlars d'Enguera i de la Canal de Navarros", ER 12 (1963-68): 317-338. 1970 "The background of the xurro speech of Upper Mijares", RomPh 24: 96-101. 1976 "El desenvolupament de les formes del subjunctiu present en catalä", in III Col. loqui: 27-59. 1977 "El desenvolupament de la semivocal -w en catalä", Catalan studies volume in memory of Josephine de Boer (Barcelona: Hispam), 71-98. 1979 "Obra filolögica de J. - B. Alart", Miscel. lania Aramon (Barcelona: Curial), 1: 243-253. Gulsoy, J. - J. M. Sola-Solo (eds.) 1977 Catalan studies: volume in memory of Josephine de Boer (Barcelona: Hispam). Hadwiger, J. 1905 "Sprachgrenzen und Grenzmundarten des Valencianischen", ZRPh 29: 712-731. Haensch, G. 1960 Las hablas de la Alta Ribagorza (Pirineo aragonos) (= Anejo delAFA 7) (P.U. de Zaragoza). [Originally a dissertation, Munich.] 1962 "Algunos caracteres de las hablas fronterizas ca.alano-aragonesas del Pirineo (Alta Ribagorza)", Orbis 11: 75-110.

282

Joseph Gulsoy

1974 "Las hablas del Valle de Isäbena (Pirineo aragones)", RDyTP 30: 295-314. 1976 "La discrepäncia entre le llengua escrita i la llengua parlada. Un problema essencial del catalä d'avui i de demä", in II Col. loqui: 255-274. Harris, M. Roy 1972 "Studies in old Valencian phytonomy", RomPh 26: 111-135. Hegener, H. 1938 Die Terminologie der Hanfkultur im katalanischen Sprachgebiet. Dissertation, Würzburg. Henrichsen, A. - J. 1965 "La periphrase anar + inf. en ancien occitan", Omagiu lui Alexandra Rosetti (Bucure§ti: Ed. Academiei), 357-363. Hilty, G. 1961 "Oratio reftexa en catalä", ER 8: 185-187. Holle, F. 1908 "La frontera de la lengua catalana en la Francia meridional", Primer congrfs internacional de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 335-339. Hubschmid, J. 1952 "Esp. nava, basque naba, frioul. nava: mots d'origen pre-indoeuropeenne ou galoise?", RIOno 4: 3-22. 1954 Pyrenäenwörter vorromanischen Ursprungs und das vorromanische Substrat der Alpen (= Acta salmanticensia 7,2) (P.U. de Salamanca). 1955 "Le vocabulaire preroman des Pyrenoes et des Alpes", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 429-436. 1960a "Lenguas no-indoeuropeas: testimonios romänicos", in ELH, 1: 27-66. 1960b "Lenguas indo-europeas: testimonios romänicos", in ELH 1: 127-149. Iglesies, Josep 1953 Eis noms de Hoc de les terres catalanes: La Riba (Barcelona: I.E.C.). Iliescu, M. 1970 "Le present de l'indicatif et du subjonctif en frioulan et la morphologic comparee", RRLing 15: 335-343. Institut d'Estudis Catalans (I.E.C.) 1935 Eis seus primers XXV anys (Barcelona: I.E.C.). lordan, lorgu 1968 "Quelques paralleles stylistiques roumaino-catalans", ER 12 (1963-68): 311315. Jungemann, F. H. 1955 La teoria del sustrato y los dialectos hispanoromances y gascones (Madrid: Credos). Junyent, E. 1955 "Lista de las parroquias del Obispado de Vieh segun la visita pastoral del obispo Galcerän Sacosta (1330-1339)", in Griera 1955-60, 1: 367-389. Kleiber, L. 1937 "Katalonien in der deutschen Wissenschaft", Spanischen Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft 6: 411-461. Klesper, O. 1930 "Beiträge zur Syntax altkatalanischer Konjunctionen", BDC 18: 321-421. Kremer, D. 1969-70 "Die germanischen Personennamen in Katalonien: Namensammlung und Etymologisches", ER 14: 1-245, 15: 1-121. Krüger, F. 1913 Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen in Languedoc und Roussillon (Hamburg). [Also published as Revue de dialectologie romane 3 (1911), 5 (1913).] 1928 "Volkstümliche Namengebung", Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 1: 209-283.

Catalan 1929

283

"Sach- und Wortkundliches vom Wasser in den Pyrenäen", Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 2: 139-243. 1932 "Worfeln und Verwandtes in den Pyrenäen", in Alcover 1932: 509-524. 1934 Review of Calveras 1929-30, in ZRPh 54: 349-354. 1935-39 Die Hochpyrenäen. A. Landschaften, Haus und Hof (Hamburg: Friederichsen - de Gruyter, vol. l 1936, vol. 2 1939). B. Hirtenkultur (Hamburg: Frederichsen, 1935), C. Ländliche Arbeit: I. Transport und Transportgeräte, in BDC 23 (1935: 39-240, //. Acker- und Wiesenwirtschaft, Bienenzucht. Öl- und Weinkultur (Hamburg, 1939), D. Hausindustrie, Tracht, Gewerbe, in Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen S (1935): 219-328, 9 (1936): 1-106, E. Bibliographie, Sachverzeichnis, Wortverzeichnis (Hamburg, 1939). Kuen, H. 1932-34 "El dialecto de Alguer y su posicion en la historia de la lengua catalana", AORLL 5 (1932): 121-177, 7 (1934): 41-112. 1950 "Die sprachlichen Verhältnisse auf der Pyrenäenhalbinsel", ZRPh 64: 108-113. 1973 "Die Stellung des Katalanischen in der romanischen Sprachfamilie", Studio Iberica. Festschrift für Hans Flasche (Bern: Francke), 331-352. Kühn,A. 1951 Romanische Philologie, I: Die romanischen Sprachen (Bern: Francke). Lafon, R. 1968 "Reflexions sobre lo perfach perifrastic amb 'anar' en catalä e en occitä", ER 12 (1963-68): 271-277. Leimgruber-Guth, V. 1968 "Katalanisch codonyat, portuguesisch marmelada", ER 13 (1963-68): 75-94. 1977 Llibre del coch. Tractat de cuina medieval (Barcelona 1520) de Robert Nola (Barcelona: Curial). [= Critical edition; vocabulary forthcoming in ER.] Llatas Burgos, V. 1959 El habla de Villar del Arzobispo y de su comarca, 2 vols (Valencia: Institute Alfonso el Magnänimo) Lleo. Concepeio 1970 Problems of Catalan phonology (Seattle: Washington U.P.). Lleo, C. - J. Mascaro 1976 "Contribucio a la fonologia generativa del catalä: reestructuracio en la gramatica", in III Col.loqui: 61-80. Lüdtke, H. 1956 Die strukturelle Entwicklung des romanischen Vokalismus (Bonn: U.P.). 1961 "Sobre el origen de cat. genet, cast, jinete 'caballero armado de lanza y adarga'", ER 8: 117-119. 1968 "El berber y la lingüistica romänica", in XI ACILPR. 555-570. 1976 "La description algorithmique de la flexion verbale du Catalan", in III Col.loqui: 81-91. Lüdtke, H. - G. Colon. 1964 "Die Etymologie von fr. son 'Kleie'", VR 23: 69-84. Macarie, Liliana 1969 "Point de vue au sujet de quelques particularites dans la morphologic du verbe Catalan", RRLing 14: 23-24. 1970 "Traits spocifiques du lexique Catalan. Aper?u sur la terminologie de l'anatomie", in XII ACILPR, 2: 917-921. Malkiel, Yakov 1968 "Hispanic philology", Current trends in linguistics 4 (The Hague: Mouton), 158228. Maneikis Kniazzeh, C. - E. J. Neugaard - J. Coromines (eds.) 1977-78 Vides de sants rosselloneses, 3 vols (Barcelona: Fundacio Salv. Vives i Casa-

284

Joseph Gulsoy

juana). Manent, Albert. 1970 "Toponimia de Vilaplana i del seu terme", BABL 23 (1969-70): 77-106. Mariner Bigorra, Sebastiä 1958 "Casos de catalä - = /-N(C)", in Mariner 1975: 9-19. [First published in Archivum 8 in Castilian.] 1963 "Pro sistema en gramätica", Miscellanea barcinonensia 5: 137-150. [Reprinted in Mariner 1975: 21-42.] 1970 "Heteroclisis de toponimos en -o I -one", Revista de la Universidad de Madrid 19: 185-213. 1971 "Interpretacion de los modos del verbo Catalan segun una nocion triple", Prohemio 3: 439-465. [Reprinted in Mariner 1975: 97-139.] 1975 Estudis estructurals de catalä (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1976 "Questions de metrica estructural catalana", in III Col.loqui: 93-114. [Also in Mariner 1975: 157-189.] Marsä, F. 1954 "San Martin en la peninsula hispänica", RFE 38: 116-132. 1955 "La hagiografia en la toponimia de la Marca Hispänica", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 505-516. 1958 "Influencia de la reconquista en la toponimia catalana", Actasalmanticensia 11.1: 323-330. 1960a "Toponimia de la reconquista", in ELH, 1: 615-646. 1960b "San Martin en la toponimia catalana", in Griera 1955-60, 2: 97-102. Martinet, Andre 1952 "Celtic lenition and western Romance consonants", Lg 28: 192-217. [Reprinted in Martinet 1955: 257-296.] 1955 Economic des changements phonetiques (Bern: Francke). Marx, R. 1912 "Die katalanische Terminologie der Korkstopfenerzeugung", Revue de dialectologie romane 6: 1-80. Mascaro, Joan 1972 Fonologia catalana: processes segmentals i ordenacio ciclica. (Dissertation, Barcelona.) Mascaro Passarius, J. 1962-67 Corpus de toponimia de Mallorca, 6 vols (Palma de Mallorca). Masclans i Girves, F. 1954 Eis noms vulgars de lesplantes a les terres catalanes (Barcelona: I.E.C.). Masia, A. 1955 "Los moros residentes en Cataluna segun los fogajes de 1491, 1497 y 1515", Tamuda 3: 282-290. Massot, J. 1968 "Un vocabulari mallorqui-castellä del segle XVIII", ER 13 (1963-68): 147-163. 1971 Eis mallorquins i la llengua autoctona (Barcelona: Curia). Mateu Llopis, F. 1936 "El vocabulari medieval de l'exercici de la monederia segons documents valencians", BDC 24: 98-126. 1943 "Nomina del sarrains de les muntanyes del Coll de Rates, del Regne de Valencia en l'any 1409 segons el llibre de la Col.lecta del morabeti del Battle de Callosa", inFabra 1943:206-241. 1946 Glosario hispanico de numismätica (Barcelona: Ed. Alberto Martin). 1955 "Toponimos monetales en el dominio Catalan", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 781-795. 1956-57 "Materiales para un glosario de diplomätica hispänica: Corona de Aragon (Reino de Valencia)", BSCC 32: 257-292, 33: 31-54.

Catalan

285

Matons, A. 1922 "Vocabulari de l'oli i de I'olivera", BDC 10: 101-132. Meier, Harri 1930 Beiträge zur sprachlichen Gliederung der Pyrenäenhalbinsel und ihrer historischen Begründung (Hamburg: Friederichsen - de Gruyter). 1961 "Kat. atansar", ER 8: 175-178. 1968 "Futur und Objektspronomen im altkatalanischen Llibre d'Hores", RJb 19: 327335. Mendeloff, H. 1968 "The Catalan periphrastic perfect reconsidered", RJb 19: 319-326. Menendez Pidal, R. 1904 Manual de gramatica historica espanola (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). [13th rev. ed. 1968.] 1908 "Sobre los limites del valenciano", Primer congres international de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 340-344. 1916 Review of Griera 1914a, in RFE 3: 73-88. 1918 "Sobre las vocales iboricas y q en los nombres toponimicos", RFE 5: 225-255. [Reprinted in Menendez Pidal 1952a: 9-48.] 1919 Documentos lingüisticos de Espana (Madrid: Centro de estudios historicos). [Reprinted 1966.] 1926 Origenes del espanol; estado lingüistico de la Peninsula Iberica hasta el siglo XI (Madrid: Hernando). [Third, recast ed. (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1950), 5th ed. 1964.] 1939 "Sobre el substrato mediterräneo occidental", ZRPh 59: 189-206. [Reprinted in MenSndez Pidal 1952a: 73-104.] 1940 "El sufijo -en, su difusion en la onomästica hispana", Em 8: 1-36. 1952a Toponimia prerromanica hispana (= BRHi II, 9) (Madrid: Credos). [Rev. ed. 1968.] 1952b "Ligures o ambroilirios en Portugal", in Mendndez Pidal 1952a: 159-178. 1954 "A proposito de -//- y /- latinas: colonization suditälica de Espana", BAE 34: 165-216. 1955 "Toponimia mediterranea y toponimia valenciana primitiva", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 61-75. 1960 "Colonizacion suritälica de Espana segun testimonies toponimicos e inscripcionales", in ELH, 1: lix-lxviii. Metzeltin, M. 1967 "Eine neue romanische Etymologie von fr. baie", VR 26: 249-276. 1968 "Herkunft und Ausbreitung von venezianisch garbin und katalanisch garbi 'Südwest(wind)'", ER 13 (1963-68): 43-53. 1970 Die Terminologie des Seekompasses in Italien und auf der iberischen Halbinsel bis 1600. (Unpublished dissertation, Basel.) Meyer-Lübke, W. 1890-02 Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (Leipzig: Fues-Reisland, vol. l 1890, vol. 2 1894, vol. 3 1899, vol. 4 1902). 1901 Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft (Heidelberg: Winter). [Third, rev. ed. 1920.] 1911-20 Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg: Winter). [Third, rev. ed. 1935.] 1923 "Els noms de Hoc en el domini de la diocesi d'Urgell", BDC 11: 1-32. 1925 Das Katalanische. Seine Stellung zum Spanischen und Provenzalischen (Heidelberg: Winter). Michelena, L. 1954 "De onomästica aquitana", Pinneos (Zaragoza), 10: 409-455.

286 1957

Joseph Gulsoy

"Las antiguas consonantes vascas", Miscelanea homenaje a Andre Martinet (La Laguna: Ed. Univ.), 1: 113-157. 1961 Fonetica historica vasca (San Sebastian: Diputacion de Guipuzcoa). 1964 Sobre elpasado de la lengua vasca (San Sebastian: Ed. Aunamendi). Milä i Fontanals, M. 1853 Observaciones sobre la poesia popular con muestras de romances catalanes ditos (Barcelona). [Second ed., slightly enlarged, entitled Romancerillo Catalan (Barcelona: Verdaguer, 1882).] 1861 De los trovadores en Espana (Barcelona: Verdaguer). 1874 De la poesia heroico-popular castellana (Barcelona: Verdaguer). 1875 "Catalan contemporäneo: el lenguaje de Barcelona". [Reprinted in Milä 1890: 507-544.] 1890 Obras completas, III, ed. D. M. Menendez y Pelayo (Barcelona: Verdaguer). Milläs-Vallicrosa, J. M. 1955 "Aportacion visigoda y aräbiga al dominio Catalan", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 9397. Miquel i Planas, R. 1939-50 Spül, o Libre de consells de Jaume Roig (Barcelona, vol. l 1939, vol. 2 1950). [Vol. 2 contains the complete vocabulary.] Miquel i Vergos, J. M. 1938 "La filologia catalana en el periode de la Decadencia", Revista de Catalunya 9093: 63-68, 261-285, 429-452, 641-663; appendix 664-672. Miracle, Josep 1968 Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona: Aymä). 1976 Historia anecdotica de I'ortografia catalana (Barcelona). [= Reprint of sections of Miracle 1968.] Miret i Sans, J. 1914 "Los noms personals y geogräfichs de la encontrada de Terrasa en los segles Xc y XI"', BABL 7: 385-407, 485-509. 1916 [Anthroponyms from Organyä from x-xi], BABL 8: 414-444, 522-546. Molho, M. 1976 "L'aorist perifrästic catalä", in II Col.loqui: 67-100. , . 1911 La llengua catalana: Estudi historic (Barcelona). Moll, Aina 1957 "Sufijos nominales y adjectivales en ibicenco", RFE 41: 341^471. Moll, Francesc de B. 1928-32 "Suplement catalä al diccionari romanich etimologich", AORLL 1 (1928): 179-240, 2 (1929): 7-72, 3 (1930): 9-72, 4 (1931): 105-169. 1929-32 "Flexio verbal en els dialectes Catalans", AORLL 2: 73-184, 3: 73-168, 4: 9104, 5: 9-72. 1931 Ortografia mallorquina segons les Normes de Institut (Palma de Mallorca). 1932 "Estudi fonetich y lexical del dialecte de Ciutadella", in Alcover 1932: 397-460. 1934 "Vocabulari tecnic dels molins de vent de les Balears", BDC 22: 1-35. 1936 "Nomenclature de les sinies del Pais Valencia i les Illes Balears", BDC 24: 8294. 1937 Rudiments de gramätica preceptiva per a us dels escriptors balears (Palma de Mallorca). [Rev. eds 1952, 1962, 1963, retitled . . . gramätica normativa... Recast as Gramätica catalana referida especialment a les Illes Balears (Palma: Ed. Moll, 1968).] 1952 Gramätica historica catalana (Madrid: Gredos). 1955 "Eis parlars balearics", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 127-136. 1956 Vocabulari mallorqui-castellä (Palma: Ed. Moll).

Catalan 1959

287

Els llinatges Catalans (Catalunya, Pais Valencia, Illes Balears). Assaig de divulgacio linguistica (Raima: Ed. Moll). 1960a El "Liber Elegantiarum" [del. Esteve, 1489] (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.). 1960b "Estätica y dinämica del Catalan en Mallorca", Papeles de Son Armadans 50: 161-175. 196la "Les sources du Liber elegantiarum", BF 19: 105-111. 1961b "Espigoladures dialectals", ER 8: 179-184. 1962 Un home de combat (Massen Alcover) (Palma de Mallorca: Raixa). 1965a "Comment a etc fait le 'Diccionari catalä-valenciä-balear", Actes du X congres international de linguistique et philologie romanes (Paris: Klincksieck), 819-830. 1965b "Bernhard Schädel i els inicis de la linguistica catalana", Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.), 95-110. 1965c Vocabulari mallorqui-castella (Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll). 1968 "Alguns mots d'origen arable", ER 13 (1963-68): 55-56. [On: edrl, engandores, lloba, tagzim.] 1970 Els meus primers trenta anys (1903-34) (Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll). [Autobiography; continued in Moll 1975.] 1974 "El habla de Mallorca", Historia de Mallorca V, ed. J. Mascaro (Palma: Miramar), 341-471. 1975 Eis altres quaranta anys (Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll). 1977 "Entorn del lexic del Liber elegantiarum", in IV Col.loqui: 117-140. Moll, F. de B . - A . M. Badia 1960 "La llengua de Ramon Lull", Obres essencials [de Ramon Hull] (Barcelona: Ed. Selecta), 2: 1299-1358. Monge, F. 1955 "Sobre las construcciones reflejo-pasivas en Catalan medieval", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 367-376. de Montoliu, M. 1914 "Notes toponimiques. Bellum videre en catalä", BDC 2: 71-73. 1916a "Notes sobre el perfecto perifrästic catalä", ER (First series) 1: 71-84. 1916b "Morfologia del verb segons els documents Catalans del Rossello publicats per N'Alart", ER (first series) 1: 91-116. 1917 "Notes sobre els suffixos -(turn i -ilium en la toponimia catalana", BDC 5: 3437. 1922 "Els noms de rius i els noms fluvials en la toponimia catalana", BDC 10: 1-33. 1962 La renaixe^a i joes florals [i] Verdaguer (Barcelona: Alpha). Monzo Nogues, A. 1951 "El Mijares y el mijarense", Anales del Centra de Cultura Valenciana 12: 41-65, 93-120, 187-249. Morel-Fatio, A. 1888 "Das Catalanische", in Gröber 1888, 1: 669-688. [Article revised by J. Saroihandy in second ed.: Gröber 1904-06, 2: 841-877.] Moreu-Rey, E. 1962 La rodalia de Caldes de Montbui. Repertori historic de noms de Hoc i de noms de persona (Barcelona: Teide). 1964 San Martin de Tours, su devocion en Cataluna, segun la toponimia, la antroponimia, el folklore, 2 vols (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.). 1965 Els noms de Hoc: Introduccio a la toponimia (Barcelona: Unio Excursionista de Catalunya). 1969 "De l'hagiotopönim a rantropönim", Sanies creus 3: 555-563. 1971 "La devotion ä St. Michel dans les Pays Catalans", Millenaire monastique du Mont-Saint-Michel (Paris), 3: 369-388.

288

Joseph Gulsoy

1973 "Martin. Problome philologique et historique", AEM 7 (1972-73): 35-68. 1974a Toponimia catalana: assaig de bibliografia (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.). 1974b Toponimia urbana i onomastica väria (Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll). Morf, H. 1909 "Mundartenforschung und Geschichte auf romanischen Gebiet", Bulletin de dialectologie romane 1: 1-17. Morosi, G. 1886 "L'odierno dialetto catalano di Alghero in Sardegna", In memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angela Canello (Firenze), 312-332. Morreale, Margarita 1960 "Apuntes bibliogräficos para la iniciacion al estudio de las traducciones biblicas medievales en Catalan", Analecta sacra tarraconensia 31: 271-290. Mourin, L. 1969 "Le present de subjonctif en Catalan, et la morphologic compared", Melanges Rita Lejeune (Gembloux: Duculot), 1: 367-377. Müller, Kristin A. 1968 "Altes Werkzeug für Feld und Garten in Beget (Alta Garrotxa)", ER 13 (196368): 165-191. Mussafia, A. 1876 "Catalonische metrische Version der Sieben Weisen Meister", Denkschriften der kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien) 25: 151-232. Nadal, Josep M. 1975 "Semäntica i sintaxi. (Aspectes de la complementacio en catalä)", Els Marges 3: 7-38. 1976 "Introduccio a l'estudi de les oracions completives del catalä", in III Col.loqui: 115-140. Navarro, Messen A. 1908 "El catalä del Ribagorca", Primer congres internacional de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 222-231. Navarro Tomäs, T. - M. Sanchis Guarner 1934 "Anälisis fonetico del valenciano literario", RFE 21: 113-141. Niepage, M. 1909 Laut- und Formenlehre der Mallorkinischen Urkundensprache. Dissertation, Halle. [Published: Revue de dialectologie romane l (1909): 301-385, 2 (1910): 155. Reviewed by . A. Alcover, BDLIC 6 (1910-11): 178-185, 229-234.] Nieto, Lidio 1977 "Embarcaciones y artes de pesca en Cullera y Denia", in Alvar 1977: 93-108. Nonell i Mas, J. 1895 Analisis morfologich de la llengua catalana antiga comparada amb la moderna (Manresa). de Oleza, J. 1928 Zur Bestimmung der Mundart der katalanischen Version der Graalsage (Barcelona). Olivar, M. 1936 "Notes entorn la influencia de YArs dictandi sobre la prosa catalana de cancellaria de final del segle XIV", Estudis universitaris Catalans 22: 631-653. d'Olwer, Lluis Nicolau 1966 Estudis de llati medieval i de filologia romanica dedicats a la memoria de Lluis Nicolau d'Olwer (= ER 8-9) Barcelona: I.E.C.). Pais, J. 1970 Gramätica algueresa I, edited by P. Scanu (Barcelona: Barcino). Palau i Marti, F. 1976 "Morfologia i accentologia del catalä central", in III Col.loqui: 141-171.

Catalan

289

Pallares, M. 1921 "Vocabulari de Penarroja (Bajo Aragon)", BDC 9: 69-72. Par, A. 1923 Sintaxi catalana segons los escrits en prosa de Bernat Metge (1398) (= Beiheft zur ZRPh 66) (Halle: Niemeyer). 1929a "Qui y que en la peninsula iberica", RFE 16: 1-34. 1929b "Qui y que en el dominio Catalan", RFE 16: 113-147. 1930 "La desinencia -o del indicatiu present", AORLL 3: 169-176. Pardo Garcia, L. 1930-32 "Vocabulario de nombres valencianos de la flora regional", Anales del Centra de Cultura Valenciana 3 (1930): 213-223, 4 (1931): 34-40, 132-136, 5 (1932): 3440, 144-162. Phelps, E. 1973 "Catalan vowel reduction - alpha, braces, or angled brackets", Lin 8: 246-249. Piel, Joseph M. 1955 "Die ältesten Personennamen Kataloniens in ihrem Verhältnis zu den altspanischen und altportugiesischen", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 797-810. 1960 "Antroponimia germänica", in ELH, 1: 421-444. 1968a "Kleine Beiträge zur katalanischen Toponomastik", ER 13 (1963-68): 237-244. 1968b "Beiträge zur spanischen und portugiesischen Phytotoponomastik", I, Litterae Hispanae et Lusitanae. Festschrift Ibero-Amerikanischen Forschungsinstitut (München: Hueber), 331-348; II, Festschrift W. von Wartburg (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 175-194. Piel, J. M . - D . Kremer forthcoming Hispano-gotisches Namenbuch (Heidelberg: Winter), di Pietro, R. J. 1965 "Los fonemas del Catalan", RFE 48: 153-158. Pla, J. 1962 "Joan Coromines", Homenots (Barcelona: Ed. Selecta), 237-263. Pla i Arxe, R. 1975 "L'Aveng (1891-1915): La modernitzacio de la renaixensa", Els Marges 4: 2338. Planeil, A. 1974 "La filiacion lingüistica del Catalan", Hispanofila 51: 65-71. Pokorny, J. 1935-38 "Zur Urgeschichte der Kelten und Illyrier", ZCPh 20: 315-352, 21: 55-166. Pop, S. 1950 La dialectologie (Louvain: L'Auteur). Prat i Serra, Montserrat 1975 Assaig de bibliograßa de la llengua catalana. (Dissertation, Barcelona.) [To be published.] Quintana Font, Artur 1973 El parlar de la Codonyera: Resultats d'unes enquestes. Dissertation, Barcelona. [14 page abstract published, Univ. of Barcelona.] 1976 "El aragones residual del bajo valle del Mezquin", AFA 18-19: 53-86. [Lexicon, pp. 67-86.] 1977 "El lexic de la Codonyera (Baix Arago)", in IV Col.loqui: 223-233. Rafel i Fontanals, Joaquim 1968 "La -u catalana d'origen consonäntic", ER 12 (1963-68): 179-212. 1973 La lengua catalana fronteriza en el Bajo Aragon meridional: estudio fonologico. (Dissertation, Barcelona.) [Published in limited mimeo.] 1976 "Fonologia diacrönica catalana: aspectes metodolögiques", in II Col.loqui: 4765.

290

Joseph Gulsoy

forthcoming "Areas lexicas en una zona de encrucijada lingüistica". Ramirez, P. 1968 "D'una filosofia del llenguatge a! cami de la parla", ER 13 (1963-68): 357-369. 1970 La poesia d'Ausiäs March. Anälisi textual, cronologia, elements filosöfics. (Dissertation, Basel.) Reixach, Modest 1974 La llengua delpoble. Una mesura de catalanitat (Barcelona: Nova Terra), de Riquer, Marti 1955 "La lerigua de los poetas catalanes medievales", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 171-179. 1964- Historia de la literatura catalana (Barcelona: Ariel, vols l and 2 1964, vol. 3 1966). 1968 L'arnes del cavalier. Armes i armadures catalanes medievals (Barcelona: Ariel), forthcoming "Evolucion estilistica de la prosa catalana medieval", to appear in Actas del VI congreso international de hispanistas. de Riquer, M. - A. Comas 1972 Historia de la literatura Catalana, vol. 4 (Barcelona: Ariel). Rius Serra, Mons. J. (ed.) 1946 Rationes Decimarum Hispaniae, I. Cataluna, Mallorca y Valencia (Barcelona). Roca-Pons, J. 1954a "Entorn del valor auxiliar del verb castellä ir amb el participi", ER 4 (1953-54): 95-105. 1954b "Sobre el valor auxiliar y copulativo del verbo andar", Archivum 4: 166-182. 1955a "Dejar + participio", RFE29: 151-185. 1955b "Estar + participi, adjectiu complement preposicional en catalä antic", RLaR 72: 5-23. 1958a Estudios sobre las perifrasis verbales en espanol (= Anejo a RFE 67) (Madrid: C.S.I.C.). [Originally a dissertation, Madrid, 1953.] 1958b "Verbs auxiliars afins a estar en catalä antic", ER 6 (1957-58): 189-193. 1960 "Tener + participi en catalä antic", in Griera 1955-60, 2: 297-312. 1961 "Estar mos gerundi en catalä antic", ER 8: 1-5. 1968 "Morfologia verbal catalana", ER 12 (1963-68): 227-254. 1971 Introduccio a l'estudi de la llengua catalana (Barcelona: Vergara). 1976 "Les formes subjacents i la morfologia catalana", in HI Col.loqui: 173-199. 1977 "Sobre la flexio nominal catalana", Catalan studies volume in memory of Josephine de Boer (Barcelona: Hispam), 99-109. Rodon , . 1957 El lenguaje tecnico del feudalismo en elsiglo XI en Cataluna (Barcelona: Escuela de Filologia). 1970 "El latin medieval como fuente para los origenes de los romances hispänicos", in XII ACILPR, 2: 145-149. Rohlfs, Gerhard 1951 "Aspectos de toponimia espanola", BF12: 229-265. [Reprinted in Rohlfs 1956: 1-38.] 1952 "Problemes de toponymie aragonaise et catalane (le suffixe -ue, -«>)", A FA 4: 129-152. [Reprinted in Rohlfs 1956: 82-102.] 1954 Die lexicalische Differenzierung der romanischen Sprachen (München: Akademie). [Reviewed by G. Colon in ZRPh 74 (1958): 285-294. Translated by M. Alvar äs Diferenciacion lexica de las lenguas romänicas (Madrid: C.S.I.C., I960).] 1955 "Concordancias entre Catalan y gascon", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 663-672. 1956 Studien zur romanischen Namenkunde (München: Beck). 1957 Manual de filologia hispanica: guia bibliografica, critica y metodica (Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo).

