Search

The adverb ungemete, unigmetes in Beowulf and elsewhere in Old English verse creates significant metrical problems. I revive and expand the proposal of Fulk (1992) to read this as *unmet. This rest...

The paper analyzes professional training of future philologists in higher education institutions in Ukraine. It determines and justifies the content of future philologists’ professional training on the example of the degree programme on Germanic Languages and Literature (including Translation), taking into account the new regulatory requirements. It describes the most effective forms, methods and technologies of organizing educational activities of future philologists. It clarifies the components of professional competency of future specialists in Germanic philology. It specifies the procedures and measures for assuring the internal quality of philological education at higher education institutions. Some general characteristics of future philologists’ professional training in higher education institutions in Ukraine, justified in the paper, have proved the need to update the content of such training and introduce effective organizational forms and methods of teaching and learning, which will promote the subject-subject interaction in the educational process, as well as contribute to personality development and assure the quality of education.

The article deals with the methodological research problems of Romano-Germanic philology as in the case of lexical-semantic explication of German and Russian nominations “husband”, “spouse” from the viewpoint of the comparative ethno-linguistic analysis. Comparative ethno-linguistic description of the lexical units in the article is carried out according to the methods of the ethno-semantic analysis, which makes it possible to correlate the word definition with the life of a certain group of people. The aim of the methodology is to find out the universal and specific national characteristics of the lexical units in the German and Russian worldview, mental schemes and ethno-mental world of the native speakers.

This article calls attention to documents relating to the early academic life of G. J. P. J. Bolland (1854–1922). During the late 1870s and early 1880s, Bolland was enthralled by the study of Old Germanic languages and Old English in particular. His endeavours soon caught the eye of Pieter Jacob Cosijn (1840–1899), Professor of Germanic Philology and Anglo-Saxon at Leiden University, who helped the Groningen-born student to further his studies. During his stays in London and Jena, Bolland communicated with prominent scholars, including Henry Sweet, Richard Morris and Eduard Sievers. Bolland’s annotated books, hand-written notes and scholarly correspondence provide a unique insight into academic life and student-professor relationships during the late nineteenth century. In addition, Bolland produced an Old English love poem and a Beowulf summary that are published here for the first time.

The present article is a summary of the book English: The Language of the Vikings by Joseph E. Emonds and Jan Terje Faarlund. The major claim of the book and of this article is that there are lexical and, above all, syntactic arguments in favor of considering Middle and Modern English as descending from the North Germanic language spoken by the Scandinavian population in the East and North of England prior to the Norman Conquest, rather than from the West Germanic Old English.

The Viking Hypothesis neglects (i) the significant degree of stability from Old to Middle (and even Modern) English grammar and (ii) parallel, but independent, developments not induced by North Germanic in the grammars of continental West Germanic dialects.

Neidorf (2017), The Transmission of Beowulf, synthesizes a variety of philological approaches to propose a new ‘lexemic theory’ of Anglo-Saxon scribal behaviour. In this response article, I build on Neidorf’s arguments, suggesting ways that his theory may be adapted to account for differences between the two scribes of the Beowulf manuscript, and addressing some of the ways that metrical evidence only more weakly supports, or sometimes directly contradicts, some of Neidorf’s specific claims.

Відзначено, що ед’ютейнмент як технологія навчання іноземної мови вже була досліджена щодо різних ступенів навчання – від початкової до вищої школи. Особливістю технології ед’ютейнмент є впровадження сучасних форм розваг у систему традиційних організаційних форм навчання. Вона сприяє формуванню у студентів таких особистісних і професійних якостей, як толерантність, комунікативність, здатність долати психологічний бар’єр іншомовного спілкування з одночасною присутністю особистісного сенсу в оволодінні навчальною дисципліною. Описано авторський досвід формування у студентів магістратури методичної компетентності викладача іноземної мови з використанням технології ед’ютейнмент, яка була представлена на семінарських заняттях з методики інтерактивною технологією Е. де Боно «Шість капелюхів мислення», на практичних заняттях – професійно орієнтованою рольовою грою в форматі методичного батлу чи брифінгу. Вказано, що студенти магістратури, позитивно оцінивши і технологію формування методичної компетентності викладача іноземної мови, і формати семінарсько-практичних занять з методики, висловили бажання використати технологію ед’ютейнмент в майбутньому під час педагогічної практики. З дозволу студентів результати їх учіння оприлюднено на авторському сайті викладача методики., Edutainment as a technique of teaching a foreign language has already been analyzed for different teaching stages: from the primary to the high school. The attributes of edutainment technique are the following: stimulating the students’ interest, the accent on entertainment, application of games and informational communicative technologies. Therefore, in the concept of teaching through the entertainment, the edutainment technique is identified as a complex of modern technical and didactic means of teaching. According to the results of scientists’ research, the target audience for the edutainment technique is presented within the age group from 17 to 28. The peculiarity of the edutainment technique is implementation of modern forms of entertainment into the system of traditional organizational forms of teaching, especially foreign languages. However, the usage of edutainment technique in the process of forming methodological competence of the lecturers of a foreign language has not been analyzed yet. The article presents the description of lecturers’ experience of forming the methodological competence of foreign languages (Spanish, German) of master’s degree holders using edutainment technique. Its constituents are the interactive technology of Edward de Bono “Six thinking hats” and professionally oriented role games that are held in the form of methodological battle and methodological briefing. The results of implementation of the edutainment technique in seminars and practical classes of the methodology of teaching foreign languages and culture in high school are presented on the pages of the authoress’ site (access mode http://bigich.knlu.kyiv.ua/6thinkinghats.htm; http://bigich.knlu.kiev.ua/Battle.htm; http://bigich.knlu.kiev.ua/Briefing.htm – holders of master’s degree (speciality “High education”) Germanic philology faculty; http://bigich.knlu.kiev.ua/BattleSpanish.htm; http://bigich.knlu.kiev.ua/6sombreros.htm – holders of master’s degree (speciality “Philology”) Romanic philology faculty. The following students’ survey proves the interest in the edutainment technique and their wish for its further use during the period of pedagogical practice. The prospects of further adoption are connected with the implementation of new formats of professionally oriented role games in classes of methodology of teaching foreign language and culture in high school for future lecturers of foreign languages.