Catalan

291

1961 "Apuntes para una flora popular de Espana", ER 8: 121-133. Rokseth, P. 1921a "La diphtongaison en Catalan", Romania 47: 532-546. 1921b "L'article majorquin et Particle roman dorive de IPSU", Biblioteca filologica 13: 86-100. 1923 Terminologie de la culture des cereales ä Majorque (Barcelona: I.E.G.). Rubio i Balaguer, Jordi 1955 "Influencia de la sintaxi llatina en la cancellaria catalana del segle XV", BDE 3334 (1953-55): 357-364. 1967 Estudis de literaiura catalana ofertsaJordi Rubio i Balaguer (= ER 10-11), edited by R. Aramon (Barcelona: I.E.G.). 1976 "El sintagma 'si altre', 'mi terg', 'si quart', etc. als segles XIII al XV", in III Col.loqui: 201-205. Rubio i Lluch, Antoni 1908 "La llengua catalana a Grecia", Primer congres internacional de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 235-247. 1936 Homenatge a Antoni Rubio i Lluch. Miscel.länia d'estudis literaris, histories i linguistics, 3 vols (Barcelona; vol. 3, Est. Univ. Cat. 22). Russell-Gebbett, P. N. 1956 "The xipella subdialect of Catalan in Tuixen and Josa de Cadi; yeisme in Gösol and Sorribes'1, Orbis 5: 393-^06. 1961 "Catalan oriental y Catalan occidental en el nordeste de la provincia de Lorida", BF 19: 305-315. 1965 Medieval Catalan linguistic texts (Oxford: Dolphin). 1973 "Mossen Pere Pujol's Documents en vulgar dels segles XI, XII and XIII procedents del bisbat de la Seu d'Urgell (Barcelona 1913): a partial re-transcription and commentary", Hommage to F. Whitehead (Manchester: U.P.): 257-277. 1976a "La expresion de las condiciones de realization imposible en el Catalan medieval", in XIII ACILPR 1: 367-372. 1976b "L'estructura de les oracions condicionals de realitzacio impossible en el catala medieval", in III Col.loqui: 207-216. Sachs, Georg 1932 Die germanischen Ortsnamen in Spanien und Portugal (Jena/Leipzig: Gronau). Salient, A. 1922 "Els noms dels ocells a Catalunya", BDC 10: 54-100. Salow, K. 1912 Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen über den östlichen Teil des katalanischlanguedokischen Grenzgebietes (Hamburg: Gräfe-Sillem). Saltarelli, Mario 1970a "Fonologia e morfologia algherese", AGl 55: 233-256. 1970b "Fonologia generativa dell'algherese", in XII ACILPR 1: 311-314. Salvador, Carles 1943 "Petit vocabulari de Benassal (Maestrat)", in Fabra 1943: 242-263. Salvador, Gregorio 1953 "Aragonesismos en el andaluz oriental", AFA 5: 143-164. 1960 "Catalanismos en el habla de Cullar-Baza", in Griera 1955-60, 2: 335-342. Sanchis Guarner, M. 1933 La llengua dels valencians (Valencia). [Third extended ed. Valencia: Garbi, 1967); 4th ed. (Valencia: Col.leccio 3 i 4, 1972).] 1936a "Locucions töpiques valencianes", Bolleti del diccionari de la llengua catalana 18. 1936b "Extension y vitalidad del dialecto valenciano apitxat", RFE 23: 45-62. 1943 "Folklore geogräfic de la comarca d'Alcoi", in Fabra 1943: 380-400.

292

Joseph Gulsoy

1949 "Noticia del habla de Aguaviva de Aragon", RFE 33: 15-65. 1950a Introduction a la historia lingüistica de Valencia (Valencia: Institute Alfonso el Magnänimo). [Short course of lectures delivered Valencia 1948.] 1950b Gramätica valenciana (Valencia: Ed. Torre). 1951 "De toponimia aräbigo-valentina", RVF1: 259-271. 1953 "Le dictionnaire historique et dialectal du Catalan 'Alcover: travaux, problemes et methodes", Orbis 2: 104-112. 1954 "El lexico marinero mediterraneo", RVF 4: 7-22. 1955a "Els parlars romänics anteriors a la reconquista de Valencia i Mallorca", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 447-482. 1955b "La cartografia lingüistica catalana", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 647-654. 1956a "Factores historicos de los dialectos catalanes", Estudios dedicados a Menendez Pidal, VI (Madrid: Gredos), 151-186. 1956b "Els noms Catalans de la cuereta (Motacilla alba)", ER 5 (1955-56): 141-159. 1956c "Los nombres del murcielago en el dominio Catalan", RFE 40: 91-125. 1958 "Las minorias religiosas en la toponimia de Cataluna, Valencia y Mallorca", Acta salmanticensia 11.1: 467-473. 1960a "Francesc de B. Moll, philologue Catalan. Esquisse biographique", Orbis 9: 251254. 1960b "El mozarabe peninsular", in ELH, 1: 293-342. 1961 "El Atlas lingüistico de la peninsula iberica (ALPl). Trabajo, problemas y metodos", BF20: 113-120. 1962 "La lengua de Ausiäs March", RVF 6 (1959-62): 85-99. 1963a Els valencians i la llengua autoctona durant els segles XVI, XVII i XVIII (Valencia: Instituto Alfonso el Magnänimo). 1963b "Els noms Catalans de 1'oronella (Hirundo rustica)", Homenaje Damaso Alonso III (Madrid: Gredos), 381-396. 1966 Contribucio al nomenclator geografic del Pais Valencia (Barcelona: I.E.G.). 1967a "Las hablas del Alto Mijares y de Fanzara (Prov. de Cast.)", BAE 47: 201-212. 1967b "Sobre la data de les Regies de purisme idiomatic de Bernat Fenollar", ER 10 (1962-67): 307-310. 1968 "Noticia del habla de Enguera y la Canal de Navarres (Provincia de Valencia)", in XI ACILPR: 2039-2045. 1972 La ciutat de Valencia. Sintesi d'historia i geografia urbana (Valencia: Diputacio). 1973 "La frontera lingüistica en les provincies d'Alacant i Murcia". Cuadernos de Geografia (U. de Val.) [Reprinted in Sanchis Guarner 1976: 183-211.] 1976 Obra completa, I (Valencia: Col.leccio 3 i 4). Sanchis Guarner, M. - W. G. Diago Nebot 1966 "La elaboracion del canamo en la Vail d'Uixo", RVF 7 (1963-66): 7-22. Sanchis Sivera, J. 1922 Nomenclator geografico-eclesiastico de los pueblos de la diocesis de Valencia (Valencia: Gimeno). Saroihandy, J. 1905 "Remarques sur la conjugaison catalane", BHi 1: 128-139. 1906a See Morel-Fatio 1888. 1906b "Les limites du valencien", BHi 8: 297-303. 1907 "Les gloses catalanes de Munich", RF23: 241-251. 1908 "El catalä del Pirineu a la ratlla d'Arago", Primer congres international de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 331-334. Schädel, Bernhard 1904 Untersuchungen zur katalanischen Lautentwicklung. Dissertation, Halle. 1905 Mundartliches aus Mallorca [phonetic texts from Manacor and Soller] (Halle:

Catalan

293

Haupt). 1908a "Über die Zukunft der katalanischen Sprachstudien", Primer congres international de la llengua catalana (Barcelona), 410-415, and, in Catalan translation by . Alcover, 415-420. 1908b "La frontiere entre le gascon et le Catalan", Romania 37: 140-156. 1908c Manual de fonetica catalana (Cöthen). 1908d "Zur Entwicklung des finalen a im Ampurdä", Festschrift für K. Vollmöller (Erlangen: Junge), 83-98. 1909 "Die katalanischen Pyrenäendialekte", Revue de dialectologie romane 1: 15-98, 386-412. 1911 "Zur Sprache der Doctrina dels Infants", Bulletin de dialectologie romane 3: 101110. Schib, Gret 1972 Doctrina pueril [critical edition] (ENCl) (Barcelona: Barcino). 1975 Sermons de Sant Vicent Ferrer III, [critical edition] (ENCl) (Barcelona: Barcino). 1977 Vocabulari de Sant Vicent Ferrer (Barcelona: Fundacio Salv. Vives i Casajuana). Schlieben-Lange, Birgitte 197la Okzitanisch und Katalanisch. Ein Beitrag zur Soziolinguistik zweier romanischen Sprachen (= TEL 20) (Tübingen: Narr). 1971b Okzitanische und katalanische Verbprobleme ( = Beiheft zur ZRPh 127) (Tübingen: Niemeyer). Schmoll, U. 1959 Die Sprachen der vorkeltischen Indogermanen Hispaniens (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Schurr, Friedrich 1955 "La posicion del Catalan en el conjunto de la diptongacion romänica", BDE 33-34(1953-55): 151-166. 1968 "Nochmals über das Diphthongierungsproblem im iberoromanischen und besonders im katalanischen", ER 12 (1963-68): 173-178. Scudieri Ruggieri, J. 1969 "Considerazioni sul latino di Spagna del secolo IV", CultNeol 29: 126-158. Seifert, Eva 1936 "Das Katalanische in den Werken von Friedrich Diez", in Rubio i Lluch 1936,1: 193-199. 1958 "Die Verben HABERE und TENERE in Katalanischen", ER 6 (1957-58): 1-74. Serra i Orvay, V. 1908 "Apreci en que es tinguda a Eyvissa la llengua pröpia", Primer congres international de la llengua catalana (Barcelona): 183-187. Serra i Rafols, E. 1969 "La introduccio del castellä com a llengua d'ensenyament", ER 12 (1963-68): 19-28. Serrano i Farrera, S. 1973 Matematicas y metodologia de la investigation lingüisüca. (Dissertation, Barcelona.) 1975 Elementes de lingüistica matematica (Barcelona). 1976 "Models matemätics en lingüistica: una aplicacio" in II Col.loqui: 11-16. Soberanas, A. J. 1968 Diälegs de Sant Gregori, 2 vols (ENCl) (Barcelona: Barcino). 1977 "Les edicions catalanes del diccionari de Nebrija", in IV Col.loqui: 141-203. Sobre, J. - M. 1973 "L'artifici de La del diamant. Un estudi linguistic", In memoriam Carles Riba (Barcelona: Ariel), 363-375.

294

Joseph Gulsoy

Soff, Irene 1963 Die Formen der katalanischen Verbalendungen von den Anfängen der schriftlichen Überlieferung bis 1400. (Dissertation, Erlangen/Nürnberg.) Sola, Joan 1968 "Substantivacio de l'infinitiu en catalä", ER 12 (1963-68): 289-309. 1972-73 Estudis de sintaxi catalana, 2 vols (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1973 "Orthographe et grammaire catalanes", in I Col.loqui: 81-100. [Discussion, 100113.] 1976a "^Negation döble en Catalan (antiguo y moderne)?", in XIII ACILPR, 1: 373387. 1976b "Bibliografia d'histöria de la llengua", Anuario de filologia (Barcelona) 2: 549561. 1977 Del catalä incorrecte al catalä correcte. Historia dels criteris de correccio lingülstica (Barcelona: Edicions 62). Sola-Solo, J. M. 1950 "Alguns arabismes Catalans", ER 2 (1949-50): 107-111. 1968 "El articulo al- en los arabismos de ibero-romänico", RomPh 21: 275-285. 1973 Corpus de condones mozarabes (Barcelona: Hispam). Soldevila, F. 1968 "L'us del preterit perifrästic en la Cronica de Muntaner", ER 12 (1963-68): 267-270. Spelbrink, W. 1936-37 "Die Mittelmeerinseln Eivissa und Formentera", BDC 24: 184-281, 25: 1147. Spitzer, L. 1913 "Etymologisches aus dem Katalanischen", NPhM 15: 157-179. 1918 "Katalanische Etymologien", Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet der romanischen Sprachen 4. 1920 "Sobre la formacio de paraules onomatopeiques en catalä", BDC 8: 60-68. 1921 Lexicalisches aus dem Katalanischen und übrigen ibet'-romanischen Sprachen ( = supp. to Archivum Romanicum) (Geneve: Olschki). 1923 "Ethnologies catalanes", BDC 11: 119-122. 1958 Studio philologica et litteraria in honorem L. Spitzer (Bern: Francke). Steiger, Arnald 1932 Contribucion a la fonetica del hispano-arabe y de los arabismos en el iberoromänico y el siciliano (Madrid: Hernando). 1943 "Zur Sprache der Mozaraber", Festschrift J. Jud (= Romanica Helvetica 20) (Geneve: Droz), 624-714. 1949 "Aufmarschstrassen des morgenländischen Sprachgutes", VR 10 (1948-49): 162. 1955 "Penetracion del le"xico aräbigo en el catalän y el provenzal", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 555-570. 1967 "Elementes constitutivos: Arabismos", in ELH, 2: 93-126. Tavani, G. 1970 "Termini marinareschi catalani secondo il Llibre de consolat de mär", Bolleuno dell'atlante linguistico mediterraneo 1968-70: 9-12, 221-230. Terradell, Miquel 1962 Les arrels de Catalunya (Barcelona). 1965 [On the pre-Romance peoples of Catalunya], Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.), 1: 173-181. Thede, M. 1933 "Die Albufera von Valencia. Eine volkskundliche Darstellung", Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 6: 210-273, 317-383.

Catalan

295

Torres Brüll, F. 1951 Bibliografia de Manuel de Montoüu (Tarragona: Inst, de Est. Tarrac.). Tovar, Antonio 1948 "La sonorizacion y caida de las intervocälicas y los estratos indoeuropeos en Hispania", BAE 28: 265-280. 1955 "Sustratos hispänicos, y la inflexion romänica en relacion con la infeccion celtica", BDE 33-34 (1953-55): 387-399. 1960a "Lenguas prerromanas no indoeuropeas: testimonios antiguos", in ELH1: 5-26. 1960b "Lenguas prerromanas indoeuropeas: testimonios antiguos", in ELH, 1: 101126. 1968a Lo que sabemos de la lucha de lenguas en la Peninsula Iberica (Madrid: Del Toro). 1968b Latin de Hispania: aspectos lexicos de la romanizacion (Madrid: Real Academia). [Inaugural lecture.] 1972 Homenaje a Antonio Tovar (Madrid: Gredos). Udina i Martorell, F. 1960 "Moms Catalans de persona als documents dels segles X-XI", in Griera 1955-60, 2: 387-402. 1961 El nom de Catalunya (Barcelona: Dalmau). Ukas, C. 1977 "Distinctive features and the Catalan vowel system", Catalan studies volume in memory of Josephine de Boer (Barcelona: Hispam), 111-121. Valles, E. 1947 Pal.las. Diccionari catalä il.lustrat (Barcelona: Diccionaris Pal.las). [Second ed. 1962.] Vallverdu, F. 1968 L'escriptor catalä i elproblema de la llengua (Barcelona: Edicions 62). 1970 Dues llengues: dues funcions? Per una histdria lingüistica de la Catalunya contemporania (Barcelona: Edicions 62). Vassilieva-Svede, O. 1970 "Algunas tendencias en la evolucion de la estructura gramatical del espanol, Catalan y portugues", in XII ACILPR 1: 497-504. 1976 "La categoria del aspecto verbal en las lenguas pirenaico-romances (espanol, portugues, gallego y Catalan)", in XIII ACILPR 1: 483-492. Veny i Clar, Joan 1957 "Los supervivientes romänicos de talentum 'deseo'", RLR 21: 106-137. 1959-60 "Paralelismos lexicos en los dialectos catalanes", RFE 42: 91-149, 43: 117202. 1962 "Notes phonetiques sur le parier de Campos (Majorque)", BF20: 323-340. 1963 "Notas lexicas sobre el habla de Campos (Mallorca), Orbis 12: 132-140. 1968a "Els noms Catalans de l'estornut", ER 13 (1963-68): 95-125. 1968b "Interes linguistico del Regiment de preservacio de pestilencia de Jacme d'Agramont (s. XIV)", in XI ACILPR 2: 1017-1029. 1971 Regiment de preservacio de pestilencia, de Jacme d'Agramont (s. XIV), Introduccio, transcripcio i estudi linguistic (Tarragona: Diputacion). 1973 "Dialectologie catalane", in I Col.loqui: 289-337. 1976 "El Valencia meridional", in II Col.loqui: 145-180 (plus 50 maps). 1977 "Problemas de ictionimia catalana", in Alvar 1977: 309-323. Veres d'Ocon, E. 1951 "Huellas de la asimilacion solar en los arabismos del catalän-valenciano", RVF 1: 217-239. 1952 "La diptongacion en el mozärabe levantino", RVF 2: 139-148. 1960 "Toponimia aräbiga", in ELH, 1: 561-578 (plus 4 maps).

296

Joseph Gulsoy

Vernet, J. 1965 "Antroponimos musulmanes en los actuates partidos judiciales de Falset y Gandesa", Homenaje a Jaime Vicens Vives (Barcelona: Ed. Univ.), 1: 123-126. Vidal, P. 1913 "Molanges de toponymie catalane", Ruscino 3: 51-82, 167-174. Vidos, B. E. 1939 Storia di parole marinaresche italiane passate in francese (Firenze: Olschki). Vilar, P. 1896 "Notice sur la vie et les travaux de Julien-Bernard Alart", Bulletin de la Societi Agricole, Scientifique et Litteraire des Pyrenees Orientales (Perpignan), 37. Violant i Simorra, R. 1934 Elaboracio del cänem i de la liana al Pallors (Barcelona: Igualada). 1943 "La terminologia sobre l'individu en el Flamisell: Notes per a un vocabulari del Pallars Sobira", in Fabra 1943: 289-308. 1949 Elpirineo espanol (Madrid: Editorial Plus-Ultra). 1950 "Terminologia sobre el foc, la llar i la Hum al Pallars Sobira", Anales del Institute de Lingüistica de Cuyo 4: 191-227. 1954 "El nom, les habituds, les funcions biologiques i les malalties de les ovelles, al Pallars Sobirä", Homenaje a Fritz Krüger (Mendoza: P.U. de Cuyo), 2: 135152. 1958 "El arado y el yugo tradicionales en Cataluna", RDyTP 14: 306-353, 441-497. Vogel, E. 1911-16 Taschenwörterbuch der katalanischen und deutschen Sprachen, 2 vols (Berlin: Langenscheidt). Vogt, E. E. 1970 Topics in Catalan phonology. (Dissertation, Harvard.) [Excerpts published as Vogt 1972.] 1972 "Catalan vowel reduction and the angled bracket notation", Lin 7: 233-237. von Wartburg, W. 1922 Review of Meyer-Lübke 1901/1920, in ZRPh 42: 371-377. Wheeler, Max W. 1972 "Distinctive features and natural classes in phonological theory", JL 8: 87-102. 1975 Some rules in a generative phonology of modern Catalan. Dissertation, Oxford. [Published as Phonology of Catalan (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979).] 1977 "Els fonemes Catalans: alguns problemes", Els Marges 9: 7-22. forthcoming "Estar i anar + gerundi en dos textos del segle XV", to appear in ER. Wilmer, R. 1952 "Contribution a la terminologia de la fauna y flora pirenaica: Valle de Vio (Aragon)", Homenaje a Fritz Krüger (Mendoza: P. U. de Cuyo), 157-192. Wittlin, Curt J. 1971- Llibre del tresor [critical edition] (ENCl) (Barcelona: Barcino, vol. 1 1971, vol. 2 1976, vol. 3 forthcoming). 1976 "Les traducteurs au moyen age: observations sur leurs techniques et difficultos", in XIIIACILPR 2: 601-609.

3.3 Non-metropolitan romance

AUGUSTE VIATTE

French outside France

0. In broad terms, there are two major groups of peoples outside France who speak French. The first comprises those Europeans who live in areas contiguous to France, within very precise limits which nowhere coincide with political frontiers, and whose language, in constant use since Roman times, has evolved in the same way and with similar dialectal variation. The second takes in those distant overseas territories where French was recently superimposed upon very different languages and was influenced by them, giving birth in the process to sabirs, pidgins and Creoles. 1.1 Belgium Belgium is typical of the first group. There are no physical barriers marking either the state frontier or, for that matter, the linguistic frontier. The patois are the same as those of neighbouring areas: Picard at Mons, Lorrain at Virton and, in between, Walloon, itself subdivided into three varieties - one western, one at Namur and one at Liege. They remain more vigorous than elsewhere and produce, even today, quite a number of literary works. The capital, Brussels, inhabited by a Frenchspeaking majority but located in the Flemish sector of the kingdom, has its own distinctive accent and vocabulary - well illustrated in the jokes of the famous Fonson-Wicheler play Le manage de Mile Beulemans. It is hardly surprising, then, that many Belgian linguists take special care to promote 'le bon usage1 and to combat 'les belgicismes'. In this connection we should mention the yearly Quinzaine du bon usage, instituted by Albert Doppagne and the Fondation Charles Plisnier; the Orthophonie frangaise written by Louis Remacle in 1948, and the Dietionnaire des difficultes grammaticales et lexicologiques (1949/1971) compiled by Joseph Hanse, together with the volume Chasse aux belgi-

300

Auguste Viatte

cismes assembled by Hanse and others in 1971. Maurice Grevisse won international acclaim in such matters for his Bon usage (1936/1975) and his subsequent Problemes de langage (1961 - ). This general concern for 'good French' has not militated against the progress of purely descriptive studies. After the major forerunners Marc Wilmotte and Jules Feller, Jean Haust was inspired by Gillioron's example to begin, around 1924, an inquiry which was to result, under the subsequent direction of Louis Remacle, in the Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie (Haust et al 1953-69). Jacques Pohl also followed up his early work on Belgian regional pronunciation (1948, 1956), with Temoignages sur la syntaxe du verbe dans quelques parlers de Belgique (1962) which A. Goosen rated "the first scientific work on Belgian French". And, since written texts appeared in Belgium very early in the Middle Ages, historical research is by no means lacking - on the charters, on legal proceedings, and on those grammarians who resisted belgicismes in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries such as Gabriel Meurier, Antoine-Fidele Poyart and Laurent Chifflet, all Frenchmen who came to teach correct French and consequently provide us with information as to the local peculiarities of their times. There is also a considerable amount of historical grammar in Marius Valkhoff's Philologie et litterature wallonnes (1938). The expansion of French in Flanders is described in theses by Marcel Deneckere (1947) and Camille van Deyck (1927). On present-day urban varieties of French, there are studies on Ghent (Breckx 1955), on Brussels (Beardsmore 1971) and on Liege (Haust 1933, 1948); while the rural French of the district of Gleize has been well explored by Louis Remacle (1952-60), and that of Virton - as reflected in the works of the novelist Quernol, written in patois - is studied in an unpublished thesis by J. Lescrenier. Other theses have been devoted to neologisms coined by the novelist Camille Lemonnier, but these owe practically nothing to local dialectal usage and a great deal to the 'ecriture artiste' of J. K. Huysmans or the Goncourt brothers. Very thoughtful and sensible studies on the interference of local and standard French, as well as on dialect literature, have been contributed by Maurice Piron (especially 1971, 1973). 1.2 Switzerland There are many similarities between the French-speaking parts of Belgium and those of Switzerland. In Switzerland, however, the remaining dialects belong to the franco-provenfal group, intermediate

French outside France

301

between those of langue d'oil and langue d'oc, except in the newly autonomous Jura, where they are more closely related to franc-comlois, a variety of langue d'oil. The Swiss dialects are close to extinction. When in 1924 work began on the as yet incomplete Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande, its compilers wrote that this was the very last opportunity to record a language which had been dead in the large cities since the beginning of the century and was in very rapid decline in rural areas (Gauchat et al 1924). Similarly, the Nouveau glossaire genevois by Jean Humbert, published in 1852 and reprinted in 1970, is now of purely historical interest since most of the words included in it are no longer in use. The vigour of the dialects should not be overestimated on the basis of such manifestations as the dialect poetry of Jules Surdez, a schoolteacher in the Jura (see especially his collection of proverbs and folk sayings, 1949), or the vogue for certain folk songs like the Aidjolats, also in the Jura, or the older Ranz des vaches in Gruyere; all these are amusements for local scholars or folklore associated with patriotic commemoration but very remote from everyday usage. There remains, nonetheless, a popular French which sometimes reflects the former patois and which has been analysed in studies like that of Henri Perrochon on Le langage des Vaudois (1972). The German language spoken by four fifths of the Swiss population has exerted, through this numerical preponderance, considerable influence on administrative style. Over-literal translations have resulted in the so-called 'frangais federal' which grammarians attempt to combat, resisting - as in Belgium - those improprieties and solecisms which are well illustrated in the Fichier franfais de Berne. Although they pertain more to the field of literature than of linguistics, one must also take account of the theories of that very fine writer, the late C. F. Ramuz. In his famous Lettre ä Bernard Grasset he claimed, by birthright, the use of a kind of French which was not learned at school but inherited from his forefathers, Vaudois wine-growers. In fact, far from crudely collecting words and structures heard in the farms and village streets, he elaborated them with great artistry into a juicy prose whose syntax is modelled on popular speech. He won many admirers (as distinct from followers) among whom the greatest in France was Jean Giono. His style was so original that too close an imitation would seem like a copy, but his ideas struck a sympathetic chord in other French-speaking countries where love of the French language has to be reconciled with the quest for authenticity.

302

Auguste Viatte

1.3 Other French-speaking countries in Europe In Italy there are two principal concentrations of French speech: firstly, those remnants of French in the Valdese valleys of Piedmont, formerly the territory of religious refugees, where Protestant liturgy still uses the Calvinist Bible; secondly and more importantly, in the autonomous bilingual Val d'Aosta, where standard French is an official language taught in school, with its own writers and its regional Academie de StAnselme, and where the inhabitants of the smaller valleys speak a variety of patois belonging to the same franco-provengal group as those of the Swiss Valais or of Savoy. Both standard and dialectal French in Italy developed from Latin, under the same conditions as in France, and the Dukes of Savoy, of whose dukedom Aosta was a dependency, made it the official language in 1561. It is now in very rapid decline in the Valdese valleys - which are small, no longer isolated, and near Turin; in the Val d'Aosta itself, the growth of industry, attracting workers from the whole Italian peninsula, tends to confine French to the remote areas and there are also political pressures, which amounted to compulsion during the fascist era, to substitute Italian for French. Most books on the subject are apologetic or polemical, actively concerned with the defence of the French language. An early linguistic description of the dialects of the Val d'Aosta was undertaken by Abbe Jean-Baptiste Cerlogne in his Dictionnaire du patois valdotain, originally published in 1893 and reprinted with a foreword on grammar in 1971; while the French literature of the region was surveyed in the Anthologie de la litterature valdotaine (1948) of Abb6 Joseph Brean. More scientific research was carried out by Graziadio Ascoli, the theoretician offranco-provenfal, and by Constantin Nigra, who began similar studies in the Val Soana, an appendage of the Val d'Aosta on the other side of the Graian Alps. A more general description will be found in J. Brocherel's book, Le patois et la langue frangaise en Vallee d'Aoste (1952). (See also the articles by F. Karlinger on 'Folk literature' and G. Francescato on 'Rhaeto-Friulian' earlier in this volume.) More recently, two French researchers, M. Lengereau and B. Janin independently reported in 1968 what they called "the decay of French" and described the existence of this language in the Valley as a "myth". A backlash to this claim was an attempt to distinguish franco-provengal from French as the true mother tongue (see the pamphlet Harpeytania by Edur-Kar). This in turn was countered by A. Zanotto in his Histoire de la Vallee d'Aoste (1968) and, yet more vigorously, in the magazine Le

French outside France

303

flambeau (Aosta, Spring 1974), by A. Betemps who fears such antagonism would work in the end to the benefit of Italian against French. On the other side of the Trench hexagon', the Channel Islands maintained until recently a Norman patois - more independent of Parisian influence than that of Normandy itself, but progressively contaminated by English, which is now in general use. In the 1920s, while nearly extinct in the two towns of Guernsey, St. Peter Port and St. Sampson, patois was commonly spoken inland at Catel, where English, learned at school, was a 'foreign' language. Patois had then ceased to be used in the capital of Jersey, St. Helier, for some fifteen to twenty years and was slowly disappearing from the rural areas. It was high time to record its distinctive characteristics, a task undertaken for Guernsey by Albert Sj gren, whose 1926 survey was published only in 1964, and for Jersey by Nicol Spence (1960) and Frank Le Maistre (1966). 2.1 Canada Most studies of the French language in Canada have been motivated by the urge to keep it alive in a continent and a country where it is spoken by a minority and where, even in homogeneous Quebec, it was not, until the passage of legislation in the late 1970s, the vehicle of the business world; they are consequently political, sociological or pedagogical in orientation rather than purely linguistic. Considerations of these kinds provided the mainspring for the three Congres de la langue franfaise en Amerique, held in Quebec in 1912, 1937 and 1952, and continue to inspire the activities of the Conseil de la langue frangaise en Amerique (together with its periodical Vie frangaise}, and those of many other language societies like the Societe du parier /Γαηςαϊζ at Quebec or the Societe du bon parier frangais at Montreal. Great care is taken to combat the use of 'anglicismes', to promote French technical vocabulary instead of words borrowed from English and, above all, emphasis is placed on 'correct' ways of speaking and writing. Canadians are right to insist that their ancestors, originating from different provinces of western France, had in common standard French, not a patois, and that a few archaisms do not undermine the authenticity of their French. They were willing, however, to prospect among regional idioms no less than among native Amerindian languages whenever they needed new words for concepts or beings peculiar to the New World. An exhaustive listing of the linguistic studies on Canadian French was made in 1906 by James Geddes and Adjutor Rivard in their invaluable Bibliographie du parier fra^ais au Canada, which is incorporated as the

304

Auguste Viatte

first part of the Bibliographie linguistique du Canada frangais by G. Dulong (1966). The Glossaire du parier frangais au Canada, edited in 1930 by the Societe du parier frangais, remains valuable and has recently been reprinted. Also noteworthy are the three volumes of Zigzags autour de nosparlers (1924—27) by Louis-Philippe Geoffrion and the important study by J. D. Gendron of Tendances phonetiques du frangais pane au Canada (1966). Until recently, the number of regional studies has been relatively small and, over a long period, many of them were carried out by Englishspeaking scholars like James Geddes, who explored methodically a field to which they were foreigners (see especially Geddes' work on an Acadian dialect, 1908). The regional varieties may be classified into three principal groups. The first is Quebec where, notwithstanding a basic homogeneity, popular French shows some variation - accent and vocabulary in particular are not quite the same in Montreal as in Charlevoix County, in Gaspesia or in the Eastern Townships; these varieties are among the best studied - see, for instance, Dionne 1909/1974, Juneau 1972, Morgan 1975 and the 1976 collection edited by J.-C. Corbeil and L. Guilbert. The second group, much more diffuse, is the result of the French diaspora in Ontario and the Prairies, where small French-speaking communities, surrounded by Anglo-Canadians and immigrants of widespread provenance, are rapidly dissolving in the process of urbanization; here, inquiries like those of Professor Bernard Wilhelm in Saskatchewan are chiefly concerned with the vitality of French, judged both quantitatively and qualitatively. The third group covers the Maritime regions, where the Acadians - by origin French pioneers - lived for centuries apart, preserved their own identity even after migrating to southern Gaspesia, the Magdalen Islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, or north-eastern New England, and also kept alive their own brand of popular French, studied by Genevieve Massignon in her exhaustive thesis (1962). Some of the studies on Canadian French edited by G. Straka (1967) also have a bearing on regional varieties. Recent discussion has centered on 'joual'. This name, popularized in the Insolences du Frere Untel of J.-P. Desbiens (1960), is given to Montreal slang, after a barely-recognizable pronunciation of the word cheval. The leftist organizers of the magazine Parti-Pris used it to symbolize what they called the cultural alienation of a colonial proletariat. Some would-be linguists, like Henri Belanger (1972) and Giuseppe Turi (1971), have championed 'quebecois' as a 'national language' in opposition to French, ignoring thereby levels of language and the realities of

French outside France

305

popular French everywhere. The linguist Jean Marcel was easily able to demonstrate the inanity of such theories (1973), in which he saw a threat to the very existence of Canadian French. Joual in fact represented a literary vogue, helping novelists like Jacques Godbout or Victor-Levy Beaulieu, or playwrights like Michel Tremblay to win a certain acclaim in the same way that Antonine Maillet allowed an Acadian woman to speak her popular French in La sagouine and used it, very artistically, in her subsequent novels such as Pelagic la Charrette, which won the Prix Goncourt in 1979 - but it has little to do with scientific knowledge. 2.2 Louisiana There are in the United States many isolated groups descended from French or Canadian settlers, where French remained or remains in use and on which research has been carried out. We should mention the works of W. B. Dorrance (1935) and J. M. Carriere (1937) in Missouri, and those of E. S. Sheldon (1887), James Geddes (1908), and William N. Locke (1949) in New England, home of those 'French-Americans' who, being more numerous than elsewhere, have preserved their National Associations and schools, their writers and local press. A larger French-speaking population is still present in Louisiana. It is composed of three different strata. The old 'creole' families (which in local terms means white people of French or Spanish descent) for a long period spoke very classical French, with a slight admixture of local words. The non-white population, mostly descended from slaves transported from St. Domingue by their fugitive masters during the French revolution, used a French creole known locally as 'gumbo' which, if we believe Alfred Mercier (1880), was in the early nineteenth century the common language of all children, black or white. The third group are the Cajuns, descendants of Acadians who migrated from Canada after their deportation in 1755, who inhabit, in hundreds of thousands, the Bayou districts around Lafayette and maintain - as their home language - a dialectal French which though despised until recent times, is again becoming fashionable and countenanced by the public authorities, largely owing to the efforts of James Domengeaux and the CODOFIL (Council on the Development of French in Louisiana). The language of the Cajuns differs from the Acadian of Canada in its accentual patterns, its greater use of English vocabulary and a few Indian or African words. Its simplified syntax is seen by Albert Valdman (1974) as intermediate between French and creole: it has no feminine pronouns, a single form of the present indicative of verbs, and such expressions as il

306

Auguste Viatte

est aprös lire instead of U lit, analogous to the Creole verbal prefix ap. Early work on this variety includes: a glossary, substantial though unmethodical, collected by an anonymous author in 1901 and revised in 1932 by Jay K. Ditchy and the dissertation on Louisiana French dialect by James F. Broussard (1942). Local studies were made by Hosea Phillips on the French spoken in Evangeline Parish (1936), by J. Guilbeau on the French of Lafourche (1950), and on the Parishes of Lafayette by Marilyn J. Conwell and Alphonse Juilland whose Louisiana French grammar (1963) remains, with William A. Read's Louisiana French (1931), the best survey on the subject. A more overtly historical account is given in Tisch 1959. 2.3 Haiti and the Caribbean The Caribbean, together with a sector of the Indian Ocean, is the proper home of Creole. French there gave rise to a new language which has its own characteristics and is further evolved than a pidgin. Albert Valdman gives the differences as follows (1969: 13): Une langue Creole est un pidgin - une langue vehiculaire qui n'est la langue premiere d'aucuns de ses locuteurs - qui est adopte par une communaute. II faut done distinguer entre \apidginisation, qui se rapporte ä la transformation d'une langue naturelle en langue vehiculaire, et la creolisation, qui se rapporte ä l'adoption d'un pidgin par une communaute et au processus de stabilisation structurale et d'enrichissement lexical que cette adoption entraine. Should a Creole then be defined as a language, a dialect or a patois? Much has been written on this rather minor technicality. Let it be said that Creole is primarily a spoken language - with all this implies by way of regional variation - lacking any generally recognized orthography. In Haiti, nineteenth century writers tried to suggest a similarity with the orthography of French - as did the late Jules Faine in his Dictionnaire franfais-creole (1974), while the phonetically-based orthography introduced by Laubach was modified somewhat by Pressoir (1947) to take account of semantic considerations, and the transcription now used by the Churches, as well as that of the bilingual Ti Diksyonno KreyolFranse (Dictionnaire elementaire creole-frangais) compiled under the direction of Alain Bentolila (1976), is middle-of-the-road. The social standing of Creole also differs from one country to another. In Haiti, where the illiteracy rate is very high, Creole is needed everywhere and by everybody, while French remains the official language and the language

French outside France

307

of secondary and higher education. In Martinique and Guadeloupe by contrast, every child learns French at school and French is in general use, relegating Creole to the level of a patois. In some islands of the British West Indies, notably St. Lucia and Dominica, the official language, taught at school, is English, but the whole population speaks Creole and is thereby affiliated to a different linguistic area. Valdman asserts (1969:17) that nine tenths of French Creole speakers live in Haiti; this is certainly an overestimate, leaving out of account more than a million speakers in the Indian Ocean archipelagos. In Haiti itself, as he notes, Creole monolingualism is tempered by diglossia - the coexistence of a vernacular with another language, related to it and more complex, which itself was earlier or is elsewhere a vernacular, in this case French. This French, learned at school, is very correct and even artistic, though recently sprinkled with English words owing to commercial contacts with the U.S.A. and neighbouring islands; the main study of La langue franfaise en Haiti (as opposed to Haitian Creole) is the thesis of Pradel Pompilus (1961). According to the 1950 census, in Port-au-Prince 15,928 persons out of a total of some 140,000 used French as their main language and 64,848 claimed to be able to read or write French. Suzanne Sylvain stressed in 1936 the affinities between Creole and African languages, whereas in the same year Jules Faine described it as deriving from Norman French. Both had their followers in the lively discussion - not without political undertones - which ensued, and both are probably right, inasmuch as creole can be characterized as a composite idiom. True, the very idea of a composite idiom has more recently come under attack from Andre-Marcel d'Ans in his study of Le Creole frangais d'Haiti (1968), which also contradicts the conclusions of both Valdman (1969, 1975) and of Robert A. Hall, Jr. (1953, 1966) on the evolution from pidgin to creole, and even the African analogies detected by Suzanne Sylvain; this solid piece of work was, however, not written in the field but instead in Kinshasa, on data furnished by Haitian emigrants. A less ambitious book, Pompilus 1973, is nevertheless very helpful for learning creole from a French background, or the reverse (see also Pompilus 1976). Good bibliographical works on French Creoles are now available Hollyman 1965 now being complemented by Reinecke et al 1975, and Carayol-Chaudenson 1971, more narrowly focused on the Indian Ocean. J. E. Reinecke also contributed an early sociological survey of Creoles and trade jargons (1937/1975). Other general works include: Jourdain 1956a, Goodman 1964, Voorhoeve 1964, Vintilä-Rädulescu 1976,

308

Auguste Viatte

Valdman 1978, and the collection of articles on Les parlers Creoles edited in 1978 by R. Chaudenson. Chaudenson's Les Creoles fran^ais (1979) is now the most exhaustive and accurate study on the subject. (For a general discussion of the status of Romance Creoles, see also the Introduction to Volume 2.) Regional studies were made on the Creole vocabulary of Martinique by Elodie Jourdain (1956b) and of Guadeloupe by Remi Nainsouta (1940). St. Barthelemy, where a brand of Creole coexists with a brand of patois, was studied by Gilles R. Lefebvre and his survey, published only in 1972, was earlier utilized by Valdman (1969), who also gives data on the two French villages of St. Thomas, and on St. Lucia and Dominica. The creole of Dominica is further studied in a series of articles by D. R. Taylor especially 1968; Dominican Creole originates from Martinique but has numerous individual characteristics. A 'structural sketch of St. Martin Creole' was further contributed by R. Morgan Jr. in 1959. The creole of French Guiana, first studied by A. de Saint-Quentin (1872) has been analysed structurally by Marguerite St-Jacques Fauquenoy (1972). Following a symposium held in Port-au-Prince in July 1975, a 'Comite scientifique provisoire des creolistes' was constituted and held its first meeting in Paris in February 1976; this led to the founding of a permanent international committee with the aim of collecting information and coordinating enquiries and individual research (see, again, the Introduction to Volume 2). 2.4 The Indian Ocean The official language of the Malagasy Republic is now Malagasy, French and English being taught in the schools. The Mascarene and Seychelle Islands, on the other hand, are realms of creole. The similarities between Mauritian and Haitian creole are so striking that the Haitian essayist Jules Faine devoted to them a major section of his book Le creole dans I'univers (1939). This is the more remarkable as the population of Mauritius is not principally of African ancestry, but comes from India (575,125 people out of 830,606 according to the 1971 census). In Reunion, where there is no census by race, the population is more mixed, about a quarter being white and the remainder a mixture of French, African, Indian and Malagasian. The standing of the languages is also not identical: in Reunion, there are no clear limits between standard French, creolized French and Creole proper (i.e. a true linguistic continuum); whereas in Mauritius the racial communities are not fully integrated and their universal vehicle of communication is creole. Mauritian creole is spoken,

French outside France

309

according to the 1952 census, by 94.2% of the inhabitants, while 24.4% could then speak French (this percentage rising to 39.8% when it comes to reading and writing - which seems to suggest that French is learned at school and not used in everyday life); French is reported to be the home language of 7.6%, English of only 0.02%, but Hindi (Bhojpuri) of 38.9% and Creole of 44.6%. Facts and commentaries on the linguistic situation of these two islands will be found in Deltel 1969 and CarayolChaudenson 1973 for Reunion, and Koenig 1969 and Moorghen 1973 for Mauritius. Robert Chaudenson is also author of the major Lexique du parier Creole de la Reunion (1974), and Michel Carayol of a thesis on Le franςαΪ5 pane a la Reunion: phonetique et phonologic (1976/1977). 1977 also saw the publication of two book-length works on Seychelles Creole grammar - a field previously almost unexplored - by Annegret Bollee and Chris Corne. On Mauritius, the old essays of Charles Baissac (1880) are still often quoted, though much scholarly work has been completed in recent years: after the MA thesis of L.-R. Kiamtia (1959) and the monographs of Chris Corne (1969, 1970), we should mention Kreol: a description of Mauritian Creole (1972) by Philip Baker and the doctoral dissertations of P.-M. Moorghen, Etude structurale du Creole mauricien and of B. L. Paraduth, Phonetique du Creole de Γ He Maurice, both completed in 1972 but as yet unpublished. On a lighter note, the humorous booklet of Nicole Desmarais, Lefranffl/5 a I'lle Maurice (1969), with no scientific pretence, gives advice to Mauritians on correct French and offers a list of Mauritianisms. 2.5 Black Africa In contrast to English- or Portuguese-speaking countries in continental Africa, comparatively little pidgin or Creole evolved in French-speaking Africa south of the Sahara. There is only the so-called 'petit-negre'. Of this, Pierre Alexandre writes (1967: 91): Le "petit-negre" est repandu surtout dans les romans d'aventures bon marche et les bandes dessinees; son nom meme est peu pres inusite en Afrique occidentale, ou Γόη parle plut t de "franς3Ϊ8 tirailleur" ou "frangais-tiraillou" pour designer le fran9ais deforme utilise, dans I'armee ou sur les chantiers, par les Africains qui n'ont pas eu la chance d'aller 1'ecole. C'est une langue sans prestige [ . . . qui] est toujours reste au stade de jargon auxiliaire, auquel ses utilisateurs memes preferent soit le frangais, soit

310

Auguste Viatte

une langue africaine. French was introduced as a school subject, not spontaneously or anarchically among the masses, and the rulers of independent states, if they wish to preserve it as an internal means of national cohesion and as a means of communication with the outside world, insist that it must be taught to a high degree of accuracy. There are, nevertheless, structural interferences from native languages; special teaching methods are needed, whose problems are studied by J. P. Makouta Mboukou (1973). His numerous examples of errors committed by young students illustrate the phonetic, morphological and syntactic contrasts between French and the Bantu languages. Other data can be found in abundance in the interesting bulletin issued periodically by the Groupe des recherches sur les africanismes (Universite nationale du Zaire, Lubumbashi). The Central African Republic is probably a special case, discussed by Luc Bouquiaux (1969). There, Sango was promoted to the dignity of national language and its use officially encouraged - concurrently with French - against that of the other native languages, judged to be dialects. But Sango borrows so frequently from French, and spoken French is so frequently linked with Sango structures, that a clear demarcation is very hard to find. In the words of Bouquiaux: 1'heure actuelle, on assiste ä la creation d'une sorte de sabir comportant 50% environ de francais, avec une morphologic simplified, notamment en ce qui concerne le verbe" (1969: 69). 2.6 North Africa and the Middle East The shores of the Mediterranean were the realm of lingua franca - a sabir based on the Italian and French spoken between Marseilles and Genoa, and used for communication among sailors and merchants of every nationality. Later, North African sabir was to take its main features from southern French; it is now nearly forgotten (as recently as the late nineteenth century it was used only by Arabs, and other nonFrench-speaking people used a broken French which was poorly understood and mistaken for true French). But the European settlers in North Africa - mostly French people from southern France and Corsica, but also some Spaniards near Oran and Italians in eastern Algeria and Tunisia - spoke a picturesque slang, the 'parier de Bab-el-Oued', so called after a popular suburb of Algiers and made famous by Cagayous, a comic character invented by the humorist Auguste Robinet, alias Musette. This Frangais d'Afrique du nord

French outside France

311

has been studied by A. Lanly in a very good thesis (1962). Its vocabulary is derived from many ethnic sources and from military parlance; its syntax is simplified, creole-style, especially in the verb; relatively little was borrowed from Arabic (a language too distant in structure) except for a few words some of which have a meaning different from that in standard French (bled, for instance, means 'country house'). Similar research should now be done on developments since the exodus of European settlers, for although French remains widely taught, it is a foreign language in a society where Arabic is now not only the national language but also the vehicle fof exchanges throughout the Mahgreb and the Middle East. Linguistic interference may now be more frequent, and in both directions, as in Tunisia where, according to Garmadi 1966, there are analogous borrowings from French into Arabic. Let us remember, incidentally, that an adaptation of La Fontaine in Tunisian sabir (a mixture of French, Corsican and Sicilian) was written in 1931 by Dr. Martin under the pen-name of Kaddour Ben Nitram. In two Middle-Eastern countries, Egypt and Lebanon, French was for a long period a common language among cultured people. The contemporary position in Egypt is described in Tomiche 1968. The influence of French, though much diminished since the Nasserian revolution and the ill-fated Franco-British expedition to Suez in 1956, has not altogether disappeared; though most of its speakers are gone, it remains in use among what is left of the Turkish aristocracy, among Italians, Greeks, Armenians, Jews and even Lebanese, whose French, of course, is not always correct and frequently tinged with Arabic and English. The regional aspects of French as spoken and written in Egypt have been studied by Jean-Jacques Luthi in a thesis (1979) soon to be published. French is more firmly entrenched in Lebanon, where relations with France are centuries old, to the point where it appears as a distinctive characteristic of the Christian Maronites. Selim Abou published in 1962 an excellent thesis on Le bilinguisme franco-arabe an Liban, stressing its economic and social aspects, and describing the coexistence of words and forms taken from both languages, sometimes within the same phrase, as something akin to a 'super-dialect'. 2.7 A word should be said, in conclusion, about some far-off countries. In Indochina, research should be done on the numbers of people speaking French today and on the interference between French and FarEastern languages. Although at first strongly resisted by those educated in the Chinese-medium tradition, French later influenced their

312

Auguste Viatte

languages, if only through the adoption of the roman alphabet. But the wars interrupted such studies. In the South Seas, some French pidgins survive. An article by K. J. Hollyman (1964) shows that 'bichelamar' (an English pidgin of the north-western Pacific) was first introduced to New Caledonia by American, British and Australian merchants, but was later confined to the New Hebrides and replaced by a French pidgin which is itself disappearing in favour of standard French. References Abou, Solim 1962 Le bilinguisme arabe-frangais au Liban (Paris: P.U.F.). Alexandre, Pierre 1967 Langues et langage en Afrique noire (Paris: Payot). d'Ans, Andro-Marcel 1968 Le Creole frangais d'Haiti (The Hague: Mouton). Baissac, Charles 1880 Etude sur le patois Creole mauricien (Nancy: Berger-Levrault). Baker, Philip 1972 Kreol: a description of Mauritian Creole (London: Hurst). Beardsmore, H. Baetens 1971 Le frangais regional Bruxelles (P. U. de Bruxelles). Bolanger, Henri 1972 Place l'komme; eloge du frangais quebecois. New edition with introduction by J.-P. Desbiens (Montreal: H.M.H.). Benoist, J., — G, R. Lefebvre 1972 "Organisation sociale, evolution biologique et diversite" linguistique SaintBarth616my", L'archipel ϊηα^νέ, edited by J. Benoist (Montreal: U. P.), 93105. Bentolila, Alain et al 1976 Ti dicsyonne kreyol-franse (Dictionnaire elementaire creole-frangais (Port-auPrince: Editions Cara'ibes). Bolloe, Annegret 1977 Le Creole frangais des Seychelles: Esquisse d'une grammaire - textes - vocabulaire (= Beihefte zur ZRPh 159) (T bingen: Niemeyer). Bouquiaux, Luc 1969 "La creOlisation du fran^ais par le sango ve"hiculaire, phonomene re"ciproque", in C.E.R.I.N. 1969: 57-70. Brean, Abb6 Joseph 1948 Anthologie de la lilterature valddtaine (Aosta). Breckx, F. 1955 Lefrancais parle Gand (Ghent: Uitgeverij Norma). Brocherel, J. 1952 Le patois et la langue frangaise en Vallee d'Aoste (Neuch tel: Attinger). Broussard, J. F. 1942 Louisiana creole dialect (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U.P.). Carayol, M. 1976 Le frangais parle α Ια Λέκ/υοη: phonetique et phonologic. (Doctoral thesis, Toulouse - Le Mirail) [Published (P.U. de Lilie, 1977).] Carayol, M., - R. Chaudenson 1971 "Bibliographie des dtudes linguistiques sur les parlers crooles de l'Ocian Indien

French outside France

313

(depuis I960)", Cahiers du Centre Universitaire de la Reunion 1: 53-73. "Apergu sur la situation linguistique la Reunion", Cahiers du Centre Universitaire de la Reunion 3. Carriere, J. M. 1937 7α/« from the French folklore of Missouri (Evanston-Chicago: Northwestern U.P.). C.E.R.I.N. [= Centre d'Etudes des Relations Interethniques de Nice] 1969 Le frangais en France et hors de France, 1. Creoles et contacts africains (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Cerlogne, J.-B. 1893 Dictionnaire du patois valdota(n. [Reprinted, with a foreword on grammar (Geneva: Slatkine, 1971).] Chaudenson, Robert 1974 Lexique du parier Creole de La Reunion (Paris: Champion, 2 vols). 1978 ed. Les parlers creates (= LFr 37) (Paris: Larousse). 1979 Les Creoles frangais (Paris: Nathan). Conwell, Marilyn J., - Alphonse Juilland 1963 Louisiana French grammar (The Hague: Mouton). Corbeil, J.-C, - L. Guilbert (eds) 1976 Le frangais de Quebec (= LFr 31) (Paris: Larousse). Corne, Chris 1969 "Les dialectes Creoles fran;ais de Maurice et des Seychelles: esquisse de phonologie suivie de textes", Te Reo 12: 48-63. 1970 Essai de grammaire du Creole mauricien (= Te Reo monograph series) (Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand). 1977 Seychelles create grammar. Elements for Indian Ocean proto-creole reconstruction (= TBL 91) (T bingen: Narr). Deltel, J. R. 1969 "Le Creole de la Reunion", in C.E.R.I.N. 1969: 29-35. Deneckere, M. 1947 Esquisse de ihistoire de la langue frangaise en Flandre de 1770 a 1823. Dissertation, published as: Histoire de la langue frangaise en Flandre de 1770 a 1823 ( = Romanica Gandensia 2-3) (Tongeren: Michiels, 1954). Desmarais, Nadia 1969 Le frangais ά Γ He Maurice (Port-Louis: Cocquet). van Deyck, Camille 1927 Le frangais a Anvers au XVIe siede (Unpublished thesis). Dionne, N. E. 1974 Le parier populaire des canadiens frangais. Langue frangaise au Quebec. 3' section: Lexicologie et lexicographic (Quebec: P.U. de Laval) [= reprint from original 1909 edition]. Ditchy, Jay K. 1932 Les Acadiens louisianais et leur parier (Paris: Droz). Dorrance, W. B. 1935 The survival of French in the old district ofSainte Genevieve (Columbia: Missouri U.P.). Dulong, Gaston 1966 Bibliographie linguistique du Canada frangais (Que"bec: P.U. de Laval). Faine, Jules 1936 Philologie Creole; etudes historiques et etymologiques sur la langue Creole d'Ha'iti (Port-au-Prince: Imprimerie d'Etat). 1939 Le Creole dans I'univers: le mauricien (Port-au-Prince: Imprimerie d'Etat). 1974 Dictionnaire frangais-creole (Montroal: Lemeac). 1973

314

Auguste Viatte

Garmadi, S. 1966 "Quelques fails de contact linguistique franco-arabe en Tunisie", Revue tunisienne des sciences sociales. Gauchat, Louis, et al 1924 Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande, l (Neuch tel: Attinger). Geddes, James 1908 Study of an Acadian-French dialect spoken on the north shore of the Baie-desChaleurs (Halle: Niemeyer). Geddes, J.,- A. Rivard 1906 Bibliographie du parier fi-αηςais au Canada (= Bulletin du parier fra^ais au Canada 4, 1905-06) (Quebec). Incorporated as the first part of Dulong 1966. Gendron, Jean-Denis 1966 Tendances phonetiques dufra^ais parle au Canada (Paris: Klincksieck). Geoffrion, L.-P. 1924-27 Zigzags autour de nos parlers, simples notes (Quebec: 1'Auteur). Vol. 1 1924, vol. 2 1925, vol. 3 1927. Goodman, Morris F. 1964 A comparative study ofcreole French dialects (The Hague: Mouton). Grevisse, Maurice 1936 Le ban usage (Gembloux: Duculot). 10th revised edition 1975. 1961- Problemes de langage (Gembloux: Duculot). First series 1961, 2nd 1962, 3rd 1964, 4th 1967. Guilbeau, J. 1950 The French spoken in Lafourche parish, Louisiana. (Unpublished dissertation, University of North Carolina.) Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1953 Haitian Creole: grammar, texts, vocabulary (Philadelphia: American Folklore Society). 1966 Pidgin and Creole languages (Cornell: Ithaca U.P.). Hanse, Joseph 1949 Dictionnaire des difficultes grammatical et lexicologiques (Paris: Editions Scientifiques et Li^raires). New ed. 1971. Hanse, J., — A. Doppagne - H. Bourgeois-Gielen 1971 Chasse aux Belgicismes (Bruxelles: Fondation Charles Plisnier). Haust, J. 1933 Dictionnaire liegeois (Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne). 1948 Dictionnaire francais-liageois (Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne). Haust, J., — E. Legros - L. Remade 1953-69 Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie (Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne). Hollyman, K. J. 1964 "L'ancien pidgin fran?ais parlo en Nouvelle-Caledonie", Journal des oceanistes 20: 52-54. 1965 "Bibliographie des crooles et dialectes rogionaux fran9ais d'outre-mer modernes", FM 33: 117-132. Horth, Auguste 1949 Le patois guyanais (Cayenne: Laporte). Humbert, J. 1852 Nouveau glossaire genevois (Geneva). [Reprinted (Geneva: Slatkine, 1970).] Janin, B. 1968 Une region alpine originale, le Val d'Aoste, tradition et renouveau (Grenoble: 1'Auteur). Jourdain, Elodie 1956a Dufrangais aux parlers Creoles (Paris: Klincksieck).

French outside France

315

1956b Le vocabulaire du parier Creole de la Martinique (Paris: Klincksieck). Juneau,M. 1972 Contribution ä l'histoire de la pronunciation franfaise au Quebec; etude de graphics des documents d'archives (Quebec: P. U. de Laval). Kiamtia, Louis-Roland 1959 Une etude du patois Creole de l'He Maurice. (Unpublished MA thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.) Koenig, Daniel 1969 "Fransais et creo'.e ä l'Ile Maurice", in C.E.R.I.N. 1969: 49-53. Lanly, A. 1962 Lefrancais d'Afrique du nord (Paris: P.U.F.). Le Maistre, Frank 1966 Dictionnaire jersiais-fra^ais (Jersey: Don Balleine). Lengereau, Marc 1968 La Vallee d'Aoste (La Tronche-Montfleury: Cahiers de l'Alpe). Locke, William N. 1949 Pronunciation of the French spoken at Brunswick, Maine (Greensboro, N.C.: American Dialect Society). Makouta-Mboukou, Jean-Pierre 1973 Lefra^ais en Afrique noire (Paris: Bordas). Marcel, Jean 1973 Le joual de Troie (Montreal: Editions du Jour). Massignon, Genevieve 1962 Les purlers frangais d'Acadie (Paris: Klincksieck). Mercier, A. 1880 "Etude sur la langue crdole en Louisiane", Comptes-rendus de I'Athenee Louisianais 1: 378-383. Moorghen, Pierre-Marie 1972 Etude structurale du Creole mauricien. (Unpublished dissertation, Nice.) 1973 "Quelques remarques sur la situation linguistique ä l'Ile Maurice", Cahiers du Centre Universitaire de la Reunion 3. Morgan, Raleigh Jr. 1959 "Structural sketch of St. Martin creole", AnL 1.8: 20-24. 1975 The regional French of County Beauce, Quebec (The Hague: Mouton). Nainsouta, Remi 1940 La langue Creole - ses origines - ses particularites curieuses (Basse-Terre: Imprimerie officielle). Nigra, C. 1941 "Vocabolario valdostano", Aevum 15: 3-48,316-354. Reprinted as a monograph (Torino: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1963). Paraduth, B. L. 1972 Phonetique du creole de l'lie Maurice. (Unpublished dissertation, Montpellier.) Perrochon, H. 1972 Le langage des vaudois (= Culture frangaise 3-4) (Paris). Phillips, Hosea 1936 Etude du parier de la paroisse Evangeline (Louisiane) (Paris: Droz). Piron, Maurice 1971 "Apersu des etudes relatives au francos de Belgique", Annales de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Nice 12: 31-40. 1973 "Les belgicismes lexicaux: essai d'un inventaire", TLL 11: 295-304. Pohl, Jacques, 1948 "Prononciations regionales beiges", FM 1946 [1948]: 48-50. 1956 "Temoignages sur la pronunciation du francais d'aujourd'hui", RLaV 22: 294-

316

Auguste Viatte

302. T moignages sur la syntaxe du verbe dans quelques parlers de Belgique (Bruxelles: Acadimie Royale de Langue et de Littirature Franchises). Poirier, Pascal 1912 Leparier franco-acadien etses origines (P.U. de Quobec). Pompilus, Pradel 1961 La langue franfaise en Haiti (Mäcon: Protat). Reprinted (Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes de l'Amörique Latine, 1962). 1973-76 Contribution ä etude comparae du creole et du /rancais ä partir du Creole ha'üien [Vol. l Phonologic et lexicologie, 1973; vol. 2 Morphologie et syntaxe, 1976] (Port-au-Prince: Editions Caraübes). Pressoir, C.-F. 1947 Debats sur le crtole et le folklore (Port-au-Prince: Imprimerie d'Etat). Read, William A. 1931 Louisiana French (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U.P.). Reinecke, John E. 1937 Marginal languages: a sociological study of creole languages and trade jargons. (Dissertation, Yale.) [Published (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1975)]. Reinecke, J. E.,etal 1975 A bibliography of pidgin and creole languages (= Oceanic linguistics special publication 14) (Honolulu: Hawaii U.P.). Remacle, Louis 1948 Orthophonie francaise (Liege: Michiels). 1952-60 Le parier de la Gleize (P.U. de Lifcge/Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 3 vols). Vol. 1 Noms et articles 1952; vol. 2 Verbes, adverbes, prepositions 1956; vol. 3 Coordination et subordination 1960. Saint-Quentin, A. de 1872 Introduction a l'histoire de Cayenne, suivie d'un recueil de contes, fables et chansons en Creole (Antibes: Marchand). Saint-Jacques Fauquenoy, Marguerite 1972 Analyse structurale du creole guyanais (Paris: Klincksieck). Sheldon, E. S. 1887 "Some specimens of a Canadian French dialect spoken in Maine", PMLA 3:210218. Sjögren, Albert 1964 Le parier bas-normand de lie de Guernesey (Paris: Klincksieck). Socie'te' du parier franc.ais du Canada 1930 Glossaire du parier franfais au Canada (Quebec: Action Sociale). Spence, Nicol C. W. 1960 A glossary of Jersey French (Oxford: Black well). Straka, Georges (ed.) 1967 Etudes de linguistique franco-canadienne (Paris: Klincksieck). Surdez, J. 1949 "Proverbes, pensees, dictons et pronostics patois recueillis ä Ocourt", Schweizerische Archiv für Volkskunde 46: 1-34. Sylvain, Suzanne 1936 Le creole ha'üien. Morphologie et syntaxe (Wetteren: de Meester). Taylor, D. R. 1968 "Le creole de la Dominique", Le langage, edited by A. Martinet (Paris: Gallimard), 1022-1049. Tisch, J. 1959 French in Louisiana. A study of the historical development of the French language of Louisiana (New Orleans: Laborde). 1962

French outside France

317

Tomiche, Nada 1968 "La situation linguistique en Egypte", Le langage, edited by A. Martinet (Paris: Gallimard), 1173-1187. Turi, Giuseppe 1971 One culture appelee quebecoise (Montroal: Editions de l'Homme). Valdman, Albert 1969 "Creole et frangais aux Antilles", in C.E.R.I.N. 1969: 13-27. 1974 "Le parier vernaculaire des isolats franc.ais en Amerique du nord", Louisiana Review 3: 43-58. 1975 "Creole et fransais en Haiti", FR 49: 174-185. 1978 Le Creole: structure, Statut et origine (= Initiation a la linguistique B7) (Paris: Klincksieck). Valkhoff, Marius 1938 Philologie et litterature wallonnes (Groningen: Wolters). Verrier, A. J. 1907 Le patois Creole de la Reunion (Angers: Germain-Grassin). Viatte, Auguste 1969 La francophonie (Paris: Larousse). Vintilä-Rädulescu, loana 1976 Le Creole frangais (=Janua linguarum, series critica 17) (The Hague: Mouton). Voorhoeve, Jan 1964 "Creole language and communication", Colloque sur le multilinguismel Symposium on multilingualism [held Brazzaville, July 1962] (London: CSA Publishing Bureau), 233-242. Zanotto, A. 1968 Histoire de la Vallee d'Aoste (Aoste: Editions de la Tourneuve).