J.R.R. Tolkien produced a considerable body of poetry in which he used the traditional alliterative metre of Old Norse and Old English to write modern English verse. This paper reviews three of his longer narrative poems, published in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún and The Fall of Arthur, examining Tolkien’s alliterative technique in comparison to medieval poetry and to the metrical theories of Eduard Sievers. In particular, the two poems in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, which are adapted from Old Norse material, show a number of metrical and poetic features reminiscent of Tolkien’s sources in the Poetic Edda. The Fall of Arthur, on the other hand, is in a style that is, in detail and in general, strongly reminiscent of Old English poetry. Throughout all these compositions, Tolkien employs a distinctive alliterative style, closely based on medieval and philological models, but adjusted according to the linguistic needs of modern English and to his own preferences.

The conclusion seems inescapable, if the facts in Emonds & Faarlund are more or less right: Middle English would be the outcome of a shift from West Germanic grammar to an eccentric form of North Germanic grammar.

Emonds & Faarlund have brilliantly demonstrated that the syntax of English owes a great deal to the syntax of Old Norse, and more than has generally been thought. This is genuinely significant. But, from a variationist perspective, the difference of nomenclature—“North Germanic” rather than “West Germanic”—is not.

The variable operation of high vowel deletion in Old English has long been a point of difficulty, both descriptively – a prehistoric form like *hēafudu is attested variably as hēafudu , hēafdu , and hēafod – and theoretically. Recent work, especially by Bermúdez‐Otero (2005b) and Fulk (2010), has indicated that plural forms like hēafudu are most likely original, but accounting for why the medial *u is preserved in this case form, and not in hēafde , the dative singular of the same word, has remained theoretically problematic. These difficulties arise from attempting to describe the prehistoric Old English process of high vowel deletion on the basis of later Old English phonology. At an earlier stage, the nominative‐accusative plural *hēafudu could be exhaustively parsed into two precisely bimoraic feet: *[hēa][.fu.du]. The dative singular historically ended with a long vowel, *hēafudǣ , in which the medial *u could not be accommodated within a bimoraic foot: *[hēa].fu[.dǣ]. High vowel deletion is therefore best characterized as the deletion of unfooted high vowels in early Old English, initially operating while length in unstressed vowels remained contrastive. Both this quantitative system and the preference for precisely bimoraic units receive support from Kaluza's law, an archaic metrical phenomenon in Beowulf which prohibits resolution in secondary metrical ictus if the resulting unit would have more than two moras, and which is sensitive to prehistoric length distinctions. This original system was obscured, linguistically and metrically, in later Old English by the shortening of unstressed long vowels, triggering various morphological reanalyses of the effects of high vowel deletion. A review of these changes suggests that the system of metrical phonology described here provides a more plausible starting point for the reworkings that produced the forms found in later Old English than do alternative accounts such as those of Campbell (1983) or Ringe (2002).

As a complement to C. B. van Haeringen's classic comparative study (1956) that positioned the grammar of Dutch in between the grammars of English and German, this study compares the productivity of three kinds of “raising” patterns in these languages: Object-to-Subject, Subject-to-Object, and Subject-to-Subject raising. It establishes the extent to which Dutch, as well as English and German, have evolved from the old West Germanic starting point these languages are assumed to have shared in this area of grammar. The results are a test case for Hawkins' (1986) case syncretism account of the difference in “explicit-ness” between the grammars of English and German.*

Characterizing continental Europe and India as the former hinterlands of English Studies may seem a somewhat misleading retrospective view. Philological scholarship in Old English was centered firmly within Germanic studies in the early nineteenth century, spurring both the initial desire to align English Studies with philological models and later nationalist extirpation of Germanic philology in Britain noted above. Various continental European countries institutionalized pedagogy of English not much later than in the UK. This is also the case in Indian academia, where some of the modern contours of the discipline emerged at an early stage. Nevertheless, English Studies was conceived as the “other” of those contexts even while it was being institutionalized there, and was regarded as embedded in a native Anglophone zone which was not “here.”