MARIA BEATRIZ FONTANELLA DE WEINBERG

Spanish outside Spain,*:

1. Introduction Spanish spoken outside Spain comprises essentially American, Canary and Philippine Spanish, and Judeo-Spanish. Although these four areas have heterogeneous characteristics and involve a complex and variegated set of problems stemming from their differing historical development and from the diversity of their present situations, extrapeninsular varieties of Spanish nevertheless share some important features. A major factor is the period itself, spanning little more than a century, during which Spanish spread outside the peninsula: the Canary Islands were conquered at the beginning of the 15th century, America was discovered and the Sephardim expelled in 1492, and the Philippines were discovered in 1521. Besides its importance for the territories under consideration here, this period witnessed major upheavals within standard Spanish and coincided with a fracture of the Spanish linguistic norm (see Menendez Pidal 1962). The resulting coexistence within the peninsula of two norms had profound effects in the territories to which Spanish spread. These Spanish varieties share a tendency towards simplification of their linguistic system, a feature common to many transplanted languages and attributable here, as elsewhere, to contact among speakers of differing dialectal origins: the conquerors of the Canaries, America and the Philippines, during the great expansionary period, no less than the expelled Sephardim, hailed from diverse dialect areas of the peninsula. These simplifying processes are manifest throughout extrapeninsular Spanish and the degree to which they were caused by the triumph of the simpler of the two peninsular norms already mentioned or by internal evolution, has given rise to long polemics, especially in the case of American Spanish. Among such features are: 'seseo', common to all extrapeninsular varieties; 'yeismo', general in Judeo-Spanish and

320

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

widespread in America and the Canary Islands; and simplification of the pronominal system by the elimination of the vosotros : ustedes opposition, which is general in America and very common in the Canaries. As regards the role played by Spanish in the new territories, the situation is different in each. In the Canaries, Spanish quickly displaced the native language, becoming the only language of the archipelago; in America it spread gradually, in such a way that in some regions the hispanization process is even today incomplete; in the Philippines it is limited to the speech of the ruling minority, with no greater diffusion among the people at large; and lastly, in the case of the Sephardic communities, it has remained a minority language, its use being gradually reduced to that of an almost exclusively family language. These differences of situation have been such that contact with other languages has had an uneven importance, varying widely from the all-pervading influence of surrounding languages on Judeo-Spanish, to the limited influence - restricted to the lexical level - on Canary Spanish. Lastly, a special kind of contact, caused by exceptional socioeconomic conditions, determined the emergence of pidgins and Creoles in the Philippines and in some American areas, notably the Caribbean. A factor that has exerted great influence on the evolution of extrapeninsular Spanish is the different kind of relationship each of them has had with Spain. Whilst America has maintained a permanent contact with the metropolis - and especially with the Andalusian region through the periodic arrival of the West Indies fleet and a constant migratory flux, and whilst the Canary Islands were an obligatory stopover in these transatlantic contacts, the Philippines, where the Hispanic migratory flux was very much smaller, remained for geographical and demographic reasons much less related to Spain and the other dominions. The Sephardim, furthermore, remained almost totally isolated from their former country and surrounded by culturally and linguistically heterogeneous populations. Lastly, with respect to the study of extrapeninsular Spanish, there are also remarkable differences. On American Spanish there has been a large number of studies, far exceeding those on other varieties, owing both to the sheer size of the territory and its enormous Spanish-speaking population. This production, however, is very uneven in its geographical distribution as well as its linguistic value, since although there is a rich bibliography on Mexican, Colombian, or Argentinian Spanish, there are few works on the Spanish of Nicaragua, Paraguay or Bolivia, while studies of unquestionable scientific rigour stand side by side - especially

Spanish outside Spain

321

in the lexicographic field - with many carried out by amateurs. The position of Judeo-Spanish is not dissimilar, since it has a large bibliography, although a great part of it was prepared by amateurs and some dialects of special interest have not been studied. Canary Spanish, on which linguistic studies barely got under way before the 'fifties, has at present a small but valuable bibliography. Lastly, on Spanish in the Philippines, there has been profuse production (most of it at a rather poor level) on the role of Spanish in the archipelago, and a smaller but more rigorous bibliography on the Spanish-based Philippine Creoles. 2. American Spanish 2.1 Historical studies 2.1.1 General surveys The historical development of American Spanish has not been studied in detail in any general work; in the words of Guitarte (1969: 191): "There have been no attempts to write the history of the language in any one country; furthermore, we still lack a general history of American Spanish". Lapesa offers a brief but very successful overview of the evolution of the Hispano-American language in chapter 17 of his history of Spanish (1942/1968), in which he refers to the relations between Spanish and the indigenous languages, to the 'andalucismo' of American Spanish, to the 'voseo' question, and to some typical features of American vocabulary. Two of these subjects, andalucismo and the evolution of voseo, were studied by Lapesa in important individual papers, which we will comment on below, which explains the originality of his approach.1 Malmberg (1966/1970) presents a historical view of American Spanish, covering the history of peninsular Spanish, and a description of the characteristics of the main areas of American contrasted with peninsular Spanish. He pays particular attention to the River Plate region, to Paraguay and Mexico. Unfortunately, despite the interest of the book, the view that Malmberg offers is excessively general in some respects and shows in others a dated approach and an uncritical acceptance of questionable sources.2 The shortcomings pointed out in Malmberg's study vitiate a work which would otherwise have met an important need in Hispano-American linguistics. At the critical level, Malkiel, who has made outstanding contributions to the field of Romance in general, recently published (1972) a valuable analysis of Hispano-American works of the last half century on Spanish linguistics and philology. It covers the main aspects of the history of

322

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

American Spanish and offers an excellent overview of the bibliography on the subject. 2.1.2 The substratum question The possible substratum action exerted by the indigenous languages and the relation between American Spanish and the peninsular dialects, especially Andalusian, are the problems that have raised most debates about the historical development of American Spanish. As regards the influence of the indigenous languages, the linguist who drew most attention to the subject was the German scholar Rudolf Lenz, who lived in Chile for many years. In his "Chilenische Studien" (1892), which contain the first rigorous phonetic descriptions of an American Spanish dialect, Lenz repeatedly stresses the influence of Araucanian on Chilean Spanish. This theory is further developed by Lenz (1893) in a study whose central argument is precisely that Chilean Spanish "is mainly Spanish with Araucanian sounds" (1893: 249). In this second work, after formulating considerations on the demographic evolution and the cultural history of Chile, Lenz describes the phonological systems of Araucanian and of Chilean Spanish, pointing out more than ten features which, he thinks, separate Chilean Spanish from other Spanish dialects and which, he claims, are the result of Araucanian influence. Lenz's hypothesis, which was very attractive at a time when substratum theories were very popular in Europe, was accepted by MeyerLiibke (1901), who established a parallel between this situation and the influence of substratum languages on Latin. On the other hand, in the Hispanic world, the hypothesis was received less enthusiastically, with both Menendez Pidal and Cuervo expressing their doubts. Wagner (1920) however discusses some aspects of Lenz's hypothesis, and accepts it partially, admitting Araucanian influence in the assibilated realization of III and /tr/, and in the alveolar pronunciation of III Id/ /s/ and /n/ before Irl. With respect to the other cases mentioned by Lenz, he points out that they are phenomena common to other dialects of peninsular and American Spanish and of Judeo-Spanish, and cannot therefore be treated as the result of Araucanian influence. But it is Amado Alonso who definitively rejects Lenz's Araucanistic thesis in a paper (1939) whose accuracy and persuasiveness make it a landmark in Latin American substratum studies. Alonso begins by analysing the demographic and cultural arguments put forward by Lenz. As to the former, he rejects, mainly on the basis of studies already

Spanish outside Spain

323

started by Rosenblat, Lenz's demographic analysis and points out that the Central Chile population, whose pronunciation Lenz always takes as his model, is predominantly white. As regards the argument that Araucanian linguistic habits may have become established soon after the conquest when the language was possibly taught to children by native mothers or nurses, Alonso wisely rejects this hypothesis and says - in accord with present theories (see Labov 1969: 28) - that children do not acquire their linguistic habits in a definitive way during their first years, but rearrange their language in later years according to the medium in which they act. On the other hand, he rejects Lenz's statements on the lack of education that might have characterized colonial life, pointing out the intense cultural life of colonial society. With respect to the specifically linguistic arguments, Alonso maintains that Lenz's lack of information on the dialectal forms of peninsular and American Spanish led him to take general or very extended Hispanic features to be exclusively Chilean in origin. Alonso analyses each of the aspects described by Lenz and concludes that the majority represent facts common to general Spanish (the spirant realization of /b/ Id/ /g/ in intervocalic position, for example), or dialectal features extended to other regions (ai>ai>ei; -s>-h; -sg->-f- / -x-, etc.). He concludes that to establish substratum influence in American Spanish, we should require adequate knowledge of the actual demographic and social importance of the indigenous population in each zone, of the phonological system of the presumed substratum language (not only at the present moment, but through its historical evolution), and of the various Hispanic dialects. Such explanations are thus resorted to only when there are facts which cannot be explained in the context of Spanish dialectology. Alonso's critical attitude towards the abuse of substratum explanations is continued in several important studies by Malmberg, who points out (1947-48)3 that the cases in which the influence is reduced to mere lexical borrowings should not be considered as substratum phenomena; this term should be restricted to interferences at the phonological or morphosyntactic levels. Malmberg concentrates on the analysis of several American Spanish dialects, concluding that the greater or lesser degree of indigenous influence is conditioned by the different sociocultural level of the dominating and dominated populations, and by the relations between them. He points out that none of the main features of American Spanish can be explained by the influence of the indigenous languages and that Paraguayan Spanish is an exception: here Guarani influence is great, owing to a very long period of bilingualism.

324

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

The thesis is taken up again by Malmberg (1959) in an article where he points out that in the study of linguistic development: the general explanation must always be preferred to the particular; internal explanation must be preferred to external; changes that bring about a simplification in the system can be explained by internal reduction rather than by substratum influence; and substratum interpretations should not be adopted without persuasive sociocultural evidence. Lastly, Malmberg (1964a) analyses some important features of American Spanish (seseo, yeismo, assibilation of III and /tr/, uvular pronunciation of III, etc.) pointing out that none of these changes "are opposed to the general tendencies of Ibero-romance phonetic development" (1964a: 236), so that it is not necessary to resort to substratum explanations. He says that in several previous studies on the influence of indigenous languages methodological mistakes were made, among them: "1) No distinction was made between phonematic (system features) phenomena and facts of pure realization; 2) The theories and explanations were not based on an accurate analysis of the supposed substratum language; 3) The sociolinguistic conditions that favour the influence of one language on another were not analysed either" (238). He thinks - in accordance with the approach of diachronic structuralism - that in its normal development a language follows structural tendencies determined by its own system and that appeal should be made to the substratum hypothesis only when changes occur which are not predictable within this system: "If a completely new and isolated tendency appears at one point of the evolution [ . . . ] there is reason to look for the explanation in some interference with another system or in the influence of different phonic habits" (239). He considers as exceptions to Hispanic evolutionary trends and therefore accountable by interference from Guarani: the affricate realization oily I and the alveolar articulation of HI and /d/ in Paraguayan Spanish. He also maintains that "undoubtedly" the intonational peculiarities of some dialects of the Argentinian interior "that have no Castilian characteristics" (241) are due to indigenous influence. 4 Angel Rosenblat devotes several important studies to the evolution of the indigenous American population (see especially 1945) and its linguistic influence. In his 1964 article he discusses the relation between Spanish and Amerindian languages during their long contact of nearly five centuries. With respect to the colonial period, he considers that "to some extent one can agree with the statement that the colonial regime superimposed a republic of Spaniards on a republic of Indians. Anyway,

Spanish outside Spain

325

the crossing of races constantly laid a bridge between both republics and succeeded in fusing them in great measure" (1964: 212). He also says that from the moment of independence the process of hispanization advanced remarkably. As regards the interference of native languages in American Spanish, Rosenblat is in principle more favorably disposed than Malmberg: "Since 1492 the indigenous languages have incorporated into our American Spanish a series of elements: intonation, articulatory features, suffixes, nouns of flora and fauna and of material and spiritual life, and, in bilingual regions, even syntactic frames. Its study is one of the most interesting chapters of Hispano-American linguistics" (216). However, he restricts this statement, pointing out that this indigenization is hardly perceptible in the greater part of the continent and that Spanish has not been the basis in any American region for Creole languages, as have Portuguese, French and English.5 Rosenblat returns to the subject of the influence of native languages on American Spanish in a study (1967) where he establishes a difference between the effect of substratum on the speech of Hispano-American highlands and lowlands. He points out that the Spanish of the highlands is characterized by a tensing of consonants and weakening of vowels which runs counter to the general Hispanic tendency towards a relaxed consonantism and a precise vocalism. Rosenblat attributes this greater consonantal tension of highland Spanish to phonological influence from indigenous languages, arguing that, in the initial stages of the conquest, similarly modified speech (with considerable southern Spanish influence and a levelling which was the result of the first twenty years of the Antillean period) spread both to the low and high regions. In a second period, Amerindian languages strongly influenced the highlands, but not the lowlands because of the small size of their native population. Lastly, Rosenblat says that the pronunciation in the lowlands, which follows the tendencies of the Spanish system, is actually advancing and spreading in the highlands.6 Solid criticisms are directed against the substratum hypothesis as regards Mexican Spanish in two studies by Juan Manuel Lope Blanch (1967a, 1967b). The latter focuses on Malmberg's claim that the Nahuatl substratum is responsible for the realization of final -r as a multiple vibrant in Mexican Spanish. To this Lope Blanch retorts that this articulation is not the only one used in Mexico, nor is it the most frequent; indeed a simple [r] predominates, [f] occurring especially as an emphatic variant, a realization frequent in other Hispanic dialects. As regards the possible Nahuatl origin of this [r], he considers that the

326

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

phonological structure does not support this hypothesis, since Nahuatl has no vibrants. In 1967a, Lope Blanch discusses, besides the problem of -r, five other phonological aspects of Mexican speech which were attributed to Nahuatl influence: the existence of a phoneme /S/,7 the occurrence of a sound [c], the tautosyllabic articulation of /tl/, the disappearance of unstressed and even stressed vowels, and the long and tense articulation of/s/, especially in final position. After a careful analysis of each case, Lope Blanch concludes that the major Nahuatl influence consists of the incorporation of/s/, the occurrence of [c], and the tautosyllabic articulation of /tl/ - which implies a change in distribution but not the introduction of new phonemes. These three facts, Lope Blanch points out, occur in words of indigenous origin;8 on the other hand, as -regards the other three phenomena (vowel weakening, strengthening of -r, and tensing and lengthening of -s-) which occur in the realization of all the vocabulary, there is no reason to attribute them to substratum influence. Because of its richness and the complexity it presents in several American areas, the indigenous influence is a field of inquiry still open to new contributions, which must meet the standards of rigour demanded by Alonso and Malmberg and the increased sophistication evidenced in the work of Lope Blanch.9 This will not in my view be achieved unless future studies are based on real knowledge of the indigenous languages that may have influenced Spanish (which requires greater collaboration between hispanists and scholars of the indigenous languages) and at the same time, the application of the theoretical and methodological contribution made by recent research on languages in contact. Such approaches will undoubtedly enrich the perspective of these studies in Latin America. 2.1.3 The debate on 'andalucismo' The question of the andalucismo of American Spanish has given rise to a particularly virulent polemic, in which - such is the importance of the subject for the history of Spanish over the last five centuries - the participants included many outstanding linguists from Spain as well as Latin America. The similarity between Andalusian and American Spanish - especially in some Hispano-American areas - has aroused interest since early colonial times;10 but only in our century was the problem tackled scientifically. In the first decades of this century, some linguists referred to this topic incidentally. Cuervo, the main Hispano-American personality of

Spanish outside Spain

327

the time in the philological field, pointed out (1901)" that American seseo - the most important feature shared by Andalusia and America comes from Andalusian: "The Andalusian movement [fusion of c-ss and z-s] prevails in America". On the other hand, he was not 'andalucista' with respect to yeismo, since he maintained that this is a phenomenon which spread in the Peninsula, not only to Andalusia, but also to Castile, and was not generalized to all America. Hanssen (1913: 3), Menendez Pidal (1914) and Navarro Tomäs (1918), also pointed out the similarity and, in the case of Menendez Pidal, the dependency relation between Andalusian and American pronunciation. In spite of these antecedents, systematic treatment of the problem only begins in the twenties. Wagner (1920) extends the Andalusian thesis, pointing out that all the southern Spanish dialects influenced American Spanish. He limits this influence to coastal American areas, since they were affected by the predominance of inhabitants from the south of the Peninsula which, he thinks, characterized the earliest period of colonization: "The south Spanish emigration of the first two centuries of the conquest gave its own dialectal stamp to a great part of American regions in which Spanish is now spoken. The regions settled subsequently or with less intensity [ . . . ] experienced the levelling influence of migration later coming from different parts of the Peninsula" (1920/ 1924: 57). The defence of this viewpoint was again urged by Wagner (1927) in an article written as a reply to Henriquez Urena, where he insists on the southern influence, pointing out the features common to both southern and American Spanish: the predorsal articulation of s, the laxity of final consonants, especially of -s, and the aspiration, nasalization and vocalization of syllable final -r. Shortly after the first article by Wagner, and not being acquainted with it, Pedro Henriquez Urena published his first analysis (1921) of the problem on which he later did so much research. Henriquez Urena considers that andalucista explanations are among many generalities that were used to characterize American Spanish, but that they were not based on any serious analysis. He recognizes the similarity between Andalusian and American Spanish, especially in the lowlands, but he attributes them to parallel development and not to Andalusian influence. A year after the publication of the Spanish version of Wagner 1920, Henriquez Urena replied in a second study (1925) rejecting Wagner's characterization of southern Spanish, pointing out that Andalusia and Extremadura cannot be considered together, since Extremaduran speech has Castilian and Leonese characteristics. He also maintains that

328

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

there was no predominance - as Wagner had claimed - of Andalusian and Extremaduran colonists, and denies that American coasts were settled before the interior, providing as an example the case of Mexico, whose highlands were settled long before the coast. As regards the similarities between American and Andalusian Spanish, Henriquez Urena says that they are generalizations without any foundation: with respect to sibilants, American Spanish has a single result with reduction to s, while Andalusia has areas of seseo and others of ceceo; Andalusia presents a uniform use of yeismo whereas in America there are areas with yeismo and others which preserve ΊΓ; and the remaining parallelisms (similarity in the articulation of s and of ;, laxity of -s and alternations of -r and -/) are exceedingly vague. Some years later, Henriquez Urena returned to the theme (1930, 1931). His 1931 study is devoted to an analysis of the regional origin of the settlers of the first century of the conquest. Drawing on biographical dictionaries, chroniclers and historians, he gathers data on about 14,000 settlers, an impressive number for that period, and concludes that during the time under study there was a predominance of settlers coming from regions without seseo.12 Henriquez Urena contributed important evidence on the demographic aspect, but it was Alonso who gave better support to this position by means of strictly linguistic arguments. In this sense his numerous studies on the phonological changes in the passage of medieval to modern Spanish, which culminate in his posthumous book (Alonso 1955), are closely connected with his interest in the origin of the peculiarities of American Spanish. His most mature view of this problem is found in his essay, "La base linguistica del espanol americano" (1953: 17-72), a reaction against what he believes to be the simplistic explanations that had been formulated on the subject (popularism, preclassicism, andalucismo, indigenism). He maintains that the basis of American Spanish "was the levelling carried out by the conquerors in their successive expeditions throughout the sixteenth century. That is where the American way begins [... ] If the Peninsular material with which the levelling was effected is called the linguistic basis of American Spanish, the basis is Castilian Spanish, brought by the Castilians as practically a single form, and by the regional settlers as a form which variously conformed to their respective dialects" (53-54). In his article "Origenes del seseo americano" (1953: 102-150), which he presents as "a synthesis of the book that I have been preparing for several years about the American pronunciation of Spanish in the sixteenth century" (103), and which was undoubtedly interrupted by his untimely death, Alonso points out that the theory

Spanish outside Spain

329

that American seseo comes from Andalusian is based on the erroneous belief that Andalusian seseo itself predates the American conquest. He considers that peninsular seseo developed in three stages: the first (fusion of -z and -s) may have been completed in the fourteenth century; the second (fusion of -z- and -s-) was quite advanced in the fifteenth century; and the third (exchange of -5- and -ss-)" may have been completed in the sixteenth century. In America a parallel process may have taken place, also developed in three stages, only two of which ended their cycles at the end of the sixteenth century. He also reiterates Henriquez Urena's argument that, although the great majority of Andalusians that had come to America were from Seville, an area of ceceo, "nowhere in America did these Andalusians succeed in rooting their ceceo", (142). Finally, he believes that seseo is a phenomenon which emerged independently in many places, and he enumerates more than thirty in the Peninsula, to which the American and Judeo-Spanish ones should be added. His main conclusions are: "The American seseo is a process developed in America, not transplanted from Andalusia [ . . . ] Many Andalusians who came to America undoubtedly fostered the process, but they were not the source of American seseo. In the sixteenth century there was already an American state of the language and seseo is one of its most characteristic features" (131). In the same volume are two other related studies: "La // y sus alteraciones en Espana y en America" (1953: 196-262) and "-/? y -/ en Espana y America" (263-331).14 In the first of these papers, Alonso presents a description of the realization of // and y in the different areas of America and Spain, in Canary and Philippine Spanish and in JudeoSpanish. He also offers some historical evidence of peninsular and American pronunciation with yeismo. Alonso concludes that American yeismo cannot be attributed to Andalusian influence, not only because it is prior to it, but also because in Spain it covers an area stretching well beyond Andalusia, to Madrid itself. Since on the other hand the distribution is discontinuous in both Spain and America, Alonso concludes that this is a phenomenon that emerges independently in various separate locations. On the other hand, with respect to the fusion of -r and -/, although he points out that this is a relatively modern feature and that it extends to other areas, he says that the great similarity between its realization in the Caribbean and in Andalusia is proof of the relationship of this feature in both places. He believes this is due to the introduction to the American coasts in the earliest years of the conquest of "a style of pronunciation

330

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

which after three long centuries would bring about similar specific results in the treatment of -r and -/ in Andalusia and in the Caribbean" (327). Alonso concludes that "in the much discussed problem of American andalucismo usually dealt with impressionistically, this is the only positive fact that phonetic analysis finds revealing a special relation" (327). During the second half of the fifties, a group of young Spanish and American linguists - later joined by Menendez Pidal and Lapesa - contributed decisive evidence in favour of andalucismo; from the historical point of view, with new studies on the demographic composition of the first groups of settlers, as well as from the more specifically linguistic angle, with new documentation and interpretations of the aspects under debate. Peter Boyd-Bowman, a collaborator of Alonso at Harvard, initiated a major research project into the background of 40,000 settlers of the first century of conquest. His 1956 paper (expanded later to book length, 1964) analyses the origin of 5,481 colonists, who arrived in America in the earliest years of colonization, the so-called 'Antillean period', a key stage, at which linguistic adaptation to the new medium took place, and from which it undoubtedly later spread to other areas of America through the successive colonizing expeditions radiating out from the Antilles. Boyd-Bowman pointed out that in the earliest years of the period (1493-1508) the percentage of Andalusians was 60%, while in the following years (1509-1519) it was 37%. Settlers from the Andalusian provinces of Seville and Huelva alone account for 30.9% of the immigration throughout the period. These figures are themselves conclusive because of the importance, at that time, of a large and relatively homogeneous linguistic group in comparison with other colonists of diverse dialectal backgrounds.15 Boyd-Bowman's revelations on the demographic aspect of the problem were swiftly followed by two equally penetrating analyses by Diego Catalan, this time concentrating on linguistic aspects. In the first of these (1956-57), Catalan argues that present-day seseo and ceceo arise from ^ezeo: the fusion of -ς- and -ss- as predorsodental voiceless -ς- and of -z- and -5- as -z-, its corresponding voiced phoneme. This fusion began in Andalusia in the fifteenth century or perhaps before, so that the 'gezeantes' were a large majority in the Seville population at the end of the fifteenth century, and therefore "in practice the totality of Andalusians who embarked for the Canaries or America" (328) would be gezeante. In Catalan's view, this totally undermines Alonso's polygenetic thesis of American and Andalusian seseo, and he concludes that

Spanish outside Spain

331

"those same settlers of the Canaries, the Caribbean and Mexico, settlers who came from the Peninsula, were the ones who introduced the Sevillian habit of fezear into the new overseas communities from the very start" (332). In a further article (1958), Catalan reaffirms his opposition to polygenetic theories of the similarities between Andalusian and American Spanish, pointing out the need for a revision of the linguistic nexus between the Atlantic ports of Spain and America. In this sense, he considers that there were two 'waves' across the Atlantic. The first wave extended Andalusian ςεζεο to the Canaries and Antilles16 and from there to the American continent. The second wave resulted in the propagation of a group of phonetic phenomena (aspiration and loss of -s, neutralization and dropping of -r and -/, and loss of -d·) which since the seventeenth century had affected 'Atlantic Spanish': southern Spain, the Canaries and coastal regions of America. The link that joined these different areas permanently was the West Indian fleet, a true 'wooden bridge' as Catalan put it, which periodically introduced metropolitan innovations centered on Seville and Cadiz, the points most directly connected to America. About the same time, lvaro Galmes de Fuentes analysed two important aspects of the andalucista thesis - yeismo and seseo. In the first of two studies (1957), he refers to the date of Andalusian yeismo and its relationship to American yeismo. Galmes believes the text he is analysing - a narrative written by a Moor expelled in 1609 - reflects not the linguistic usage peculiar to Moors, but a regional Spanish dialect, which on the basis of its seseo forms he identifies as the Andalusian dialect. He further believes that the yeismo confusions of the text reflect the real state of Andalusian, with complete merger o f / λ / and /j/; that numerous mistaken graphics in a text dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century point to a much earlier emergence of yeismo; and finally that Andalusian yeismo precedes and gives rise to that of America. The value of this evidence is, however, highly questionable: the attribution of linguistic characteristics of the text to an actual Andalusian dialect is not very convincing if one considers, for example, that the author systematically omits the aspiration coming from/-, whose persistence in Andalusia is undoubted at the time; its peculiarities therefore seem to be the result of Arabic influence rather than of this supposed Andalusian origin.17 Galmes also refers to the problem of andalucismo in his book Las sibilantes en la Romania (written in 1955, though not published till 1962). He argues that the andalucismo thesis should be reinstated, though better delimited geographically, since Andalusian influence

332

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

"only extends (save in a few features) to the coastal areas, in closer contact by sea with the metropolitan ports (especially Seville and Cadiz) [ . . . ] In this area [ . . . ] appear the main characteristics of southern Spanish: laxness of consonants; fusion of r and / and the tendencies -r, -I > -h, -d->0; aspiration of initial h-\ -j->h; yeismo, etc." (1962: 89). With respect to seseo, he considers that "it is one of those rare features of Andalusian origin which extend over both areas I have distinguished in America" (89); and he adds below: "I think that undoubtedly American seseo is related to Andalusian, but its extension over the whole continent cannot come from direct radiation from the metropolis" (90), but rather must have appeared by extension from several American zones with early seseo. Lapesa, who had already dealt with aspects of andalucismo (1942/1959 chapter 17; 1956, 1957) later presented (1964) an excellent analysis of the problem as a whole, taking into account the latest contributions to this topic. He says that to decide whether the similarities between American and Andalusian Spanish are polygenetic or are explicable by Andalusian influence, it is necessary: "1. To know with certainty the date of each phenomenon and the circumstances in which it occurs in Spain and in America; 2. To know the proportion of Andalusians that went to America, with distribution of dates, origin, settlement and social level; 3. To take into account other historical and cultural factors that could favour or oppose andalucismo" (174). He points out that the rejection of Andalusian as the origin of seseo by Henriquez Urena and Alonso was well founded at the time, since: the existing data on emigration to America did not indicate Andalusian predominance, the Andalusian confusion between dental and alveolar sibilants was considered to date from after 1560, and the occurrence of ceceo, the most common Andalusian realization, was not documented in America. Subsequent research has however destroyed the basis of these arguments: "The three premises on which the antiandalucista theory with respect to American seseo rests had lost their validity. Today the lead of Andalusian in confusing s and z; the existence of sources or areas of ceceo in different American countries; [and] the great percentage of Andalusians, their predominance, in the early times of colonization, have been demonstrated" (178). Also, new documentation showed earlier Andalusian attestations of the remaining phenomena connected with andalucismo. Lapesa, then, concludes: "From all the facts mentioned, one deduces that today there can be no doubts as to the Andalusian origin of some of the most peculiar features of American pronunciation: the most general,

Spanish outside Spain

333

seseo; very probably also yeismo; for sure, although not general in America, the confusion of final r and /, the aspiration of final -s and the substitution of aspirated h fory". Menendez Pidal published in 1962 a long and valuable paper in collaboration with Diego Catalan, who undoubtedly brought up to date its linguistic formulation. Menendez Pidal, here continuing his 1941 work on the same subject, points to the political and cultural importance of Seville during the sixteenth century owing both to the conquest of America and the reconquest of Granada, which doubled the extent of Andalusian territory. As a linguistic fracture simultaneously separated Andalusian pronunciation from Castilian, the situation resulted in the coexistence of two centres of linguistic diffusion: Madrid, on one hand, and Seville, on the other. Sevillian speech would impose its main feature, ceceo-zezeo, on the new lands: Granada in peninsular territory, and America across the ocean. In this respect, Menendez Pidal says: "In the basis of the colonial language there was not only the general norm of the common language, but also a particular dialect, which had been diverging from the others since the beginning of the sixteenth century; so transatlantic Spanish receives a marked Andalusian colouring in accepting the phonological simplification of ςεςβο-ζεζεο that emerged in the kingdom of Seville" (1962: 134-135). This early base, common throughout the American territory, was succeeded by a differentiation determined by the degree of relationship with the metropolis; American coastal areas directly connected with the Andalusian ports via the fleet adopted later Andalusian innovations (aspiration of -s, confusion of -r and -/, aspiration of /x/, and weakness of d-), whereas the interior areas remained unaffected by these changes. Finally, the viceregal courts accepted, via the activity of officials, lawyers and writers, innovations originating at the Madrid court. Menendez Pidal concludes that: "The various kinds of communication of the colonial domains with the metropolis, as well as the character of commercial, agricultural or urban life, explains the distribution of the various kinds of Hispano-American speech, whether popular (most andalucista), conservative, or courtier" (165). In an excellent presentation of the main contributions to this debate (1969), Rosenblat again raises objections to the works of BoydBowman, Galmes, and to some extent, of Catalan. Rosenblat seems, at times, to identify himself with the views of Henriquez Urena and Amado Alonso,18 although unfortunately the study ends without complete clarification of his position: "A thorough analysis of the andalu-

334

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

cista position of Rafael Lapesa, Diego Catalan, and Ramon Menendez Pidal would lead us to a complete revision of the formation and development of American Spanish. This analysis, for reasons of space, is left for another occasion" (190). Guitarte (1969), alongside important remarks on the study of the linguistic history of American Spanish, gives an account of an investigation carried out under his direction by his pupil Olga Cock Hincapie. In her own book (1969),19 she attempts to analyse and trace the provenance of original documents of the first century of the conquest of Nueva Granada (1550-1650), with the aim of determining the degree of confusion of sibilants at this time. This corpus shows, attested from the very first documents, a large majority of pronunciations with seseo. The confusions appear in the documents of Creoles and Indians, as well as those of Spaniards coming from non-seseo areas who had been long resident in America, and they occur in all positions thus contradicting Alonso's hypothesis on the 'layering' of American seseo. The early date of the first documents with seseo, establishes that this phenomenon came from the Peninsula and did not originate in America. This study is a solid basis for further research not only for the immediate conclusions that can be drawn from it, but also as a model of documental investigation on American Spanish. Summing up the present state of research into the vexed question of American andalucismo, we may confidently assert that the established anteriority of the majority of the linguistic phenomena in Andalusia, and the demographic weight of Andalusians among the colonists (both aspects to which enlightening contributions have been made in the last two decades) leave no doubt whatever that the Andalusians were the decisive catalyst for several of the main phonetic features that characterize American Spanish.20 I think further documental studies, fulfilling Guitarte's proposal and continuing the work initiated by Olga Cock and Peter Boyd-Bowman, will reveal how these features took root in America and also how the speech of different regions developed a greater or lesser degree of andalucismo.21 2.1.4 Evolution of the main phonological and syntactic features In my discussion of the debate on andalucismo, I have already considered much material on the phonological evolution of American Spanish. Therefore, I will now limit myself to some aspects which are outside this debate, such as the evolution of 'yeismo rehilado' - that is, with a [z] realization - in River Plate Spanish, and the velarization of III

Spanish outside Spain

335

in Puerto Rico. Rosenblat (1960) also pointed to the existence of yeismo in the Argentine generation of 1810, on the basis of numerous confusions of graphics in the writings of the time, and published evidence dating from 1826 which shows that the realization of this yeismo was [z]. In a further valuable work (1971) Guitarte offered - together with documentation of yeismo in 16th century peninsular usage - evidence of the existence of yeismo rehilado in Buenos Aires in 1821, based on a commentary on Porteno speech by an English traveller. In my own article (Fontanella de Weinberg 1973b) on the usage of the graph (y) to represent the Portuguese [z] in a 'gauchesco' play, I pointed to the occurrence of the [z] realization in the last decade of the eighteenth century, showing the existence of this typical feature of Buenos Aires pronunciation still at the end of the colonial period. In an interesting paper, German de Granda (1966) studies the origin and progressive velarization of III which occurs in the greater part of the Puerto Rican territory. With respect to the three varieties described by Navarro Tomäs (1948) - alveolar vibrant, alveolar semivibrant preceded by aspiration, and velar oscillating between voice and voiceless and between fricative and vibrant - Granda considers, on the basis of evidence from the last century, that the alveolar gave way to a mixed articulation and this in turn to velar. The 'mixed' stage appeared also in Venezuela and Colombia, and seems to be a first step towards velarization. To these three stages we must add a fourth, apparently recent, which consists in aspiration and fusion with the /h/ coming from /x/. At present, the four realizations coexist on the island. On the origin of velarization, the author rejects, with well-founded arguments, the hypothesis that attributes this process to the influence of Indian or African languages, concluding that the factor causing this change must be looked for in the structure of Spanish, where /r/: III is the sole quantitative opposition, thus constituting a weak point in the phonological system liable to modification in culturally marginal Hispanic speech regions such as Puerto Rico. As regards morphosyntax, I shall begin by considering the works on the history of 'voseo', the main grammatical feature of American Spanish. Lapesa 1970 represents an excellent analysis of the source of the several kinds of voseo. He says that the coexistence of vos and tu at the conquest was "the necessary precondition for interference to appear between the two forms of address as well as the different solutions adopted" (1970: 519). And he adds below: "In the American areas

336

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

which were most influenced by the viceregal courts of Mexico and Lima, and in the Antilles, whose dependence on the metropolis lasts longer than on the continent, vos was lost in familiar usage with one interlocutor, together with os, vuestro, and the second person plural verbal forms [ . . . ] But in large areas of America, distant from courtly taste and less influenced by the norms that prevailed in the Peninsula, mixed paradigms with forms coming from one or another pronoun and with singular or plural verbal forms were created" (519). He also analyses the formation of the different paradigms of voseo, pointing out that the chronicler Bernal Diaz already shows a combination of forms with tuteo and voseo ("fagetelo vos") and concluding that "in the areas where these etymologically mixed paradigms were established, there was a loss of social distinctions and of linguistic norms which may look like indifference to vulgarity, but in which we can also see a positive aspect: the desire for cohesive levelling in communities in the process of formation" (531). The evolution of voseo in Buenos Aires Spanish has aroused special interest perhaps because it is practically the only great capital where voseo is at present common to all social levels. A work which curiously enough has had a great influence is Babel y el castellano (1928), a volume devoid of linguistic scholarship and whose author, Arturo Capdevila, is led by a purist passion which sees voseo as a "calamitous feature" and an "ignominious ugliness". Capdevila says in this book - with no proof whatever - that the 1810 generation was free of voseo and that this situation lasted until 1830 when Rosas came to power, during whose government voseo was established, as a symptom of barbarism: "All the cultured people in Buenos Aires in 1810 used tu, as they also did in Cordoba. But, when the Tyrant came, they returned to voseo" (1928: 101). In a book which sets out to give a historico-sociological interpretation of the characteristics of Argentinian Spanish, Americo Castro (1941) took up again Capdevila's thesis with similar passion, agreeing with him as regards the chronology of the phenomenon: "The climax and success of Rosas' power (1830-1852), coincides with the revival of voseo among those who used tu" (1941: 63-64). Rosenblat considers that voseo was characteristic of Buenos Aires Spanish about 1810, but its use may have been limited socially and stylistically: "I do not think that it had been adopted in letter writing nor that it was used in the most highly cultured circles" (1960: 13). Berta E. Vidal de Battini (1967) surprisingly returns to Capdevila's thesis, saying

Spanish outside Spain

337

categorically that in the early decades of the nineteenth century "in the speech of this area the use of the correct pronoun and verbal forms, lost from Argentine Spanish, was still maintained: tu, vosotros, os, collate. Voseo was unknown" (4).22 In my 1968 article, I pointed out, among other evidence, the existence of a denunciation published in the Porteno press in 1828 of the use of voseo forms "at social gatherings, in the most serious conversations, in writing, in the courts". Rodolfo A. Borello (1969) concurs with this evidence and also quotes several voseo forms in collections of letters from Cordoba extending chronologically from 1683 to 1838, and thus attesting to the continuity of this usage in that Argentinian city. As a follow-up to my 1968 article, and believing that headway could only be made in this field by studying a sufficiently large amount of material, I made (1971b) an analysis of archival material relating to a family correspondence covering the first two decades of the nineteenth century, including letters by several authors who are members of the highest strata of Buenos Aires society of the time. Here I found numerous voseo forms. We can thus definitely conclude that the Porteno classes of the early nineteenth century used voseo and that it was a feature in continuous use at all social levels from the colonial period onwards. The verbal and pronominal forms used in this correspondence coincided with the present Buenos Aires verbal voseo. However, in the same archives and in the 'gauchesco' plays of the time, there appear diphthongal verbal forms of voseo and the pronominal form os, now completely unknown to this area. It seems then that the extension and the very nature of voseo varied enormously with time. Besides, the material studied allowed me to ascertain that already in the early nineteenth century the familiar, as well as formal, second person plural was ustedes, as it is nowadays in all American Spanish. It is of great interest to study the evolution of the uses of the second person singular in the different American regions, in order to determine how they moved from initial coexistence of tu and vos, to situations with exclusive tuteo or voseo, or to the coexistence of both forms, but with a different social value. Lastly, in the voseo areas it would be useful to analyse the evolution of the verbal and prenominal forms used, since - as studies on the Buenos Aires area have revealed their distribution was modified through time (see Fontanella de Weinberg 1976). Another interesting historical aspect of American Spanish is the persistence in several areas of verbal forms in -re, which were lost from colloquial peninsular Spanish. German de Granda (1968c) demonstrates

338

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

the continuing use of these verbal forms in Canary Islands Spanish and in Caribbean coastal districts: Santo Domingo, Panama, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Cuba and some Departments in Colombia. As these areas were colonized before the rest of Latin America, Granda supposed that the survival of -re forms corresponded to the areas colonized during the Antillean period, while in the territory conquered after 1530 a kind of Spanish was introduced in which these forms were not used at popular levels. Granda's hypothesis is undoubtedly interesting, although certain facts do not seem to conform to it: firstly, forms ending in -re are found in other regions,23 and secondly if it had been a form adopted during the Antillean period, it would have been extended to other American areas from there - as happened, for example, with Tahino loans - since the majority of later expeditions had their origin in this area and did not come directly from Spain, as Granda's thesis seems to suppose. I think that it is indispensable to improve our knowledge of the verbal uses in the various American areas and, as far as possible, in sixteenth century peninsular Spanish, before we can make progress towards the elucidation of this problem. 2.2 Descriptive studies 2.2.1 General surveys There are very few general descriptive studies of Hispano-American speech. One of the earliest overviews is to be found in Henriquez Urena 1921, which Rona rightly considers "the foundation of HispanoAmerican dialectology" (1964: 216). Henriquez Urena discusses the dialectal division of American Spanish, the existence of Spanish-based Creoles, and the geographic distribution of the most outstanding phonetic and morphosyntactic features. As above, I will refer to the various aspects of this work in analysing each particular point. Wagner's popularizing work Lingua e dialetti dell'America Spagnola (1949) gives a synthesis of the main characteristics of the various zones of American Spanish, focusing especially on phonetic and lexical peculiarities. The volume also contains an anthology of dialectal texts. Though modest in aim and now outdated in its information, the book was at one time a useful survey, especially for foreign readers.24 Zamora Vicente (1960/1967) also devotes a chapter to the main features of Hispano-American speech. Both studies, however, make a number of debatable generalizations, claiming that American Spanish originated in pre-classic Spanish and characterizing it as archaic and markedly homogeneous. In the latter respect, Zamora avers: "American Spanish shows

Spanish outside Spain

339

[ . . . ] solid homogeneity [ . . . ] the differences in the enormous American territory are minimal within the total linguistic system. There are far fewer differences between any two American regions, despite the vastness of the continent and their remoteness from each other, than between two contiguous valleys in Asturias" (1960/1967: 378). This statement undoubtedly does not stand up to scrutiny, and can only be explained by the lack of descriptions of many regional and social varieties of American Spanish, and because such inter-regional comparisons as do exist are restricted in most cases to the speech of the highest sociocultural levels.25 As regards the supposed archaism of American Spanish, this implies on one hand taking Castilian Spanish as the yardstick against which to measure the other dialects, and on the other, assigning to all American Spanish some conservative features which are in most cases socially and geographically restricted.26 Lastly, with respect to the assertion that "the basis of American Spanish [ . . . ] is pre-classic Castilian" (1960/1967: 378), this remark - as pointed out in Rosenblat 1950a and Alonso 1953: 10-13 - stems from two erroneous premises: 1) confusing 'language' with 'literary language' (the word 'classic' is applicable to literature, not to linguistics); and 2) considering that the American conquest was accomplished in 1492, while in fact it developed throughout the sixteenth century and the settlers continued to arrive in great numbers throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.27 Recently, the Puerto Rican scholar Ruben del Rosario (1970) published a popular work on American Spanish, supplemented by a selection of studies by other authors. Rosario gives a panoramic view of the main phonological, grammatical and lexical characteristics with special reference to Antillean, Mexican and River Plate Spanish. A very good critical survey of the descriptive studies on American Spanish with a broad overview of the literature on this subject, appealing to modern and properly-documented criteria, is given in Lope Blanch 1968a. Beatrice Lavandera also contributes a penetrating analysis of the latest sociolinguistic research on American Spanish (1974).28 2.2.2 Dialectal classification and linguistic geography The first dialectal taxonomy of American Spanish to attain wide diffusion was that of Henriquez Urena, who proposed a "provisional" classification into five main areas: "first, one that comprises the bilingual regions of the south and south west of United States, Mexico, and the Republics of Central America; second the three islands of the Spanish West Indies [ · · · ] , the coast and the llanos of Venezuela, and probably

340

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

the southern regions of Colombia; third, the Andean region of Venezuela, the interior and western coast of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, the greater part of Bolivia and, perhaps, the north of Chile; fourth, the greater part of Chile; fifth, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and perhaps part of the south east of Bolivia" (1921: 360). He bases this classification on lexical phenomena and considers that the make-up of each area is determined by geographical proximity, political and cultural relations existing in the Colonial Period and the contact of the speech of each region with the main indigenous languages. He points out that each of these areas comprises subdivisions and illustrates this with the Mexican zone, in which he believes six areas can be distinguished. This classification, which Henriquez Urena explicitly describes as provisional, has lasted many years, in spite of some objections,29 and was taken up again in such works as Zamora Vicente 1960, Wagner 1949 and Alvar 1960. The scientific delimitation of Hispano-American dialects is further examined by Rona (1964) who advocates the use of isoglosses and argues that this dialectal division must precede the search for the extralinguistic reasons (indigenous influence, political frontiers, etc.) that explain it. He proposes to use four features whose extension is known with relative certainty: a phonetic feature, zeismo; a phonological one, yeismo; a syntactic one, the occurrence of voseo; and a morphological one, the different verbal forms associated with voseo, of which he distinguishes four types. By zeismo Rona understands the realization as [z] of a phoneme /y/, resulting from the merger of/y/ and /λ/, as in River Plate Spanish; as well as of /y/ (phonemically distinct from /λ/), as in Paraguay; or of /λ/ (distinct from /y/), as in the hilly region of Ecuador. On the basis of the interaction of these four features, Rona postulates sixteen dialectal areas. While the proposal to determine the dialectal zones exclusively on the basis of linguistic features is entirely praiseworthy, it is essential to have more partial descriptions, as Rona himself acknowledges, in order to proceed with the classification on safe grounds, and to be able to choose the most suitable features for the purpose, without limiting oneself to the few that are known with relative certainty. At the same time, it seems inappropriate to consider the phonetic realization of different phonemes under the same label (zeismo), since in Rona's classification the hilly region of Ecuador as well as Paraguay are [+zeista] and [-yeista], although in the first case it is /λ/ that is represented by [z]. Paying exclusive attention to the phonetics of this feature and disregarding the phonological aspect, could lead us to group together areas where

Spanish outside Spain

341

III is realized as [f], a sound which is perhaps perceptively nearer to Buenos Aires [z], than the realization of Paraguayan /y/.M A precondition of effective progress in this delimitation is undoubtedly a fund of linguistic-geographical surveys which, given the distances involved, must be carried out regionally.31 Puerto Rico is the only country so far to have been studied in this way, in Navarro Tomäs 1948. His study is based on surveys carried out in forty-three towns and comprises phonetic, grammatical and lexical aspects. Navarro Tomäs offers an excellent presentation of the linguistic characteristics of Puerto Rican Spanish, providing at the same time a methodology suitable for further investigations of this kind.32 The Instituto Caro y Cuervo has done very fruitful work since the fifties in drawing up the linguistic-ethnographic atlas of Colombia.33 The first surveys were carried out in 1956 on the basis of a questionnaire of more than 8,000 items (see Buesa de Oliver - Florez 1957). The impossibility of managing such an overwhelming questionnaire caused its reduction to 1,348 items in 1960 (Florez 1960a) and a further adjustment a year later (Florez 1961b). At present, more than a half of the intended surveys (250 in total) have been carried out, and interesting work has been published on the basis of the material gathered.34 In Mexico, Lope Blanch is conducting an important project in the Seminar on Dialectology of the Colegio de Mexico, whose main objective is to establish a new dialectal classification to replace the one sketched by Henriquez Urena.35 This research involves three stages. In the first, a pilot study of twenty points was carried out, in which a lexical questionnaire was administered and free conversations were recorded. In the second stage, a survey was carried out which includes phonological, grammatical and lexical items, and which would make it possible to establish the main dialectal divisions. The final stage (Lope Blanch 1970) will administer in 250 towns an enlarged questionnaire with a thousand items including phonetic, grammatical and lexical ones and which will make it possible to determine with precision the different dialectal areas and their divisions. Lope Blanch presented a part of the material gathered in the second stage of the investigation in a valuable study (1971d), which goes far beyond the bounds suggested by its title, and in practice provides a tentative classification of the different Mexican dialects based on the analysis of twenty five lexical items gathered from fifty towns distributed throughout Mexico.36 Lastly and to a lesser extent, there are investigations being carried out for the Atlas lingüistico etnografico del sur de Chile (1968: see also

342

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Araya 1971). This project comprises five Chilean provinces, with fifty nine towns to be surveyed. The questionnaire used has 1,667 items and includes phonetic, phonological, and morphosyntactic aspects, lexical elements, and toponymy.37 2.2.3 Studies of general scope The only modern general work on American-Spanish phonetics38 is that of D. L. Canfield (1962) - a tentative representation in chart form (based both on personal fieldwork and a wide bibliography) of the extension of the main phonetic features of Hispano-American speech.39 Some of its statements, however, require correction, such as: the co-terminous representation of the realizations [tf] and [f] - there being areas with [tf] and without [f], and vice versa; and the failure to indicate a /s/ with 'zizeante' articulation in Panama, the south of Chile and parts of Argentina, or the loss of final -s in the eastern part of Argentina. Canfield, however, cannot be reproached for the majority of these omissions, as his sources were deficient. On the other hand, one objection that can be effectively raised is the lack of a phonological approach, which precludes a more structural overview of the various systems and some important problems of phonological interpretation.40 Alonso 1953 brings together three valuable papers on phonology: "La pronunciacion de 'rr' y 'tr' en Espana y America" (151-195), "La // y sus alteraciones en Espana y America" (196-262), and "-r y -/ en Espana y America" (263-331). Although the prime aim of these papers is not descriptive, since Alonso's purpose is to analyse Lenz's substratum hypothesis on the assibilation of Chilean [tf] and [f] in the first of them, and to study the relation of yeismo and the various relaxed articulations of -r and -/ in American and Andalusian Spanish in the other two, their interest from a descriptive viewpoint is undoubted, since in all three cases Alonso carries out a careful description of the various realizations of each phoneme or group, and of the extension of each in American and peninsular Spanish. In 1952 Dwight L. Bolinger studied, by means of a postal survey, the Hispano-American pronunciation of what is orthographically represented as 'x', his chief finding being that the pronunciation [ks] is the most frequent on some social levels and that there is an awareness that it is the most 'correct', even among those who accept [s]. Navarro Tomäs found the conclusions of this paper weak (1952b), since it was based on a postal survey, a method he wisely judges inadequate for this kind of study.41 Ruth L. Hyman (1956) analysed the presence of the segment [ r j ] in

Spanish outside Spain

343

numerous American Spanish dialects. She claims that in the speech of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela and Peru, /n/ has an allophone [ rj ] which occurs in final position before pause and in word final position before a vowel, as a sign of open juncture. Daniel N. Cardenas (1958) takes up again a subject already dealt with by Amado Alonso, describing the extension of assibilation of III and III in different positions, and illustrating his exposition with a map showing its geographic distribution (and, indeed, the areas where the phenomenon is not even surveyed). Cardenas proposes, as an explanation of the f> f shift, the existence of an alveolar-palatal correlation in the other sonorants (/// - / /, /n/ - / n / ) , which would tend to drag /f/ to a palatal realization in order to create a symmetrical counterpart to /r/. Although Cärdenas's hypothesis is interesting, I think it suffers from two weaknesses: firstly, /n/-/n/ is not an isolated pair, they are part of a triple relationship /m/-/n/-/n7; and secondly, as at present most of the [f] area is yeista, it is necessary to establish the relative chronology, since, if the change f>f occurred later than the loss of / /, Cärdenas's argument would lose much of its strength, because there would not be two pairs of sonorants available to exert influence on the vibrants. The only general study on Hispano-American syntax is by Charles E. Kany (1945a).42 Kany declares its purpose as "to bring together under one cover the most important tendencies of American Spanish syntax with special reference to popular expression; that is, to offer a compendium of the chief syntactical phenomena or peculiarities that diverge from the recognized standard usage of contemporary Spain" (1945a: v). In order to do this, he used materials personally collected in HispanoAmerica, data obtained in regional monographs or dictionaries, and a very wide range of regional literature. The material is organized by subjects and, within each, by countries. As Kany says, "geographical and social limits for each phenomenon have been indicated in so far as they have been discovered" (vii). In spite of certain limitations - such as the predominance of literary material among his sources, the classification by countries of the phenomena (whose extension in their majority does not coincide with political boundaries), the scanty analysis of material in some cases, which leads him to group together heterogeneous facts - the result is an excellent contribution, not strictly limited to syntax, but also covering several morphological and even morphophonological aspects and providing much indispensable material for future work in the grammatical field.43

344

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Angel Rosenblat offers plentiful material on different morphological aspects of American Spanish and its relation with peninsular Spanish in his "Notas de morfologia dialectal", published as an appendix to the second volume of the study by Aurelio M. Espinosa (1946) on the Spanish of New Mexico. Unfortunately, its organization as notes to Espinosa's text excessively disperses material whose excellent intrinsic value undoubtedly justified a more systematic treatment. On morphosyntax, the most important works of continental scope deal with voseo. Henriquez Urena (1921) made the first general presentation of the question, analysing the various verb forms used with voseo and offering an overview of the data then available on its geographical distribution. Eleuterio F. Tiscornia in his study of La lengua de Martin Fierro (1930) devotes the major part of his chapters on the pronoun and the verb to a consideration of voseo (121-137, 161-176), not only in 'gauchesco' speech, but also in the various HispanoAmerican dialects. In this last case, he gives a broad overview (as far as this was possible at the time) of the extension of voseo in American Spanish, pointing out its coexistence with tuteo and determining its usage on the different social and even stylistic levels when his sources or direct knowledge permitted. The book also has a map, drawn in collaboration with Henriquez Urena and some "Referencias al mapa del voseo" (289-290), by Henriquez Urena himself, which embodied the best information then available, and which remained for a long time a necessary reference point in Hispanic cartography.44 Kany presents, in the third and perhaps the most successful chapter of the book (1945a), an excellent description of voseo, with new data on its geographical and social extension, and its diverse forms in the various American countries. Rona's important Geografia y morfologia del 'voseo' (1967) constitutes a significant advance, and allows not only a better general view, but also specific corrections with respect to some areas.45 However, the fact that the study was conducted by correspondence is undoubtedly a disadvantage since, on one hand, the answers were given by non-specialist collaborators (primary teachers, mainly) and on the other, the relative density of the data is very uneven, owing to the very low number of answers in certain areas. In this last respect, the abundant material that Rona had available to him on the River Plate region (189 answers from Uruguay and 188 from Argentina) contrasts starkly with the little information obtained from other countries (three answers from Venezuela, two from Guatemala, two from Cuba, one from Puerto Rico, for

Spanish outside Spain

345

example). Anticipating one aspect of his investigations, Rona analysed (1961) the multiplicity of future forms used with voseo, distinguishing those that are etymologically singular (andaras) from those deriving from the plural (andares, andaris, or andareis}. He considers that the latter are spontaneously transmitted and that the former occur mainly in the areas where the oral language uses exclusively periphrastic future forms and where this tense is consequently learned at school. The hypothesis is very interesting but a careful study of the usage and acquisition of verbal forms would be necessary to determine its validity in the different areas, since although in all Hispano-America the periphrastic forms are preferred for simple futurity, the synthetic forms are still used spontaneously in speech to express potentiality in most areas, as for example in Buenos Aires Spanish (where, however, the andaras form is used). In my view, further headway on voseo requires more partial studies to serve as a basis for later general syntheses. These investigations (on which see Fontanella de Weinberg 1974a, 1976) should determine not only the areas of exclusive tuteo or voseo and those where both usages coexist, but ought also to analyse the various forms of voseo used and, in the coexistence zones, to establish the extralinguistic variables predisposing one usage or the other. Wagner (1950b) points to the frequent use of the -ecola suffix in American Spanish, claiming that "of course, it is not found save in the area of Nahuatl influence, that is to say in Mexico and Central America, and only very rarely further towards the south" (108). Wagner concludes that these formations originate in the Nahuatl suffix -ic or -tic.46 Jorge A. Suärez, in a valuable and rigorous analysis of some works dealing with the contact between Spanish and indigenous languages (1966: 87-89), refutes Wagner's hypothesis about this suffix. Suärez points out that firstly, Nahuatl items in -ic borrowed into Spanish do not result in -eco; secondly, none of the forms with -eco that Wagner cites has a Nahuatl root; besides, the -ic suffix is in Nahuatl a simple element forming adjectives, so that its specialization in Spanish would not be justified; and thirdly, the distribution of -eco noticeably transcends the Nahuatl area, extending down to Chile and Argentina. Suärez says that the existence of forms in -eco in the extreme south of the continent makes it "necessary to conclude that they are Spanish formations. As such formations exist, it is not improbable that on the basis of them (and of chueco, which even though not having the suffix, could give an impulse to the whole process) and, in the presence of the -anco, -enco suffixes, the popular -eco is used just for the derivation of adjectives that designate physical defects" (89).

346

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Lope Blanch (1969a: 26-27, also 1971c) has refuted Wagner's explanation with arguments similar to those of Suärez, pointing out the existence in peninsular Spanish of depreciatory forms in -eco. A subject that has aroused the interest of several authors is the Hispano-American use of verbal forms in -ra with indicative functions. Mallo (1947), taking a purist attitude, 47 criticizes harshly the use of these forms with the value of different indicative preterites, stressing that such uses, frequent in literary works of little value, are Galician in origin. The article encountered serious objections from Wright (1947). Bolinger (1948) entered the debate to refute some of Wright's considerations, but without a thorough analysis of the problem. Staubach (1946), limiting himself to written Colombian language, arrived at different conclusions from Mallo's, namely that the use of -ra forms with a pluperfect indicative value is characteristic of the authors of major literary merit, whereas its use as equivalent of other indicative preterites is more frequent among lesser writers and journalists. This problem undoubtedly deserves more careful studies of the various American zones. Finally, in the field of semantics, Kany published (almost simultaneously) two important panoramic studies: American-Spanish semantics (1960a) and American-Spanish euphemisms (196Qb),** abounding in data and providing not only an efficient presentation of multiple semantic and lexicographic phenomena, but also a valuable springboard for further research on the subject.49 In conclusion, we must reiterate that panoramic approaches to various aspects of American Spanish can only advance to the extent that partial studies, carried out with the greatest scholarly rigour and skill, provide the solid ground for later general syntheses. In these studies not only should the geographical limits of each linguistic phenomenon be determined, but also the social and stylistic levels of its occurrence, using the modern techniques that linguistics at present offers. This is the only way in which our knowledge of Hispano-American speech will progress.50 2.2.4 General studies of the speech of countries or regions El espanol de la Argentina by Berta Vidal de Battini (1964b)51 is the only general work in this area. The author's purpose is essentially pedagogical: "to study Argentine Spanish with a didactic aim; to make as complete a study as possible of the regional speech varieties and, on the scientific basis of this knowledge, to formulate observations and advice on the best ways of teaching our language in elementary schools" (13). The material was collected by the author herself in travels made through-

Spanish outside Spain

347

out the interior of the country, following a guide built up on the basis of Navarro Tomäs's Cuestionario lingüistico hispanoamericano (1945). The book includes a historico-cultural introduction, a classification into linguistic areas, a phonetic, morphological and syntactic analysis, and prescriptive conclusions. The author determined and showed by means of excellent charts the extension of the main characteristics of Argentinian Spanish (different intonations, articulation of -s, realization of /r/, yeismo, etc.), on the basis of which she made a classification of the various linguistic areas of the country. Unfortunately, the phonetism, to which she devotes most space and in which she shows excellent perceptiveness, is described without a phonological framework and is organized by the old-fashioned criterion of giving 'the pronunciation of the letters'.52 In spite of these limitations,53 the work is undoubtedly a useful overview and an indispensable starting point for further investigation of Argentinian Spanish. Earlier on, the same author had published a very valuable study of the rural speech of San Luis (Vidal de Battini 1949a),54 an Argentinian province of particular interest to linguists, because it was part of Chile during the first two colonial centuries, and was incorporated into the River Plate Viceroyalty in the second half of the eighteenth century, since when it has undergone a process of linguistic assimilation matching its new political affiliation. The rural speech of this region is of great interest because of the successive linguistic layers it incorporates; its complexity is increased by the existence of an area which is flatter and more open to River Plate influence, and contrasts with the more isolated and conservative highlands. The author conducted her own fieldwork, scouring the province with a guide based on Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire. The work includes a historical introduction; a chapter devoted to phonetics, with ample data although with the same limitations we noted in respect of her later work (1964b); a description of the main syntactic phenomena; and an excellent and very detailed analysis of the different morphological aspects, running to almost 300 pages. The extension of the various phenomena is determined geographically and in most cases also socially, which increases the value of the work.55 Long years of research on Chilean speech by Oroz came to fruition in his 1966 book56 based on the results of an inquiry, along the general lines of Navarro Tomäs's, conducted in 30 towns throughout the country. Most of the interviews were done by Oroz himself and in some cases by his collaborators. Unfortunately, the social levels are not accurately delimited and, as the number of localities examined (as the author himself

348

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

admits) is very low and the country is so large, it was impossible to draw up isoglosses of the various phenomena. The data were organized on the pattern set by Navarro Tomäs, except for the phonetic description, which follows the presentation used by Henriquez Urena in his study of the speech of Santo Domingo (1940). The result is a solid work of more than 500 pages, in which the main phonetic, grammatical and lexical aspects of Chilean speech are efficiently presented.57 There is no general study of Bolivian Spanish. Kany (1947) presents a series of morphosyntactic features which lead into various lexical subjects, and formulates some observations on phonetics, broadening the features already ascribed to Bolivian in earlier books (1945a). Among these notes, based on personal observation and material drawn from regional literature, stand out his analysis of the uses of the gerundive and a description of the extension and forms of voseo, which modifies everything hitherto known about this phenomenon in Bolivia. Pedro M. Benvenutto Murrieta published a book on El lenguaje peruano (1936),58 covering lexical, phonetic and morphosyntactic aspects, and assembling abundant dialectal material, although Murrieta's own inadequate training in linguistics prevents him from treating several problems with the appropriate methodology. This is particularly noticeable in the phonetic description, which certainly requires more rigour. Ecuadorian Spanish was the object of an important study by Humberto Toscano Mateus (1953)i9 which includes a historical introduction and an analysis of the phonological, grammatical and lexical aspects. He distinguishes two dialectal zones: the coastal area, in which Spanish, as in other American coastal zones, is characterized by lax consonants and tense vowels, and a highland region markedly influenced by Quechua, whose most outstanding features are tense consonants and lax vowels. Although he describes the speech of both regions, his study focuses mainly on Quiteno (highland) speech and presents a careful analysis of the strong Quechua influence in phonetics, vocabulary and even morphosyntax. On Colombian Spanish there are several monographs on different regional varieties, which are the results of fruitful and uninterrupted work carried out over many years by the Department of Dialectology of the Institute Caro y Cuervo, directed by Luis Florez.60 Florez himself has published major regional studies, on the Departments of Antioquia (1957)61 and Santander (1965).62 The former follows the guidelines of Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire, as regards the phonetic, morphological

Spanish outside Spain

349

and syntactic aspects and ends with a valuable lexical study, organized on Word-and-Thing lines. The latter, based on material collected in 1959 and 1960 for the linguistic-ethnographic atlas of Colombia (ALEC) from eighteen points in the Santander Department and reflecting the mainly popular usage of its informants, comprises a phonological analysis (most unusual for Hispano-American dialectology), a morphosyntactical study, and a vocabulary. It includes more than 170 charts with the distribution of the main lexical items and valuable illustrative photographs. His more recent collaborative venture (Florez et al. 1969), also based on material collected for the ALEC in twenty localities in north Santander studied between 1961 and 1966, offers a careful presentation of the informants and of the points under investigation, a relatively brief phonetic and grammatical description, and a wide lexical study, taking in fifteen major vocabulary themes and a section on onomastics. This book too contains distribution charts and illustrative drawings and photographs. On Venezuelan Spanish, van Wijk (1946) treats many syntactic, morphological and phonetic aspects, but unfortunately his work is based exclusively on literary material, thus diminishing its general value. Rosenblat carried out a useful general description of the Spanish of Venezuela (1955), with abundant samples of its chief morphological and lexical features. He points out the many conservative aspects of Venezuelan speech, side by side with innovation in other respects. Stanley Robe, describing the speech of Panama (I960),63 gives a geographical and social introduction, a historical characterization,64 and a phonological and morphological analysis, based on material collected between 1943 and 1946 in the four central provinces of Code, Herrera, Los Santos and Veraguas. The study was made from the dialectological angle, although it was formulated - especially the phonology - in a structural framework. This rigorous presentation of the main characteristics of Panamanian speech unfortunately does not consider syntactic or lexico-semantic problems. On Costa Rican speech, there are two works by Arturo Agüero (1960, 1964). The brief but serviceable 1964 article presents the various dialectal zones, distinguishing two main areas, the Central Valley and Guanacaste, whose differences result from their being populated by two independent currents of settlers and their having belonged to two separate jurisdictions in the colonial period. Agüero makes a phonetic, grammatical and lexical description of both dialectal regions and characterizes them - especially in the rural areas - as conservative varieties of Atlantic Spanish, a fact to be explained, according to the author, "by the relative

350

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

isolation of the population until the end of the eighteenth century" (1964: 140). On the Spanish of El Salvador the only general study, by Canfield (1960a),65 is mainly a phonetic description, made on the basis of Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire, but also includes brief grammatical and lexical observations and a useful appendix of phonetic transcriptions of fragments of salvadoreno speech. As regards Antillean Spanish, pride of place must go to the classic study by Henriquez Urena (1940), which recounts the history of Santo Domingo and the role it played in Latin American linguistic evolution, and offers a phonetic, morphological and syntactic description, together with very rich lexical material and an ample collection of proverbs, sayings, songs, games and other traditional elements. Pointing out the strongly conservative character of Santo Domingo speech, he believes "the vocabulary and the syntax of Spanish are, in Santo Domingo, of markedly archaic colour; but, its phonetic system is similar to that of Andalusia" (1940: 136). For the Spanish of Puerto Rico, there is the excellent description by Navarro Tomäs (1948) ,66 to which I have already referred. A brief exposition by Ruben del Rosario (1964) concludes that in its phonetism Puerto Rican Spanish "coincides essentially with the pronunciation dominant in the Antillean area and is distinguished, among other things, by the shortening of the final vowel, the greater abundance of the change r>l, and the development of a velar r" (156). On Mexican Spanish, Lope Blanch presented a general survey to the 1964 PFLE symposium, focusing mainly on the speech of Mexico City, but also with passing references to the main characteristics of Spanish in the rest of the country. His description takes in the phonetic, grammatical and semantic levels. The syntactic aspect is of particular interest and we should single out his analysis of the gerundival constructions, of the future periphrasis, and of the uses of the past tenses.67 On the Spanish of the various Mexican regions, there are several studies. Victor M. Suärez, though an amateur, published a meritorious book on the Spanish of Yucatan (1945).^ This dialectal area holds special interest because it was bilingual with Maya for centuries and remained relatively isolated from the rest of Mexico. Suärez's study, which drew on Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire and Henriquez Urena's work on Santo Domingo, includes the phonetic, grammatical and lexical aspects, and is, despite its limitations (the phonetic description is the least satisfactory owing to the author's lack of formal training)

Spanish outside Spain

351

a useful description of Yucatan Spanish and a starting point for later research. El habla de Tepotzotlan by Estrella Cortich Mora (1951) is an interesting although somewhat superficial description of this regional variety, one of whose chapters, devoted to lexis, was published independently (1954). Boyd-Bowman's El habla de Guanajuato (1960; originally a Harvard doctoral dissertation in 1949)69 is, in the words of Lope Blanch, "the first investigation of a dialectal Mexican area made in a systematic and scientific way" (Lope Blanch 1962b; 456). Based on Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire, it comprises a short historical introduction and a phonetic, grammatical and lexical description. This last aspect includes not only vocabulary, but also idioms, sayings, euphemisms and two Wordand-Thing compilations on mining and pottery. Boyd-Bowman concentrates on Guanajuato city, but also studies a small agricultural community, Romita, thus covering both urban speech - of the high and middle social levels - and also rural speech, specifying in each case the relevant social group. Cärdenas's El espanol de Jalisco (1967, again originally a doctoral thesis, Columbia 1953) uses material collected at thirty nine points in this state, following Navarro Tomäs's questionnaire, and comprises a phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical description. Cardenas 1954 is a synopsis of this book. On the Spanish spoken in the United States, there is one general description of Louisiana Spanish by Raymond R. MacCurdy (1950). Although the analysis is not detailed enough, it is especially interesting, for showing the similarity of this dialect and Canary Spanish (the community was originally from these Islands) and also with Santo Domingo Spanish, whose population is also to a large extent of the same origin.70 2.2.5 Phonological descriptions Malmberg's 1950 analysis of the phonetics of Argentinian speech,71 is based on the systematic study of several educated speakers and more sporadic observations of informal speech. The book has some valuable passages - as for instance that on the realization of preconsonantal -s although Malmberg's limited knowledge of Spanish at the time he undertook this study led him in some cases to erroneous interpretations of his data. Honsa's phonemic analysis (1965), although modern in approach, is unfortunately marred by a lack of correspondence, at points, with the Buenos Aires linguistic reality.72 Recently, in the Spanish version of

352

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Hockett's Course in modern linguistics (1971), its translators and adaptors, Emma Gregores and Jorge A. Suärez, made a rigorous phonological description of Buenos Aires Spanish, not confined to the segmental aspect, but also carefully analysing its intonation, stress and juncture. An interesting statistical study of the frequency of phonemes, syllables and words made up of different numbers of syllables was published recently by Miguelina Guirao and Ana Maria Borzone de Manrique (1972). A subject that has attracted the interest of several linguists is the realization of Buenos Aires 'yeismo rehilado'. 73 Alonso and Rosenblat had pointed out (in notes in Espinosa 1930) that the pronunciation [z] occurs "in all the eastern part of Argentina and in Uruguay with the emphatic variants z and s", but Zamora Vicente (1949) denies that [§] is an emphatic variant and, on the basis of kymographic and palatographic studies of the speech of some Buenos Aires informants, distinguishes three kinds of speakers: those who have a voiced, prepalatal, 'rehilado' segment, those who pronounce a voiceless sound, and those who alternate both articulations. He thinks that the voiced pronunciation is characteristic of educated speakers, while the voiceless - and more frequent one - is characteristic of popular speech and is spreading fast.74 Alonso (1953: 231-233) appended to the original version of his study on yeismo (1951) a reply to the Zamora Vicente paper, in which he says (on the basis of his own memories prior to 1946 and on observations of Argentinian speakers in the United States) that [z] is still the normal pronunciation, although he agrees that the voiceless sound may have advanced since his first description in 1930.75 Investigating, shortly afterwards, devoicing in 150 speakers, Guitarte (1955) offers an interesting phonological interpretation, saying with respect to the advance of [§]: "The voicelessness of the Porteno z is a wide-spread phenomenon [ . . . ] ; it seems to be more extensive among women than among men; the data observed suggest that it has its centre of expansion in the middle bourgeoisie" (270). Phonologically, he considers the rehilamiento of lyl allowed a greater integration of the resultant phoneme /z/ with /c/, and that later on the change in realization /z/>/s7 leads up to a transphonologization "of the opposition /c/-/z/ to another /c/-/s7, i.e., the pair has passed from the correlation of sonority to the opposition of plosionfriction" (283).76 The aspiration or loss of syllable- and word-final -s in Buenos Aires speech has been a focus of interest for several linguists. Malmberg finds this question "The most difficult chapter of Argentinian consonantism"

Spanish outside Spain

353

(1950: 59). He distinguishes between preconsonantal and absolute final position, explaining that in absolute final position dropping is more frequent than aspiration. Preconsonantal -s, he says, is realized as an aspiration with different phonetic timbres, conditioned by the following consonant and the preceding vowel. Examining the distribution of the allophones of /s/ in preconsonantal position, Beym (1963) found five variants - [h], [ fi ], [s], [x], and [ 0 ] - whose occurrence is determined by the following consonant. Beym does not distinguish between word final -s and internal preconsonantal -s, nor does he refer at any point to the dropping of word final -5. Honsa in his 1965 article mentioned above, considers that there is a phoneme /h/ occurring regularly in preconsonantal position instead of s; as regards absolute final position, he arbitrarily generalizes the loss of 5, saying that in "standard" as well as "substandard" Buenos Aires Spanish there is no final -s. Recently, I made a study in Bahia Bianca (Province of Buenos Aires) of the sociolinguistic variation of the ~s realization in three positions: absolute final, word-final within a phonic group, and internal before t (Fontanella de Weinberg 1972).77 The usage of sixty informants was analysed, taking into account different styles and different ages, sex, and socioeducational conditions. The study showed on one hand the existence of a marked correlation of linguistic usages with different styles, and on the other with different social subgroups. The loss or aspiration of -s is greater when we descend socially or educationally. The most abrupt stratification was determined by sex and by educational levels: the women's speech showed at each social stratum much less loss of s than men's; on the educational parameter, the most marked difference occurs between the speakers with primary education and those with secondary education.78 An aspect of Argentinian Spanish which - as we said above - has aroused the interest of several linguists is the difference between the various regional intonations. However, until a short time ago there were no phonological analyses available. In my 1966 article, I used a 'tonal levels and terminal inflexions' approach to describe the intonational system of Tucumän Spanish and to compare it with Buenos Aires intonation, described by Gregores and Suärez in their adaptation of Hockett (1971). In a further paper (Fontanella de Weinberg 1971a), I analysed Cordoba intonation, the most characteristic of the Argentine interior, pointing out that the most peculiar feature of this system lies in the penultimate syllable of each macrosegment, in which a marked lengthening and a rising or falling glide can occur. Most recently (1974b), I have compared the intonational systems of Tucumän, Cordoba and Buenos

354

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Aires. The realization of -s was also studied by Uruguayan linguists. Washington V squez (1953) carried out a consistent phonological analysis of the situation, concluding that in Uruguayan Spanish, owing to the dropping of final -s, a phonological change is currently under way, which could culminate in the phonologization of /a:/, /ε/, hl (< -as, -es, -os respectively). Julio Ricci (1963) raises the question of the phonemic membership of the segment preceding /k/ in words such as hosco 'gloomy', basque 'forest', etc., and concludes that this segment is phonetically the same as the consonant of [oxo] ο jo 'eye', so that this is an instance of phonological indeterminacy. Ricci bases his conclusions on perceptual tests which lead him to believe that speakers find these segments identical. Rona, however, conducted similar tests (1962d) with totally divergent results; moreover - as Rona and Contreras (1964) pointed out in their reviews of Ricci's paper - the study is theoretically weak. Malmberg (1947) analyses some of the phonetic characteristics of Paraguayan Spanish, such as the affricated /y/ in intervocalic position, the realization of /tr/ as [tf], and the tendency to realize /t/ and /d/ as alveolar. Malmberg attributes the preservation of/λ/ and of hiatus in the vocalic groups to the fact that Spanish is for the majority of Paraguayans a second language acquired at school. However, this interpretation is controversial, since on one hand, /λ/ also appears in Guarani, where obviously school is not a factor, and on the other, the persistence of hiatus is more properly attributable to the fact that in these vocalic groups, Paraguayan speakers under Guarani influence (just as Argentinians in regions bilingual with Guarani) introduce a glottal occlusion between the vowels, hence [V2.V], which obviously prevents any possibility of diphthongization. Malmberg also attributes to the learning of Spanish at school the fact that "the almost complete disappearance of syllable final s, characteristic of the fast pronunciation of Buenos Aires, [...] is less extended and marked in Paraguay". Though there are no detailed studies of the dropping of -s in Paraguay, its great frequency attracts the attention of Buenos Aires speakers, so that Malmberg's claim can hardly be accepted. Ismael Silva Fuenzalida used the American structuralist approach for his accurate analysis of the phonological system of 'standard Chilean Spanish' (1953).79 The article is completed by an appendix on the phoneme /h/, which occurs according to his analysis in both slow and fast colloquial styles. His arguments in favour of including this phoneme are

Spanish outside Spain

355

not completely convincing, since the segment [h] can be interpreted as an allophone of /s/, before a particular kind of juncture. On a dialect of Ecuadorian Spanish, there is a brief but cogent description by Harold V. King (1953). Published in the same year was BoydBowman's phonetic description, based mainly on the pronunciation of two speakers, one from Quito and one from Guayaquil, of the two main dialectal areas of the country: the coast and the highland. He notes that the data "show clearly the phonetic continuity between the Colombian coasts, Ecuador and Peru (yeismo, laxing of *y-, -/, -s, -r, -/, -d, -d-, j, but with strong vocalism) as distinct from Andean provinces (conservation of the opposition ll:y, perhaps through Quechuan influence, and of the intervocalic and final consonants; fricative or assibilated r, tr, -r, Quechuan phonetic influence at least in the accentuation, the vocalism and the pronunciation of i)" (1953: 233). On Colombian Spanish dialects, Luis Florez has two useful accounts different in their linguistic approach. The first (195Id) is a detailed phonetic description of Bogota speech, often compared with the speech of other Colombian regions, especially Antioquia; the second (1960c) is a brief structuralist analysis strictly limited to the phonological system in question. Robe (1948) anticipated one aspect of his general study of Panamanian speech, relating in particular the realization of preconsonantal and final /!/ and III to different contexts and various social groups.80 The final consonants in Puerto Rican Spanish were analysed by Joseph H. Matluck (1961), who concludes that only two phonemes occur in this position: IM and In/. In spite of some incoherence in the phonological analysis,81 the paper is interesting for its comparison of Puerto Rican with the systems of other Spanish dialects, stressing the greater degree of neutralization in implosive position in Puerto Rican as compared with the other dialects. J. L. Dillard (1962) made some brief notes on Matluck's work, the most important of which, undoubtedly, because of its possible consequences for the phonological structure, is that some Puerto Rican speakers merge /h/ ( viejsit°;precioso > psioso; pase usted > pas-ste". Matluck (1951) also refers to this fact, making it clear that in some cases the loss of the vowel is compensated by a lengthening of the following consonant, for example, [t:aliano] italiano 'italian', [f:icio] oficio Office'. Boyd-Bowman specifies the conditions for the dropping of the vowel (1952: 138): "The loss of these unstressed vowels occurs almost exclusively in contact with s, especially between s and another unvoiced consonant, or with s in word final position [...] When this occurs, I think that frequently but not always there is a compensatory lengthening of the s, which can or cannot become a syllabic s, i.e. :p'scar 'pescar'". Further light was cast on this problem by Maria Josefa Canellada and Alonso Zamora Vicente (1960), on the basis of

Spanish outside Spain

357

kymographic study of utterances of ten speakers. According to this study, the vowel that falls most frequently is the initial one, but the preand post-tonic vowels also fall in many cases, especially in contact with s. Lastly, these authors are the first to notice the loss of stressed vowels, of which i is the one that drops most frequently. Lope Blanch (1963) returns to the problem, presenting statistics on the behaviour of different speakers, which lead him to the conclusion that relatively few speakers exhibit this loss, and in most cases, there is vocalic devoicing, but not loss. He also rejects substratum influence as a possible cause, since these pronunciations occur in other American regions with quite different indigenous populations. Another aspect of Mexican Spanish to attract the attention of linguists is the occurrence of nasal segments after -s. This element, to which Marden (1896) and Henriquez Urena (1921) had already referred, is believed by Wright and Robe (1939) to be a voiceless nasal. Cardenas avers (1955: 558) that "what one hears is actually a relaxed nasalized [e]". He says that a paragogic vowel also appears after d, /, and r, and considers that this cannot be due to the substratum, since on the one hand Jalisco Spanish has not undergone great indigenous influence, and on the other, the phenomenon extends to areas outside Mexico. Giorgio Perissinotto (1972) correlates the assibilated realization of final kl and of III in the Spanish of Mexico City with different demographic variables. With the aim of complementing Perissinotto's work, Jose G. Moreno de Alba (1972) analysed the realization of/r/ in preconsonantal position and extended the sociolinguistic study of the two variables to other parts of the country, utilizing materials from the Project to Delimit Mexican Dialectal Areas. The value of these results is questionable, since he aggregates data from fifty-five localities without showing possible geographical differences or considering that the phenomenon might be characteristic of different social groups in various areas, both of which possibilities would be obscured by his method of computation. With respect to New Mexico Spanish, R. M. Duncan (1956), remarks on the trend common to the north of Mexico as well as New Mexico, of weakening the occlusive element of [c] to produce [§]. He also claims that Old Spanish [§] must have changed to [x] before the colonization of this zone, since in Nahuatl borrowings with [§] the palatal element is maintained and does not change to [x]. 2.2.6 Morphosyntactic descriptions On Argentinian, and especially Buenos Aires, Spanish some interesting

358

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

studies have been published in the past few years, carried out under the direction of Ana Maria Barrenechea, as part of the Project of the Study of the Educated Norm, organized by the PILEI.^ Barrenechea and Orechia (1970) studied the incidence in Buenos Aires Spanish of duplicate (clitic) objects in relation to other linguistic variables: pronominal case, the class of words forming the nucleus of the object, the feature {± human) of the object, and order relative to the verb. Within the same project, Maria Isabel Siracusa (1972) investigated verbal morphology in Buenos Aires voseo. Her analysis shows that in the present indicative there is a marked preference for forms etymologically corresponding to the second person plural (-as, -es, -is), which in speakers under fiftyfive years of age approaches 99%. In older speakers there is more vacillation, but all the same their usage amounts to over 92%. In the present subjunctive, the singular verb forms also predominate, although again the oldest speakers display more variation. As regards the imperative, the plural forms definitely predominate, and in all age-groups exceed 99% of the cases. Beatriz R. Lavandera (1972) uses the Form-Content model in a valuable study (based on material collected in the PILEI project) of the functions of the form que, concluding that there is only one element que contrary to the traditional dichotomy of relative marker versus subordinating conjunction. She attributes any differences to the different contexts in which que occurs. Lavandera had previously (1971) analysed some linguistic differences between the various Buenos Aires districts, showing that the number of non-standard features used by her various informants (all dressmakers) supports a division of the city into areas which coincide with the intuitions Portenos themselves have of the distribution of social classes. Lavandera has also completed an important sociolinguistic study (1975a) of the alternation of verb forms in -ra and -ria in Buenos Aires Spanish, showing that -ria forms are gaining ground among younger and among less well educated speakers. The study uses the most modern sociolinguistic approach and has a special theoretical interest in Lavandera's discussion of the possible application of quantitative analysis to linguistic variation at the grammatical level. On Chilean Spanish, we owe to Oroz (1953) an interesting analysis of the varying productivity of prefixes and pseudo-prefixes. On grammatical aspects of Colombian Spanish, Monies has produced several studies of interest, most of them unfortunately based exclusively on the written language. He examined (1962b) the various future forms, synthetic as well as periphrastic, used in the Colombian press and litera-

Spanish outside Spain

359

ture, and later (1963) he took up a similar subject: the uses of the verbal compounds ir a + infinitive, ir + gerund, and va y + finite verb. Monies has also worked in lexicography, investigating (1966b) the formative processes of several verbs presently used in Colombian Spanish. Lastly, drawing on his own previous studies, on literary 'costumbrista' works, on data collected for the linguistic atlas, and on asystematic personal observation, he gave an overview of the present position as regards voseo in Colombia,86 with a useful 'tentative map' (1967a).87 Recently Charles Rallides (1971) provided an accurate semantic characterization of the Spanish verb forms used in cultivated Bogota speech, following the approach used by Diver in his study of the English verb system.88 H. L. van Wijk (1968) analyses some morphological and syntactical aspects of Honduras Spanish. As this is a poorly studied dialect, the paper is of interest for the information it conveys, but its value is sharply diminished by the observations its author makes not only on colloquial speech, but also on literary works, without making it explicit in each case whether the samples are oral or literary. Lope Blanch contributes with several valuable works to our knowledge of grammatical aspects of Mexican Spanish. An early work (1953) notes its most important syntactic features, together with some morphological peculiarities. Lope Blanch later analysed (1961a) the uses of the simple and perfect preterite, concluding that the former has a perfective punctual value in opposition to the imperfective or reiterative value of the latter; this, he believes, cannot be explained away as a corruption of the present Castilian system, but represents a development independent of the peninsular evolution, stemming from the sixteenth century Castilian system. Henry Kahane has published two collaborative studies on syntactic aspects of Mexican Spanish, using the American structuralist approach. The earlier (Kahane - Beym 1948) analyses the distribution of junctures in relation to the syntactic structure of each sentence. The second (Kahane - Kahane 1950) studies the different possibilities of location of the subject in Mexican Spanish, concluding that there is great flexibility in its positioning and that various factors - the number of elements in the phrase, the perfective or imperfective character of the verb, whether or not the sentence is transitive, etc. - can have an influence on this location. Recently, Ruth Brend (1968) made a general description of the syntax of Mexican Spanish using the tagmemic approach. The book is of interest, because it is the first study of a Spanish dialect to use this model, and one of the first applications of tagmemics to the analysis of Indoeuropean languages. Precisely because of this fact we

360

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

can see serious limitations in the model, which were not obvious in its application to less well-known indigenous languages.89 There are several questions that have attracted the attention of linguists in various Latin-American regions, to such an extent that the sum total of these partial contributions gives in some cases a complete overview of the problem. One aspect that has been repeatedly examined is forms of address. Frida Weber (1941) published an exhaustive and careful study of the different nominal forms of address used in Porteno speech, taking into account the kind of relationship, the style, and the social level of the interlocutors. The study is chiefly synchronic, but there are references to historical evidence on certain Buenos Aires usages, as well as comparisons with other American regions, insofar as the facts were then known.90 Following this paper, the question was studied in several other Hispano-American countries: by Javier Solorguren (1954), although less carefully, on Peruvian usage; by Florez (1954a) and by J. A. Perez (1959) on Colombian (the former more narrowly focused on Antioquia); by Luisa Eguiluz (1962) on Chilean; and lastly, by Maria E. Miquel i Verges (1963) on Mexican - a particularly detailed study. As regards Venezuelan, this theme is treated extensively - it runs to some 150 pages - by Aura Gomez de Ivashevsky (1969) in her interesting analysis of "colloquial forms", and euphemisms, dysphemisms, and figurative expressions. An aspect directly connected with the preceding one is the usage of the familiar second person pronouns tu/vos (according to the area or the social level) contrasting with the formal pronoun usted. An excellent article by Silva Fuenzalida (1955)91 focuses on this question in Chilean usage in an ethnolinguistic framework, correlating the different usages with social levels, age, sex, style, and emotional and personality differences. In a later collaborative study (Fontanella de Weinberg - Najt 1968) I investigated the usage of vos and usted of different age groups in Bahia Bianca, demonstrating a marked change between the usage of the oldest speakers and that of the youngest: in family relations there is a change from asymmetric (usted-vos) to symmetric informal usage (vosvoy); whereas in social or professional relations there are frequent changes from an egalitarian formal address (usted-usted) to other forms also reciprocal but informal (yos-vos). In my later paper (1970b) I compared the usage of the first decade of this century - as represented in the language of the realist theatre of the time - with present-day usage. Yolanda Sole (1970), on the basis of eighty interviews with Argentinian, Peruvian and Puerto Rican speakers, was able to make enlightening cor-

Spanish outside Spain

361

relations of the different usages in each country with differences in social structure.92 Catalina Wainerman, in an excerpt (1972) from a thesis she was preparing on pronouns of address in Argentina, compares Buenos Aires usage of 1850,1900, and 1950 (with results which coincide with my own conclusions, in Fontanella de Weinberg 1970b) with present-day usage in Buenos Aires and Catamerca (an Argentinian city of traditional structure), showing the close correlation between pronominal usage and the social characteristics of both populations. Lastly, a feature of American Spanish that has repeatedly attracted attention is the peculiar usage of diminutives in various HispanoAmerican zones. My own study of dimunitives in Bogota (Fontanella de Weinberg 1962) describes the distribution of the various affixes and the most frequent value with which they are used, on the basis of systematic observation of spontaneous dialogues. Bruce Gaadner (1966) investigating the "so-called" Mexican diminutives and augmentatives, both in speech and in literary and journalistic samples, includes reflexions properly outside the linguistic field, but with which the author believes he has contributed "to the disentangling of the enigmatic knot of Mexican collective conscience" (589). The value of the study is further diminished by the presence of statistics in which Gaadner aggregates all his material, thus conflating the heterogeneous categories represented by the totally different styles it includes. As a general observation on the descriptive studies so far considered, we should first point to wide areas in which practically no investigations of this kind have been made, and secondly to the need (increasingly recognized in the last few years) for such studies to be brought into focus with modern linguistic approaches, which will at the same time permit the identification of new problems not hitherto disclosed, and the adequate resolution of others as yet only superficially treated. 2.2.7 Linguistic contact and contact languages Hispano-America is a field of special interest for the study of languages in contact, since it presents a wide range of situations of this kind, owing to the coexistence of native with national languages, of different indigenous languages among themselves, of Creoles with standard languages,of immigrant with national ones, of various national languages among themselves, etc. These situations which for the most part are evidence of cultural and socio-economic conflicts, have a marked anthropological and sociolinguistic interest. A situation that has caught the attention of linguists is the one existing

362

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

in Paraguay, where Guarani-Spanish bilingualism constitutes a very special case owing to its stability, the high degree of rootedness (for different reasons) of both languages, and the widespread nature of the phenomenon, since the number of bilingual speakers exceeds 50% of the total population, a percentage which is perhaps unique in the whole world. The sociocultural aspects of this situation were studied by Joan Rubin (1968), who has made not only a solid contribution to the knowledge of the Paraguayan situation, but also to bilingualism in general. Her aim is to describe the patterns of usage of the two languages and to isolate the determining factors - social, historical and cultural. The central part of the book is devoted to the consideration of four main aspects: stability of the situation, speaker attitudes, language acquisition and proficiency, and usage of the two languages. This last aspect, already treated by Rubin (1962), is the most interesting and leads her to conclude that the most important extra-linguistic feature determining the choice of one or another language is the degree of formality of the situation, with Spanish as the language of formal contexts, and Guarani the language of intimacy. The author's general conclusion is that Paraguayan bilingualism is markedly stable, owing to the complementary usage of the two languages involved.93 Peru is another particularly interesting case, both because of the high proportion of the population who speak indigenous languages - as many as 40% according to the 1960 census - and of the rewarding experience of recent years in integrating them with the rest of the Peruvian population. Alberto Escobar (1970a), following interviews with 98 informants, formulates valuable considerations on the study of bilingual communities and analyses the attitudes toward Quechua and Spanish of bilingual and monolingual speakers of Quechua. Escobar also edited (1970b) a collection of important studies, among them "El castellano en el Peru: norma culta nacional versus norma culta regional" (123-142), by Ines PozziEscot, and "Ensenanza del castellano: deslindes y perspectivas" (143166), by Rodolfo Cerron Palomino. Puerto Rico offers another bilingual situation that has been the object of several studies. German de Granda (1968d) describes, chiefly from the social angle, the present state of Puerto Rican bilingualism, analysing the different historical, social and cultural factors that have caused it. This volume comprises a presentation of the various cultural aspects and of official attitudes towards both languages between 1898 and 1968, a study of the "transculturation" suffered by the Puerto Rican people and of its social consequences, a description of the present usage of the two

Spanish outside Spain

363

languages, and an account in very general terms of the effects of English interference on Spanish. Unfortunately the book is weakened by the absence both of concrete examples and of a linguistic analysis of the interference process.94 On the bilingualism of Puerto Rican speakers in the United States, there is an excellent sociolinguistic analysis (Fishman et al. 1971), of a group of more than four hundred Puerto Ricans living in four blocks in Jersey City. The material for this investigation was collected by members of the research team in the four months during which they lived in this district, together with the speakers under observation. The book offers first, general background papers, and then a series of studies that are mainly sociological, psychological or linguistic. The linguistically orientated papers are "The linguistic dimension of a bilingual neighborhood" (347—464), by Roxana Ma and Eleanor Herasimchuk, and "The multiple prediction of phonological variables in a bilingual community" (465479), by Joshua A. Fishman and Eleanor Herasimchuk. Both present solid analyses of some Spanish and English variables of this linguistic community. The volume as a whole is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the Puerto Rican speech of the New York area, to the sociolinguistic field in general, and to bilingualism in particular.95 Stanley M. Tsuzaki published another study of a Spanish-speaking community of the United States (1970; originally a thesis submitted in 1963), which tackles some aspects of Spanish-English bilingualism in the Mexican colony of Detroit. Tsuzaki worked on thirty interviews taped from informants of varying ages, years of residence in Detroit, and geographical origin. Obviously, with due extension these data would be adequate for a detailed analysis, correlating linguistic variation with extralinguistic differences, but Tsuzaki minimizes these aspects and lumps together all the data. These limitations and the lack of a careful analysis of some fundamental and strictly linguistic aspects, diminish the value of the book.96 The existence of contact varieties on the borders of Brazil and the Hispano-American countries is an emotional subject which has hitherto only been studied with reference to Uruguay. Rona (1965) differentiates in the north of Uruguay, two dialectal varieties - one a variety of Portuguese with strong Spanish influence, and the other a dialectal form of Spanish with marked Portuguese influence - and describes the phonological features of both dialects. Rona thinks the language frontier falls on the boundary of these two dialects, i.e., in Uruguayan territory. F. G. Hensey made a sociolinguistic study of a community situated on the

364

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

border between Uruguay and Brazil (1972), analysing both strictly linguistic and cultural pattern interferences characteristic of the members of this community. Adolf o Elizaincin (1973) also investigated linguistic attitudes among the 'fronterizo' dialect speakers. The question has great interest and we think more careful study of these linguistic varieties will undoubtedly contribute new insights to the field of contact languages and perhaps to the processes of pidginization and creolization. The contact between River Plate Spanish and the Italian brought by immigrants from the last decades of the nineteenth century onwards has been the subject of several analyses, especially those of the Italian scholar Giovanni Meo Zilio (1963, 1964, 1965a and 1965b among others). In his detailed 1964 paper on 'cocoliche', he studied the phonological, grammatical and semantic changes that both languages undergo as a result of their contact. He considers that in the speech of River Plate Italians there was a gradual change from one language to the other; therefore "we cannot speak of an absolute boundary between the two languages. The only distinctive criterion is the intention to express oneself in one language or the other" (1964: 62). Cocoliche, then, is not a third language, together with Italian and Spanish, but a gradual evolution from one to the other. Meo Zilio is also clear that it is not a case of pidgin, since there has been no marked simplification as in the use of pidgins, probably because the inflexional similarity of Spanish and Italian facilitated the maintenance of the inflexions; he also points out that pidgins are adopted by both groups of speakers, whereas cocoliche is exclusive to the Italian speaker. Keith Whinnom (1971), with no knowledge of Meo Zilio's arguments, argues that cocoliche is the result of a process of pidginization, but failed to become a true pidgin because it was the outcome of contact between only two languages, while according to the thesis expounded in his paper the emergence of a pidgin requires three-way linguistic contact. In the same volume (Hymes 1971), however, Ian F. Hancock includes cocoliche in his world list of pidgins, saying that "[it] may be rudimentarily pidginized" (1971: 515). Lastly, Lavandera (1975b) wisely points out that "to consider this linguistic variety as an example of imperfect acquisition of a second language seems more adequate [ . . . ] it seems it has always been an open system that varies along a continuum from varieties which are very close to Italian dialects toward the Porteno Spanish of Italians". The recent increased interest in processes of pidginization and creolization and in the resultant linguistic systems has been matched by a parallel activity on the Hispano-American scene, resulting in the charac-

Spanish outside Spain

365

terization or postulation of some Hispano-American varieties as Creoles.97 German de Granda (1968a) stressed the need to survey those varieties that may be considered Creoles, and characterized as Creoles the speech of San Basilic de Palenque (Colombia) described by Montes (1962a), and the so-called Antillean 'habla bozal', studied in detail by Alvarez Nazario (1961). Granda also contributed (1968b) a typological comparison of these two varieties with the Philippine Creole dialects and with Papiamento, demonstrating a series of common features that leads him to postulate the Creole character of the 'habla bozal' and of 'Palenquero', and to conclude that the similarities should be explained by their common origin in a Portuguese proto-creole formed before the sixteenth century on the African coasts (thus adhering to the monogenetic hypothesis of the emergence of Creoles). In a further article (1970), Granda draws attention to a fruitful area for study in the original communities of run-away slaves (called palenques or cumbes) which because of their isolation may preserve vestiges of an original Creole. Granda also describes three palenques located in Colombia, Panama and Ecuador, in which traces of Creoles have survived. Derek Bickerton and Aquiles Escalante (1970) believe that the Creole of San Basilio de Palenque originally arose in Angola and that from there it was taken by Bantu slaves to the neighbouring areas of Cartagena de Indias. Granda (1971a) presented new historical and linguistic data in favour of this thesis, quoting some comments on Angola slaves made in contemporary documents, and analysing non-hispanic lexical items in Palenquero, some of which are identified as Bantu in origin. Granda has also studied the speech of Black Cubans (1971b), concluding that it is a Spanish-based Creole and has compared (1972) Palenquero with the Creoles of Säo Tome and Annobom (Gulf of Guinea), with the purpose of showing their genetic relationship, which in turn would considerably strengthen the monogenetic hypothesis on the origin of Creoles. The continuation of studies on pidginization and creolization in Latin America is undoubtedly of special interest, both in order to achieve a better linguistic knowledge of the territory, and to make progress in the theoretical investigation of this important field of linguistics. 2.3 Conclusions From all that has been said we can assert - to repeat the conclusion of various preceding sections - that American Spanish is a fruitful field for future research. For historical work, numerous aspects of the influence of indigenous languages and the relationship to the different peninsular

366

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

dialects require more penetrating study, and it is imperative to advance research on the evolution of Spanish in each particular American region, in the absence of which current attempts at synthesis are overly ambitious. At the descriptive level, it is essential to obtain a better knowledge of the present situation, especially in those areas which have not hitherto been intensively studied, in order to make effective progress in work of continental scope. It goes without saying that this research is unlikely to attain its objectives without the benefit of accurate methodology or rigorous linguistic models. Only thus can we hope to obtain certain knowledge of the problems under debate and detect others as yet unrevealed. In my own view studies which not only have a theoretical interest, but which also contribute to an effective solution of the many sociocultural Hispano-American problems should be given absolute priority. We must however point to two factors that conspire against significant progress in the study of American Spanish in the immediate future: the lack of continuity in research and the lack of centres specializing in linguistic training. As regards the former, a review of existing stock reveals that on the whole the projects carried out so far are the result of individual efforts - in some cases the work of non-resident authors from abroad - rather than of the continuous team-work required by this kind of activity. A remarkable exception in this respect was the work done for almost two decades at the Institute de Filologia in Buenos Aires, which under the combined leadership of Amado Alonso and Henriquez Urena, two great masters of Hispano-American linguistics, brought together an outstanding group of Argentinian scholars. Most unfortunately, this enterprise ended abruptly in the forties, when the researchers dispersed to different linguistic centres of the world. At present, the Colegio de Mexico and the Institute Caro y Cuervo are the two most notable exceptions, having both carried out over several years very fruitful work which has contributed to making Mexico and Colombia the two countries whose linguistic situation is now best known. The second shortcoming - the virtual absence of centres of linguistic training - has been responsible for the loss of many potential specialists and for the exodus (sometimes permanent) to Europe or the United States of those who wished to undertake specialist study. At this level, the Institute Caro y Cuervo is also an exception, in that for more than a decade now its Seminario Andres Bello has trained many linguists from Colombia and from the rest of America. Another positive sign is the organization of several Inter-American Linguistic Institutes under the

Spanish outside Spain

367

auspices of the PILEI, which in a very short time has made available the linguistic knowledge assembled in different American areas. Notwithstanding the negative aspects I have mentioned, there is an increasing number of young linguists who show remarkable rigour in their work, and this holds out the promise of meaningful progress in the near future for Hispano-American linguistics. 3. The Spanish of the Canary Islands 3.1 General characteristics: Canary as part of 'Atlantic Spanish' Works on Canary Spanish are comparatively few and began to appear only recently; in the words of Manuel Alvar (1959: 3) "Studies on the Spanish spoken in the Canary Islands are notoriously few in proportion to other areas. It enjoyed neither the impulse that Amado Alonso gave to Hispano-American dialectology nor the development that the studies of local speech attained in the Peninsula". Aside from some pioneering works, prominent among which is the study by A. and L. Millares (1924), systematic research only began in the forties, with the lexicographic contributions of Juan Alvarez Delgado (1945), Jose Perez Vidal (1944, 1949), Max Steffen (1945, 1948) and Juan Regulo Perez (1946). But a special interest in Canary Spanish dates from the fifties, with a series of studies illustrating the relationship between Canary Spanish, the speech of the Atlantic coast of the Peninsula, and American Spanish. On this aspect Perez Vidal published in 1955 an important work in which he points out that there was a strong linguistic tie linking Andalusia - especially the Atlantic provinces of Sevilla, Cadiz and Huelva - to the Canaries and America. He says that the majority of the settlers coming from the Canaries and America were originally Andalusian and that this migratory flux resulted in the formation of a true Atlantic linguistic community, whose most outstanding features are: in phonology, a common outcome in the evolution of sibilants, the change /x/>/h/, the aspiration of syllable final -s, and the change -sg- > j ; in morphosyntax, the loss of vosotros, the predominance of diminutives in -ito, and the extension of several verbal periphrases; and the occurrence of multiple common lexical elements, among which stand out the 'marinerismos', which show the importance of the Atlantic contact. Diego Catalan (1957, 1958) takes up this topic again, pointing out in the second of these studies - as we have already said - the existence of two Atlantic 'waves', which introduced various innovations at different places along the coastal strip, and concluding that "the geographical con-

368

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

tinuity in the [Atlantic] Spanish peninsular area, the island area, and the American areas is guaranteed by the wooden bridge of the [West] Indies fleets" (1958: 242). In a later paper (1960) Catalan insists on his monogenetic conception of the shared phenomena that characterize the different varieties of Atlantic Spanish, and points out the marked interest a thorough study of Canary Spanish would command, since "on the seven little islands of the Archipelago very different strata of Atlantic Spanish live together in a constant state of struggle. Archaic, conservative, new, and very new phonetic features divide the Canary territory, sometimes contending with one another within the same town, stratifying the speech according to the social levels which make up the urban nucleus. In this limited island space we have the opportunity of seeing the struggle between the conservative and the innovative in Atlantic modes of expression, which on the other side of the Atlantic set apart large areas of the immense American continent" (1960: 332). This position was again taken up by Menendez Pidal (1962), and later acquired new contributions (such as Granda 1968c). 3.2 Descriptive studies The fifties, so rich in contributions on the place of the Canary Islands within Spanish dialectology as a whole, also witnessed the inception of an important series of descriptive studies on Canary varieties which are still being pursued. Alvar's El espanol hablado en Tenerife (1959) is the first general description of a Canary dialect. The author's own stated aim is not to make a complete description, but to offer a general view and state the problems which will undoubtedly emerge from it. His material was assembled by means of interviews conducted mainly at three points of the island Tangana, Alcalä, and a district of La Laguna - taking as a basis the questionnaire used for the linguistic atlas of Andalusia, and completing it with questions relating to tropical crops and to some botanical aspects. The result is a book comprising: a phonetic description, a morphological analysis, brief syntactic observations (two and a half pages), interesting lexical considerations, and an ample vocabulary that extends to almost 150 pages; it ends with some texts transcribed phonetically and with illustrative material. In his conclusions, Alvar points to the close relationship existing between Canary and peninsular Spanish, and rejects the parallelism that has been suggested between its evolution and the development of Sephardi, arguing that "the assumed peripheric character of Canary is illusory: since its position caused it to be, until the nineteenth

Spanish outside Spain

369

century, the inevitable stopover towards our American territories. Something similar to Leon with respect to Galicia, or Aragon with respect to Catalonia". The volume is undoubtedly an important contribution to the knowledge of Canary Islands Spanish, in spite of the shortness of its syntactic description and the absence of a phonological analysis, the latter precluding an adequate interpretation of some aspects of the variation between [ θ ] and [s]. Several years later in 1966, Catalan published a review-article harshly critical of some aspects of Alvar's study. Catalan states that the method of data collection may have been "useful for composing a linguisticethnological atlas, but is not adequate to describe a dialectal speech scientifically" (1966: 468). He also objects to the selection of informants (all old and rural), and considers it necessary to make "a study of the community at different socio-cultural levels" (470). He points out Alvar's mistake in claiming that seseo does not extend to all the islands, without noticing the free variation between [θ] and [s]. From all these objections, he concludes that "the questionnaire materials do not constitute a sample of regional speech which is of itself sufficient to carry out the analysis and description of the particular structure of a language variety" (502), saying at the end that the methods of linguistic geography, which are adequate for studying dialects of long historical tradition, cannot be applied to 'Romania nova', which lends itself better to sociolinguistic study. Alvar answered this criticism with a note in the same journal (1966), arguing that sociolinguistic methods and linguistic geography are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Alvar disagrees with several aspects of the review and points out that Catalan's comments are based on uncertain data collected by his students. He claims that his own method does not prevent him from taking into account several sociolinguistic aspects and that the geographical differences were corroborated by his investigation - which justifies studies of this kind. Lastly, he concludes that "there is no universal method [...] for studying language; rather, many different methods complement one another" (1966: 574). In his own survey (1964), Catalan analyses the coexistence of more conservative and more innovating forms of Atlantic Spanish in the Canary Islands. An older stratum of this linguistic variety, characterized by the existence of voiced [z], and the persistence of implosive -s, occurs in isolated rural communities. Other more widespread conservative features are the maintenance of the pronoun vosotros, the vocalization of d in the group dr (> yr), the diphthongization of hiatus, the 'ciceante' pro-

370

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

nunciation of /s/ and the aspiration of /x/. In the towns, on the other hand, there is a more innovating kind of Atlantic Spanish, with yeismo, fusion of implosive /!/ and /r/, and aspiration of /n/ and /r/ before III. Catalan also says that there is a Canary norm characterized in phonology by seseo, aspiration of -s and realization of/x/ as [h]; and in syntax by the disappearance of the ustedeslvosotros opposition. He believes the usage of the Castilian norm in language teaching generates a conflict in Canary speakers that causes a moderate diglossia, and wisely proposes that the great variation of norms within Spanish should be recognized as an essential characteristic of the language. The paper is a valuable contribution to the study of Canary Island speech, and includes important reflexions on its place in the wider context of Spanish dialectology. Alvar (1968a) uses Word-and-Thing methods to collect and analyse some lexical aspects of the fauna, flora, utensils, etc., pointing out the processes of linguistic creation, adaptation, and borrowing that have occurred in this field. Alvar 1968b is a collection of studies on Canary Island Spanish, covering methodology, phonetics, morphology and lexis. Recently Alvar (1972) published a valuable phonetic and phonological analysis of the speech of Las Palmas, relating linguistic variations to the socio-cultural differences of his informants. The study is made up of four parts: an introduction on methodology and historical background, characterizing Las Palmas Spanish by its close relationship with Seville; a phonetic description, with detailed exposition of the various articulatory aspects of vowels and consonants, and phonological analysis; a section on language and society, correlating the linguistic data with different social groupings; and a conclusion devoted to theoretical consideration of various sociolinguistic aspects. The study is based on material taped from 73 informants of varying sex, age, cultural level and profession, which includes in each case answers to a questionnaire and a free conversation. The book is of special interest for its rich fund of data on social distribution of linguistic features in a town of more than 350,000 inhabitants, situated in the heart of the Canary Islands, whose peculiar attraction from the linguistic standpoint has, as we have seen above, been frequently recognized. The work does not however give a completely structured overview of linguistic variation in Las Palmas owing to underdifferentiation of style in the collection of data and to the absence of an explicit account of the relationship between differences of style and of linguistic form, as well as of a more systematic correlation between linguistic and social differences.

Spanish outside Spain

371

To conclude this section, we may say that, although there is no extensive literature on Canary Island Spanish, the publication in the last few years of some works of major importance - centered round the names of Manuel Alvar and Diego Catalan - makes us optimistic about the continuity of future research. The interest of this variety stemming both from the social and dialectal complexity of the linguistic situation in the Islands, and from its importance for our understanding of the relations between peninsular and American Spanish, will undoubtedly strengthen the impetus for new and fruitful advances in its study. 4. Judeo-Spanish 4.1 General characteristics There is as yet no general study of the various dialects of Judeo-Spanish. Some general problems have however been treated in partial studies, such as: its relation to the different dialects of peninsular Spanish, its possible dialectal affiliations, the connection between the various regions of Judeo-Spanish speech, and its assumed archaism.98 With respect to the relationship of the different varieties of JudeoSpanish to Peninsular dialects, Yahuda (1915) had already formulated interesting claims: "In Bosnia, and in some parts of Serbia and Bulgaria, the change of Ό' to 'u' predominates in the masculine singular and plural [...] and in the usage of the 'f' instead of 'h' [...] In Salonica and in some regions of Constantinople, Brusa, Smyrna, and other cities of Asia Minor, the majority of the Sephardim were from the beginning people coming from the two Castiles" (1915: 352). Wagner (1923), after scrutiny, accepts these statements of Yahuda in general terms, although he points out the lack of evidence of a true Catalonian influence and the complexity of the vacillation between preservation and dropping of initial/-, which he considers may reflect not a dialectal feature from the north of Spain, but the fluctuation existing in pronunciation at the time of the Sephardic expulsions. Wagner returned to this problem saying (1930: 211-212): The tradition of the Eastern Jews is that the Sephardim of Constantinople and Asia, in the majority, come from the two Castiles, while those of Macedonia, Greece, Bosnia, Serbia, and part of Bulgaria seem to be mainly from the northern provinces of Spain, Aragon, and Catalonia [...] The oral tradition of the Jews agrees well with the linguistic conclusions [...] In all the western regions (Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia, western Bulgaria) the final -o is pronounced as -u, the final -e as -/', and the final -a as a relaxed -e; the

372

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

same regions conserve the initial/- relatively well. This dialectal classification has been widely accepted (witness, for example, Zamora Vicente 1960: 281). Recently, however, it was rejected by Revah (1970), on the grounds that the Judeo-Spanish of Salonika, the main community, has only one of the four features thought to be characteristic of the western area: the preservation of the initial/-. He says that the dialects of Salonika, Constantinople and Smyrna have great unity, caused by their being sea-ports, so inviting a high degree of mutual communication. He points out that in the sixteenth century the Sephardim vacillated between /- h-, just as there were groups with seseo and others that kept the sibilants distinct; however, owing to past contact, there are now no regions with initial Λ-, and both seseo and yeismo are general. He considers that this is due to the following factors in the formative process of present-day Sephardic dialects: 1) the fusion of elements of various origins in a community that is very far from its original linguistic model; 2) linguistic relations between distant ports, but with a common population; 3) the rapidity with which a language spreads in a colonized territory. Revah establishes a parallel between the situation of Sephardic and of Brazilian Portuguese, finding similar conditions in both. Although this comparison is debatable given the quite different relationship of Brazil with its metropolis from that of the Sephardic population with respect to Spain, his views on the dialectal development of Judeo-Spanish are undoubtedly of interest. One aspect of Judeo-Spanish that has been repeatedly insisted on is its archaic nature. A clear example, especially significant because the work has been so influential, is provided by Wagner who states (1930: 16): The Spanish traveller who arrives at Adrianopolis or Salonika and hears everywhere the Spanish conversation of the numerous Jews who live there, can see himself suddenly transported to the Zocodover of medieval Toledo or to the Alcaiceria of the Moorish Granada [ . . . ] The pronunciation of the Judeo-Spanish of our day is, in general, in total agreement with the indications of the old Spanish grammarians, such as Nebrija. Similar assertions are to be found in much of the bibliography on JudeoSpanish. An extreme example of this attitude is the paper by G. W. Humphrey and Emma Adatto (1936), in which after stressing the "archaic character" of Seattle Sephardic, they analyse all the conserva-

Spanish outside Spain

373

tive features of the dialect while referring only superficially - because they considered them "of little interest" - to its innovations. Without denying the existence of important conservative features in JudeoSpanish, the insistence on this aspect is debatable. Firstly, it has exactly the same drawback we found among similar claims about American Spanish: taking as the reference point another dialect and pointing to the respects in which it is different from it, instead of making an independent description of its structure. Secondly, insistence on the archaic character of Judeo-Spanish is the result of an oversimplification which - perhaps owing to the interest of early 20th century dialectologists in discovering evidence of previous stages of the language in the modern dialects focuses on a partial aspect of the language, without considering its other features. So for example in phonology, considered to be the most archaizing level (witness: "the most notable archaisms of Sephardic have to do with pronunciation", Humphrey - Adatto 1936: 263), although Judeo-Spanish compared with Castilian is conservative in its maintenance of the voicing opposition in the sibilants and of the /b/-/v/ contrast, it is innovating in its fusion of /s/ with /§/; Izl with /ζ/, /λ/ with /y/, and in some regions III with /r/, besides such changes of distribution as /sk/ > /Sk/ (moska > moska), and /suV/>/esxuV/ or /esfuV/ (suegra > esxuegra or esfuegra). To these internal evolutions of the dialect, we should add the introduction of new phonemes from other languages, such as the /x/ of eastern Judeo-Spanish described by Agard (1950) or the occurrence of /h/ and /h/ in the Sephardic of Morocco or 'hakitia', pointed out by Benichou (1960). In the morphology, there is not only a very rich derivational productivity giving rise to numerous derivatives unknown in medieval Spanish or in other modern dialects, but also a series of changes in verbal inflexion that restructured a great part of it. Lastly, its introduction of new lexical terms through loans from other languages, together with the profuse derivation already mentioned, further refute attempts to consider it archaizing. In this sense, Yahuda's contention, looking to Wagner for support, is itself categorical: "There is no doubt, as Wagner says, that the [proportion of surviving] old Spanish vocabulary is smaller in Judeo-Spanish than in Modern Castilian" (1915: 347)." 4.2 Description of different Judeo-Spanish dialects in the Old World Throughout our century, descriptions of various Judeo-Spanish dialects have been produced which, despite their uneven value, give us nowadays at least an approximate picture of the different regional varieties. This work, which reached its culmination in the thirties and which was later

374

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

struck down by the barbarous genocide inflicted on many Sephardic communities in the following years, can be traced back to the important books by Subak (1906) and Wagner (1914), in which the Judeo-Spanish of Salonika and Constantinople (now Istanbul) are described. In the second study, important not only for its intrinsic value, but also as the model for many later works, Wagner presents fourteen narratives and a phonetically transcribed conversation, together with a historicolinguistic analysis relating the present Judeo-Spanish forms to their antecedents in medieval Spanish, and also identifying the loans from other languages. Yahuda 1915 is an extensive commentary on Wagner's book, not merely a review, for he contributes important new material. Yahuda objects to the high number of loans in Wagner's text, but not very convincingly, since the speech collected by Wagner provided clear evidence, later to be corroborated, of a high degree of interference in JudeoSpanish. Yahuda also makes interesting comments on the relationship of Judeo-Spanish to other Spanish dialects, and on the proportions of the various borrowed elements, with special reference to Portuguese, Italian and Turkish expressions. Wagner replied in 1923 to Yahuda's article accepting some of the interpretations of the Sephardic scholar, but rejecting others, and returning to the connection of Judeo-Spanish with the peninsular dialects. The multi-part account of Moroccan Judeo-Spanish by Jose Benoliel (1926-28) includes historical discussion on the origin and evolution of this dialect, a phonetic description, and an analysis of its verbal, nominal and pronominal morphology. There is also an interesting compilation of forms of cursing, benediction and oaths, of proverbs and sayings, and of traditional songs, and the material is rounded off by a glossary and a description of the most common gestures. Although this study provides very rich information on the dialect, the lack of specialized training in its author diminishes the value of his analysis. This is especially apparent in the phonetic section, in which Benoliel describes "the pronunciation of the alphabet", making numerous doubtful statements because of his imprecise use of technical vocabulary. Wagner later (1925) wrote a brief description of the speech of three Sephardic communities (Karaferia, Kastoria and Brusa), formulating a series of phonetic and lexical observations, and comparing several of the forms in question with those of other Sephardic dialects, in particular Salonika and Constantinople. In the thirties, as we said earlier, appeared a group of important studies on different aspects of Judeo-Spanish. In 1930, Wagner

Spanish outside Spain

375

published a collection of three lectures in an idealistic cast and based on material assembled during his own travels: "Desarrollo y caräcter general del judeo-espanol", "El judeo-espanol como expresion de las condiciones sociales y religiosas de los judios", and "La vida intima de los judeo-espanoles de Oriente y el estilo literario de los sefardies". The volume ends with an appendix transcribing twelve prose texts. Although the non-specialized character of the work100 sometimes leads him to make sweeping generalizations or questionable claims - some of which have already been considered - the book undoubtedly represents an enduring contribution to the analysis of various aspects of JudeoSpanish. The monograph of Max A. Luria (1930a)1()1 was based on two months' fieldwork in the Balkan town of Monastir. Luria describes the characteristics of this community situated 180 km north of Salonika, with such poor means of transport that the journey lasted eighteen hours, pointing out that "it is almost completely isolated so far as Jewish and linguistic contacts are concerned" (1930a: 3). Its total population was 30,000 inhabitants, of whom 3,000 made up the Sephardic colony, characterized by its extreme poverty and its low cultural level. Linguistically, Luria considers it even more conservative than the majority of Judeo-Spanish dialects, and says that "this belief is founded on the fact that it corresponds in a great measure to the Spanish dialects as spoken in the western part of Spain, especially Leonese" (10). His study, which is based on folk tales and on collected conversations, comprises a phonological description along diachronic lines starting from the Latin forms, which makes it difficult to understand the system - a morphological and syntactic analysis, and a presentation of the most salient features of the vocabulary, noting the main semantic changes, the preservation of terms which are obsolete in other dialects, and the occurrence of several loans, classified by their origin. Kalmi Baruch (1930) surveyed the dialect of Bosnia, a region which then had some 10,000 Sephardim. In addition to a general characterization of the Bosnian community, Baruch provides a phonological description, several texts (including the transcription of an oral account, the reproduction of a contemporary journalistic article and a 16th century Ladino text) and comments on the different semantic and lexical features of the regional Sephardic speech. In the phonetic section, he describes the articulation of consonants and vowels, comparing Bosnian with dialectal forms of peninsular Spanish and with other Judeo-Spanish dialects, especially that of Constantinople as described by Wagner.

376

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Fieldwork in a number of locations in the Balkans resulted in the monograph of Cynthia M. Crews (1935)102 which follows Wagner's 1914 model in presenting, after a general introduction, texts and brief descriptions of the Judeo-Spanish spoken in Bucharest, Salonika, Bitolj (i.e. Monastir), and Skopje (in present-day Yugoslavia). In the introduction, she gives a brief historical account of the Sephardim, and a description of the present social, cultural and linguistic situation of the region under investigation. She points to the increasing decline of Bucharest JudeoSpanish, which contrasts sharply with its relative vigour elsewhere. For each dialect, she sketches the salient phonetic and morphological features, and the texts she transcribes, in spite of their uneven style (some spontaneous, others translations, and still others obtained through writing), give valuable evidence of the different dialects. Gentille Fahri raises some objections, remarking that "Mile. Crews, who until 1930 was not acquainted with the Balkanic languages: Turkish, Rumanian, Modern Greek, Serbian, as well as Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew, could scarcely fail to make numerous errors" (1938: 305). Fahri corrects several errors committed by Crews on loans from different Balkan languages and from Arabic, while noting the general linguistic interest of the study and the literary merit of the texts collected. Fahri herself had described (1937) the Judeo-Spanish of Istanbul where, at the time, there was a large Sephardic colony of some 50,000 people. She shows numerous instances of linguistic interference from Turkish, French and Italian, and says, as regards usage, that among the older speakers of the bourgeoisie French was used as the language of education, while the younger inhabitants - owing to the closure of the French-medium schools of the Alliance - used Turkish more and more, Judeo-Spanish being restricted for them to the role of a family language.103 Paul Benichou (1945) wrote a paper on Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, covering phonetic, morphological and syntactic aspects. Benichou points out the difficulties involved in the analysis of this variety: "The study of the Judeo-Spanish of Morocco is difficult in our times because the dialect has undergone, for several generations now, the influence of modern Castilian, which has invaded it, destroying several of its essential features" (1945: 209). With regard to phonetics, the differences he pinpoints with respect to the observations of Benoliel (1926-28) are of great interest, since they show the decreasing use of pronunciations still common at the time Benoliel collected his material, such as the aspiration of h- in hazer 'do', hablar 'speak', hijo 'son', or the survival of the

Spanish outside Spain

377

group -bC- in words such as cibdad 'city', a form which was still understandable, but unusual (tending to be replaced by standard Spanish ciudad) when Benichou made his study. Another important aspect is the non-use of /§/ and /z/, replaced by /x/, in terms that have an equivalent in modern Castilian, although they survive in items unusual in contemporary Spanish. Some years later, Benichou (1960) compared the phonological system he had described, with the language reflected in two Moroccan Sephardic song books (Larrea Palacin 1952-55, and Alvar 1953). The transcriptions of Alvar and Larrea (despite some reservations about the latter) lead him to conclude that the realization of /s7 and lil as /x/ is making headway, that the /z/ is gradually devoicing, and that the /β/ characteristic of modern Castilian is sporadically adopted. Wagner (1950a) offers some lexicographical notes collected in his numerous study tours through Sephardic communities, but this work holds less interest than previous studies by Wagner, because it is limited to the lexical level. More wide-ranging is the structuralist analysis by Henry Kahane and Sol Saporta (1953) of some grammatical elements - inflexion, auxiliaries, and the usage of se - in the conjugation system of eastern JudeoSpanish, based on material collected from two informants and from previously published texts. Although the material is heterogeneous, and the limitations of the structuralist model lead them to neglect some semantic problems which are important to the interpretation of any verbal system, the study is nonetheless a valuable contribution. In 1956, Wilhelm Giese wrote a brief account of the Sephardic community of Rhodes - which had almost disappeared by that time - including a short text from an informant belonging to one of the three last Sephardic families to remain in Rhodes, and a brief phonetic, morphological, and syntactic commentary on it. Curiously, there are almost no descriptions of the Judeo-Spanish spoken in Israel, in spite of the undoubted interest of the topic, given the large number of speakers now living there and the unique opportunity to study dialectal contact among the various communities. The short account by Karl Kraus (1951) is not based on direct knowledge of these communities, but on material found in Israeli Sephardic journals, which detracts enormously from the value of his study. Kraus concentrates on lexicography, enumerating loans and analogical creations, making short morphological and syntactic observations, and describing under the label of phonology the orthographic conventions employed by these journals.

378

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

Juan Martinez Ruiz (1957; an article carved out of his unpublished 1952 Madrid thesis) draws attention to the coexistence of words with /f-/, /h-/ and 101 as reflexes of Latin initial/in the Judeo-Spanish of Alcazarquivir [now Ksar-el-Kebir] and ascribes this to the dialect mixing during the period of the expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula. These three reflexes are known to have existed in the various peninsular dialects of the time and "Alcazarquivir, the necessary gateway to the interior, was always a 'settlement well' for Sephardim of the different regions of Spain" (1957: 158). Martinez Ruiz published another chapter of his thesis as a morphological description of the same dialect (1960) and later commented on the penetration of loans from Arabic (1966; see below). The particular interest of the Moroccan dialect, which did not undergo the levelling typical of eastern Judeo-Spanish or the incorporation of Balkan loan elements, is underlined in a paper by Carlos Benarroch (1970) who advocates a comparative approach as the means of determining Judeo-Spanish characteristics prior to the diaspora. To this end, he drew up a brief lexicographical parallel between Moroccan and eastern Judeo-Spanish, showing their common Hispanic, Hebrew, and Arabic elements. The Rumanian scholar Marius Sala has done important work on the Judeo-Spanish dialect of Bucharest (1971), making a careful description - both synchronic and diachronic - of its phonetics and phonology using the Prague structural approach, and formulating apposite comparisons with other Spanish dialects. This work and Sala's more general collection of essays (1970; see also below) constitute a major contribution to the study of a dialect which is rapidly disappearing. In conclusion, we may say that although the ideal moment for the study of Old World Judeo-Spanish has already passed, since a large proportion of the Sephardic communities have been dispersed, an intensive study with modern methods of the linguistic situation of the communities that still remain would be of great interest, in particular the description of dialects which are not very well known and will otherwise be irredeemably lost. As regards Israeli Sephardic, we really need a full-scale sociolinguistic survey of its uses and functions, together with a more narrowly linguistic description of the results of contact among Judeo-Spanish dialects of different origin, of the influence of Hebrew, and of other interesting aspects no doubt present in this complex linguistic situation.

Spanish outside Spain

379

4.3 Judeo-Spanish in the New World The transplantation of Judeo-Spanish to the Americas, in a new diaspora dating from the last decades of the nineteenth century and having as its main destination the United States and Argentina, certainly constitutes an important subject for study, since the deep sociocultural changes suffered by the migrating communities have interesting sociolinguistic as well as strictly linguistic consequences.104 Useful accounts of Sephardic varieties have been contributed, for New York, by Luria (1930b) and for Seattle, where the influx dates from 1904, by Humphrey and Adatto (1936; see above), who say that in 1934 there were about 500 families "divided into two main groups - those from Constantinople, Rodosto and Gallipoli, and those from the Island of Rhodes" (1936: 256). As I pointed out above, their paper focuses on the archaism of the dialect, an approach which in the phonological analysis and especially the brief morphological section, often results in confusing observations. Frederick B. Agard (1950) makes historical reference to the evolution of the Sephardic population in the United States, and then presents a five-part analysis of one Judeo-Spanish dialect, using material collected directly from informants and comprising: phonology, morphology, vocabulary, orthography and sample texts. The first two sections are both descriptive and historical. From the descriptive standpoint, Agard gives a short but consistent structural analysis - remarkable in itself, given the rarity of this kind of description in the Judeo-Spanish field. At the morphological level, he presents a careful analysis of verbal inflexion - a most interesting aspect in which Judeo-Spanish differs clearly from other contemporary Spanish dialects.105 A short note by Denah Levy (1952) characterizes the New York Sephardic community originating from Smyrna and the main phonetic features of their speech, which she sums up in these words: "The dialect is distinguished by open tonic vowels and closed unstressed ones; aspiration of the w preceded by s [...]; syllabic / preceding the palatalized n of some words; lack of r [...]; voicing of ~s; liquid s" (1952: 281). The interest of this subject undoubtedly justifies, in so far as linguistic continuity allows, new studies of American Judeo-Spanish, especially in those areas, such as the River Plate, which, despite the added attraction of bidialectal contact, have not hitherto been specifically investigated. 4.4 Consequences of linguistic contact in Judeo-Spanish dialects The influence of other languages on Judeo-Spanish, over a long trajec-

380

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

tory of linguistic contact, has been the object of several studies, since the pioneering work of Danon on contact with Turkish (1903,1913). Wagner also draws attention to the prevailing Turkish influence in the Levant (1954), although there is also interference from other national languages. He analyses several loan translations, semantic extensions, and other hybrid forms that eastern Judeo-Spanish has incorporated through contact with various Balkan languages. Crews, on the basis of a list of "almost exclusively Arabic and Hebrew terms used in the JudeoSpanish of the former Turkish Empire. Unless otherwise stated, the forms quoted are, or were, current in Salonika" (1955: 296), concludes that the multiple direct loans from Arabic "provide further evidence that the Jews in Spain often knew Arabic as well as Spanish" (296). A semantically-grouped sample of Balkan loanwords is given by Marius Sala in a paper entitled "Elementes balcänicos en el judeoespanol" (1970: 143-155), where he indicates that: "The Balkanic elements of Judeo-Spanish are, in their majority, Turkish elements common to all or almost all the Balkanic idioms. This is so because the Sephardim came to the Balkan Peninsula after the formative period of the Balkanic 'linguistic union', and at the time when Turkish influence started to be stronger" (143). In his 1966 article (mentioned above) Martinez Ruiz identifies Arabic loans in the Alcazarquivir Sephardic dialect which, according to the author, has been preserved much more satisfactorily than the other north-African dialects hitherto described, and this despite widespread Judeo-Spanish-Arabic bilingualism. The study is based on materials of the Sephardic oral tradition collected by Martinez Ruiz in situ. In a careful linguistic analysis, he distinguishes the Arabisms that are the result of the recent period of bilingualism from those loanwords incorporated before the expulsion from the peninsula, and states that the Arabisms from the Hispanic period predominate in the traditional oral literature, while loanwards from Moroccan Arabic predominate in colloquial speech. He also stresses the importance of discriminating between these two kinds of loans for the study of the cultural evolution of the Sephardic communities, since the Hispanic Arabisms bear witness to the presence of considerable Arabic cultural elements among the Sephardim dating from the long period of cultural contact in Spain. 4.5 Obsolescence of Judeo-Spanish The obsolescence that to different degrees affects the various Judeo-

Spanish outside Spain

381

Spanish dialects has only lately attracted the attention of linguists. In a paper delivered at the First Symposium on Sephardic Studies held in 1964, Besso (1970) accounts for the decline of Judeo-Spanish on two main grounds - the high degree of interference undergone by the JudeoSpanish dialects, and the progressive disuse into which they fell. He attributes these processes to multiple causes, among which were: the almost total weakening of the relationship between the Sephardim and Spain, the fact that the use of the Rashi alphabet (in Hebrew characters) isolated Ladino from literary Spanish, the Balkan nationalism of our century, the great influence of Italian and French as educated languages, and the barbarous persecutions that decimated the Sephardic population of Salonika and other Balkan communities. Conversely, on the JudeoSpanish of the United States and Israel, he points to the importance for these communities of contact with Hispano-American speakers, thus reinforcing their use of Spanish. Three of the papers in Sala's 1970 collection106 concern the obsolescence of Judeo-Spanish: "Observaciones sobre la desaparicion de las lenguas" (9-45), "La desaparicion de las lenguas y la polisemia" (4665), and "Como contribuye una lengua romänica a la desaparicion de otra" (74-77). In the first, he points out that Judeo-Spanish is gradually abandoned as its speakers desert it for another language - which differs from other kinds of language obsolescence motivated by the disappearance of the speech community or by its transformation into another language. He considers that the main cause of the extinction of Balkan Judeo-Spanish is to be found in the sweeping economic and social changes that have taken place in this region since the last century with the rise of national bourgeoisies which obliged the Sephardim to assimilate: "The transformation of Judeo-Spanish into a language of family conversation and its later abandonment were caused fundamentally by the declining trajectory of Sephardic history" (1970: 17). He believes this process gave rise to a series of intermediate factors which in turn caused the decline of the language, such as the closing at the beginning of our century of the Sephardic schools where Ladino was taught; the compulsory education of children at national language medium schools; the gradual reduction of written output in Judeo-Spanish; and finally the fact that Judeo-Spanish became a family language left it less and less equipped for other uses, which - as Sala says - reduces Judeo-Spanish to the role of a low variety in a diglossic community. In the special case of Rumania, Sala suggests that the relative similarity of Judeo-Spanish and Rumanian was also a contributing factor to its loss, since the mainten-

382

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

ance of bilingualism is always more difficult when the languages in question are close to each other. Sala notes that this factor is even stronger in the United States and Morocco - to which I will add the case of Argentina - where the contact of Sephardi with other varieties of Spanish has brought about a rapid obsolescence. In his second paper, Sala analyses an aspect that vividly reflects the gradual loss of dominance of Judeo-Spanish among its speakers: the increasing polysemy of a great part of the vocabulary. He concludes that this lack of semantic precision implies a linguistic impoverishment which reinforces in its turn the disappearance of the language. In the third paper, Sala illustrates three stages in the obsolescence process through which Bucharest Judeo-Spanish has passed, and during which its use has become more and more restricted: "Thus, it begins to change from a thriving literary language into a colloquial language, then becoming, before its death, a family language" (1970: 74). In the first stage of obsolescence it took in numerous loanwords which gave it a modern vocabulary, lacking in its inherited inventory. On the other hand, owing to its close relationship with French and Rumanian, there were numerous loan translations, "in which the original sense of the Spanish word was lost and replaced by the Rumanian or French sense" (76). Sala considers that in its last period, when it becomes a family language, the situation is quite different: as the main purpose of its use is to avoid intelligibility by people who are foreign to the community, all the loanwords are eliminated and, together with them, several patrimonial forms believed to be loans, which gives rise to a great impoverishment, favouring even more the obsolescence of Judeo-Spanish. These studies by Sala undoubtedly make a valuable contribution not only to our knowledge of the present situation of Bucharest Judeo-Spanish, but also to the wider study of language obsolescence and linguistic change, two subjects of great importance in the sociolinguistic field. To sum up this section, we may say that Judeo-Spanish has attracted this century valuable studies that in several cases have rescued dialects threatened by obsolescence before description became impossible. Since, however, some of this work was done by amateurs, new and linguistically rigorous descriptions are still needed for the varieties that can still be studied. There are also important communities that have not been investigated at all, such as that of Buenos Aires, and others that have been studied in an unsatisfactory way, such as the Sephardic groups living in Israel. Judeo-Spanish offers, then, a very rich field of investigation, both in its own right and for the development of linguistic theory

Spanish outside Spain

383

since it enables the linguist to observe the parallel evolution of similar dialects in totally different linguistic environments such as, for example, Arabic (a totally foreign language), Rumanian (a related language), and other Spanish dialects.107 From the sociolinguistic standpoint, interesting themes would be: the effects of the socioeconomic changes in the Sephardic communities on their linguistic usage, speaker attitudes towards Judeo-Spanish and the various national languages (as regards both proficiency and acquisition), the correlation of the greater or lesser use of Judeo-Spanish with different social variables, etc. Lastly, progress is highly desirable on the wide range of problems posed by the obsolescence of Judeo-Spanish dialects, taking account of the various kinds of linguistic contact and social factors in each situation. 5. The Spanish of the Philippines 5.1 The place of Spanish in the Philippines For various geographical and sociocultural reasons, Spanish never took root in the Philippines as it did in America and the Canary Islands, despite its almost contemporaneous introduction in that archipelago and the dominance it maintained until the end of the last century. As Frake points out (1971: 223): "Spanish replaces no indigenous Philippine language, and its role as an auxiliary language was sufficiently tenuous that it was quickly supplanted by English after the American occupation." The presence of Spanish as a 'language of culture' until the end of the last century, its later partial replacement by English in this role, the coexistence of both languages with numerous indigenous idioms and the persistence in elevating one of these to the rank of a national language, gave rise to many studies - mostly journalistic - on the linguistic situation of the Philippines in general and on the role of Spanish in particular. We shall see below some of the works on this last aspect illustrating very different viewpoints. Palacios (1941) gives a brief historical presentation of the use of Spanish in the archipelago108 concentrating on some exchanges in the debate in which the Philippine Parliament approved the obligatory teaching of Spanish in secondary schools. Palacios advocates the revival of Spanish and, in an optimistic view totally at variance with the real position, describes the Philippines as a "bud of Hispanity in the process of becoming a luxuriant flower". An anonymous paper published as an editorial note in Cuadernos hispanoamericanos with the title "El espanol en Filipinas" (1952)

384

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

describes the linguistic situation at that time. The author reviews the efforts made by the United States in the first three decades of this century to impose English by adopting a hard-line linguistic policy, and the later resolution of the Philippine government in 1940, declaring Tagalog, English and Spanish as official languages. With respect to the attitudes on linguistic policy, he distinguishes three positions, one favourable to each of the three languages. The author is dismayed by the almost exclusive use of English and Tagalog in literature, and the neglect of Spanish, which he considers "the language of Philippine culture; the language incorporating the Islands in the culture of the modern world; the language of educational roots, which made possible three and a half centuries of teaching, the generation of Emancipation, the Golden Age of Philippine literature". The paper shows a nostalgic and none-toooptimistic view of the future of Spanish in the Philippines. Whinnom takes a quite different stance, beginning with the categoric statement (1954: 129): "The mass of the Filipino people do not, never did, and never will, speak Spanish". He points to the linguistic complexity of the archipelago, with between forty and ninety different languages, none the native language of more than 37% of the population, and with more than five million inhabitants speaking neither English, Tagalog nor Spanish. Whinnom proposes to determine the role of Spanish in this situation, asserting that when Spanish domination ended only 10% of the population spoke Spanish, and at the time of writing (the early fifties) only 2% had any mastery of it. The factors linking the Philippine people with Spanish are religion, history and literature, but in spite of these, he thinks the best solution to the present linguistic situation would be to foster Tagalog-English bilingualism, which would permit general communication at national level. In 1965 the Office of Ibero-American Education published an essentially popularizing book of short articles entitled La lengua espanola en Filipinos. Datos acerca de unproblema, which, as Rodolfo Baron Castro points out in the Introduction, aims "to present the problem to the Spanish-speaking world [...] in order to facilitate effective aid to those who learn and teach our common language in the Philippines, appreciating it as part of the historicocultural heritage" (1965: 6). Implementing a UNESCO resolution, J. Blat Gimeno, Jose M. Rivas Sacconi, and E. Lorenzo Criado made "a study of the present extension of Spanish in the Philippines, the teaching of it at the various educational levels, and formulate recommendations aiming to extend and improve the training of Spanish teachers in this country" (1968: 2). The work is a val-

Spanish outside Spain

385

uable contribution to our knowledge of the linguistic situation in the archipelago and contains wise recommendations for the teaching of Spanish. In his recent monograph on hispanisms in Tagalog (1972), Baron Castro makes an analysis of the place of Spanish in the Philippines. After giving the background to the present linguistic situation, taking 1898 as the pivot date separating two periods which he designates as the process of hispanization and of de-hispanization, he considers the role of Spanish in the various factors which in his view go to make up Philippine nationality: evangelism, education, legislation, culture, mixture of races, and customs. On the linguistic prospects of the archipelago, he says that not even a minimally satisfactory solution has been achieved, and in pursuing it one should start with "reality such as it presents itself, without trying to change it or falsify it" (1972: 51). Lastly, he claims that "Spanish should have in any future Philippine legal system at least a status which entails paying attention to the important minority who speak it; to the cultural past of the Islands, and to this undeniable affinity that its speakers maintain with a culture of which they are a part" (52). 5.2 Spanish-based Creoles Ever since the pioneering inquiries of Schuchardt, the Philippine Creoles have aroused the interest of linguists, but as with the great majority of Creoles systematic studies have only been carried out in the last few decades. The first general survey of the three main Spanish-based Creole varieties spoken in the archipelago is the book by Whinnom (1956) comprising a historical introduction, the transcription of texts from all three dialects, and a short phonological, grammatical and lexical analysis of them. The historical part is of special interest, since Whinnom here provides arguments, later several times reiterated, in favour of the monogenetic hypothesis on the origin of pidgins and Creoles, from a primitive Portuguese-based pidgin, which could in turn be based on Sabir or mediterranean Lingua Franca. The descriptive aspect of the work is unfortunately less enlightening than the historical part, as the author makes numerous comparisons with Spanish or Tagalog, without ever fully describing the structure of the Creoles themselves.109 The texts offered by Whinnom are also less than ideal, since they are either literary or were collected by correspondence methods, and were subsequently read aloud by native speakers as a basis for the phonetic transcriptions.110 On the grammatical level, Howard McKaughan (1954) contributed a

386

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg

short description of the pronominal system and of the main verbal, nominal and adverbial constructions in Chabacano, together with a series of texts accompanied by literal and free translations. The pronominal and verbal systems of two other Philippine Creoles (Cavitefio and Zamboangueno) are also schematically set out by Quilis (1970).'" Recently Frake (1971) made a valuable analysis of the semantic structure of Zamboangueno, taking into account the origin of the different lexical items. Frake points out that this dialect differs from the other Philippine Creoles (and from the Creole archetype) in having a considerable lexical component of indigenous origin, which is not restricted to particular semantic domains but even penetrates the aspects generally less receptive to loans. The author describes the internal distribution of the lexical elements of Spanish and indigenous origin in several semantic fields (pronouns, adjective pairs denoting size or evaluation, nouns that contrast with respect to age or sex, etc.), which shows that the indigenous terms represent the marked pole of the opposition, in contrast with the unmarked Spanish terms: "Where a Philippine and a Spanishderived form participate in a marked-unmarked relation in the same contrast set, the Philippine form will designate the marked category: it will signify lesser magnitude, shorter distance, worse evaluation, female sex, junior generation, or plurality" (1971: 231-232). The paper is of special interest for referring to an important aspect previously unnoticed in Creole languages. The Spanish Creoles of the Philippines are undoubtedly ripe for further study, which should provide very rich material for a better understanding of their inherent characteristics and of the general processes of pidginization and creolization. At the same time, the complex linguistic situation of the Philippines, determined by its having been for centuries the meeting place of migratory currents of many different cultures, undoubtedly requires serious sociolinguistic study, which, taking account of the intricate historico-cultural processes in the islands, the presentday extent112 and differential prestige of each language,113 and the attitudes of the speakers, will allow us to determine in face of the current difficulties, the most appropriate linguistic policy for the future. Notes * I am specially grateful to Aldo O. Blanco, who revised my English text. I also wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Yakov Malkiel, Manuel Alvar, Guillermo Guitarte, Beatriz Lavandera, Juan M. Lope Blanch, tJose P. Rona, Jose M. Rivas Sacconi, Luis Florez, Ana M. Barrenechea, Frida Weber de Kurlat, Antonio Quilis, Juan Martinez Ruiz, Howard McKaughan, Jose Polo and Norma Abraham de Lopez Sanchez, for

Spanish outside Spain

387

their valuable suggestions and for the material they generously supplied. Since the first version of this article was submitted by the author in 1975, only works published prior to that date are discussed. 1. Lapesa's abiding interest and up-to-date information on American Spanish is shown in the modifications he introduced into this chapter through successive editions. 2. For instance, Malmberg says of the andalucista theory that "recently some scholars have been opposed to it for linguistic and historical reasons [ . . . ] Pedro Henriquez Urefia demonstrated, on the basis of incontrovertible facts, that this hypothesis is not correct" (149; italics mine MBFW). Undoubtedly, this statement cannot be accepted in the sixties, when the position of Henriquez Urena had already been shown inadequate by later studies, as we will see when the problem is analysed below. Similarly, in his comments on voseo, another very important aspect of American Spanish, Malmberg says of its development in the River Plate region: "It is certain that in 1810 all educated people in Buenos Aires used tu as a second person singular personal pronoun" (1966: 177). This assertion is based on studies lacking in rigour, whose inaccuracy has been recently demonstrated. 3. See the reviews: Rosenblat 1950a and Morinigo 1951. 4. Indigenous influence on regional intonation is almost a commonplace in HispanoAmerican linguistics on which, among others, Rosenblat, Morinigo, Vidal de Battini and Alonso himself have agreed. Alonso (1953: 397) for example, in spite of his critical view of substratum explanations, says that indigenous influence "is certain in the intonation of Chile and in all areas". However, both Malmberg and Alonso abandon here the very principles they themselves established for the acceptance of substratum hypotheses, since they resort to these explanations without knowing the intonational systems of the supposed substratum languages. Such knowledge is indeed totally impossible in the case of several Argentinian regional intonations, because they are from areas where the native languages disappeared several centuries ago. But to attribute intonational differences "in all places" to indigenous languages is highly questionable if we think of the different degrees of contact between Spanish and the native languages in the different American areas, in several of which, such as the Antillean region, the native population disappeared very early. Lastly, the repeated statement that some American Spanish intonations "have no Castilian characteristics" (Malmberg 1964a) is very weak, considering that there are no descriptions of the majority of the Spanish regional intonations. An exception in this sense is Extremadura, whose intonation has been very well analysed by Maria Josefa Canellada (1941), and some of whose features coincide with Argentinian regional intonations (although this does not, of course, necessarily imply any influence). See also Fontanella de Weinberg 1974b. 5. As we shall see below, Granda (1968a, 1968b, 1970, and 1971b) and other scholars point to the existence of Spanish-based Creoles in Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador and Panama, thus contradicting this statement by Rosenblat. 6. As regards the speech differences between the lowlands and highlands, Μεηέηάεζ Pidal 1962 sets up a different and very interesting hypothesis, which we examine below. 7. On /s7 introduced by loanshift from native languages in the phonological system of Mexican Spanish, see Lastra 1967. 8. However, according to Lope Blanch /tl/ would be tautosyllabic also in words of Spanish origin. In order to decide if this is caused by the extension of Nahuatl influence, I think we should take into account that in other Latin American dialects, such as in River Plate Spanish, the syllabification of words with -tl- is also a-tlas, Atlan-ti-co, etc. 9. In spite of the increasing rigour of the latest studies on the subject, many books are still produced, especially in the lexicographical field, by amateurs who resort to quite

388

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

Maria-Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg unjustifiable substratum explanations. See, on this subject, the excellent criticism of two works of this type, in J. Suärez 1966. Lucas Fernandez de Piedrahita, later bishop of Santa Marta, says of Cartagena regional speech: "The natives of the country, badly disciplined in the purity of the Spanish language, generally pronounce it with those vices which the people of Andalusian coasts also share" (1688). To this same study belongs Cuervo's statement that "the whole Peninsula gave its contingent to the American population", which was incorrectly interpreted by Henriquez Urena as a rejection of the andalucista theses. For an excellent study of the position of Cuervo, and Henriquez Urefia's interpretation of it, see Guitarte 1959. In spite of the importance accorded at the time to Henriquez Urefia's argument, its value (without even considering that the figure has been altered by subsequent research) is very disputable, since what determines the acceptance of a linguistic change is not the sheer number of speakers who adopt it, but their weight as a social group. See Weinreich-Labov-Herzog 1968. On the evolution of - - and -ss- in Andalusia, Alonso maintains that in the 16th and 17th century there was no actual fusion of the two phonemes, but an 'anarchic exchange' between them, which was different from America, where there was a true fusion. An 'anarchic exchange' of this kind, not implying fusion, is phonologically inadmissible. These papers were originally published independently; see Alonso 1951, Alonso Lida 1945. Rosenblat (1969: 177-179) raises objections to Boyd-Bowman's study. In spite of these objections, I think its value cannot be denied and its contribution is crucial to our knowledge of the demographic evolution in the earliest years of American colonization. On the relation between Andalusia, the Canaries and America there is an important earlier study, which we consider below, by Jose Perez Vidal (1955), who points out that there was a very close relationship between Andalusia and America, with the Canaries acting as a link. Rosenblat (1969: 183-184) and Guitarte (1971:182) have raised well-founded objections to the Andalusian character of the text in question. See for example this statement, referring to Menendez Pidal 1962: "One common Spanish from Spain, composed of the speech of all peninsular regions and 'coloured by andalucismo', is a conclusion that Henriquez Urena and Amado Alonso would undoubtedly accept, and which I accept without any reservation" (Rosenblat 1969: 186-187). See my review (Fontanella de Weinberg 1971d). Another important study of 16th century Mexican Spanish based on archival material has been carried out by BoydBowman. See the first results of this work (Boyd-Bowman 1970) in which he points out some interesting syntactic and lexical features. As regards yeismo, the latest research shows that although the earliest records of this feature related to peninsular speakers (see Guitarte 1971: 180-183) it is not exclusively an Andalusian feature. Guitarte adduces a letter of 1581, showing yeismo, from a native of Brihuega, a population whose yeismo has remained until the present. One can therefore suppose that speakers with yeismo arrived in America from Andalusia, together with natives of other places showing the same tendency, such as the author of the letters quoted by Guitarte. It is also questionable whether the persistence of h-(