One of the proudest inventions of German scholarship in the nineteenth century was the Heldenlied, the heroic song, which was seen by scholars as the main conduit of Germanic heroic legend from the Period of Migrations to the time of their being written down in the Middle Ages. The concept stems indirectly from the suggestions of several eighteenth-century Homeric scholars that since the Homeric poems were much too long to have been memorized and performed in oral tradition, they must have existed as shorter, episodic songs. Friedrich August Wolf's well-known Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) collected evidence for the idea that writing was not used for poetry until long after Homer's time. He argued for a thorough recension of the poem under (or perhaps by) Pisistratus in the sixth century BCE as the first comprehensive written Homer. These ideas were almost immediately applied to the Middle High German Nibelungenlied by Karl Lachmann (1816), who was trained as a classical philologist and indeed continued to contribute in that area at the same time that he was one of the most influential members of the generation that founded the new discipline of Germanistik.

1. The Germanic Languages 2. Gothic and the Reconstruction of Proto-German 3. Old and Middle Scandinavian 4. Old and Middle Continental West Germanic 5. Old and Middle English 6. Icelandic 7. Faroese 8. Norwegian 9. Swedish 10. Danish 11. German 12. Yiddish 13. Pennysylvanian German 14. Dutch 15. Afrikaans 16. English 17. Frisian 18. Germanic Creoles

In September 1890, Hendrik Logeman, professor of English and Germanic philology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, had the audacity to accuse no less a scholar than Henry Sweet of misleading his readers. Logeman based his accusation on an unfortunate remark Sweet had made in his edition of the Old English translation of Pope Gregory'sPastoral Care. For this scholarly edition, Sweet had wished to include the text of London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. xi. However, having barely survived the Ashburnham House blaze of 1731, this manuscript had been almost entirely consumed by fire at a bookbinder's in 1865. As a replacement, Sweet had used Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 53, a transcript made by the seventeenth-century philologist Francis Junius (1591–1677) when the Cotton manuscript was still unscathed. Sweet praised Junius and emphasized the accuracy of the transcript by stating that Junius only ‘swerved from the path of literal accuracy in a few unimportant particulars’. Hendrik Logeman had collated the Old English glosses to the Benedictine Rule from Cotton Tiberius A. iii with a Junius transcript, Junius 52, for his 1888 edition, but he found, instead, that Junius failed to distinguish between 〈ð〉 and 〈þ〉 that he corrected his text without giving the reading of the manuscript, and that he added, omitted or transposed entire words.

When Old English studies were in their infancy in the seventeenth century, scholars such as Franciscus junius (1591–1677) had very little to study in print. With no grammar and no dictionary (until Somner's in 1659) they had to teach themselves the language from original sources. Junius, whose interest in Germanic studies became active in the early 1650s, was so proficient, not only at Old English, but also at the cognate languages that he became virtually the founding-father of Germanic philology. Over the years Junius made transcripts in his own distinctive imitation-Anglo-Saxon minuscule script of many Old English texts, transcripts that have subsequently proved invaluable, especially where the original manuscripts have been damaged or lost.

Preface Introduction Indo-European Phonology Indo-European Morphosyntax Greek Indo-Iranian Tocharian Germanic Phonology Germanic Verb Classes Germanic Verbal Inflexion Germanic Nominal Inflexion German English Scandinavian Albanian Armenian Balto-Slavic Italo-Celtic Anatolian Indo-Uralic Appendix References Index

Among Slovene scholars in English and German studies Jakob Kelemina (19 July 1882- 14 May 1957) has a very important place. Janez Stanonik justly places him among the founding fathers of the University of Ljubljana (Stanonik 1966: 332). From 1920 Kelemina was professor of Germanic philology and between 1920 and 1957 he was also the Chair of the Deparment ofGermanic Languages and Literatures at the Faculty of Arts of this university. The major part of Kelemina's research was devoted to German and Austrian literatures, German philology, German-Slovene cultural relations, and literary theory; his work in these fields has already been discussed by severa! Slovene scholars. However, in the first two decades of the twentieth century Kelemina also wrote severa! book reviews of Slovene and Croatian translations of Shakespeare's plays as well as three introductory essays to Slovene translations of Shakespeare's plays. They are considered as the first serious studies on Shakespeare in Slovenia (Moravec 1974: 437), and have not been analysed yet. Therefore this topic presents the core of my study, together with an evaluation of Kelemina's contribution to Slovene translations of Shakespeare's plays done by Oton Župančič (1878-1949) during the first half of the twentieth century. Župančič's translations became the criterion for all further translations of Shakespeare's dramatic works in Slovene. Župančič is stili one of our most important poets and translators of this time and Kelemina's advice and criticism undoubtedly also helped him to achieve such a high standard in his translations. In the central part of my study I also include some new material (e.g. Kelernina's letters), which is relevant for our understanding of his co-operation with Oton Župančič and other Slovene authors and critics. In order to put Kelemina's work into a historical perspective I present at the beginning of my study a brief survey of the development of drama and theatre in Slovenia, particularly as regards pro­ ductions and early attempts oftranslating Shakespeare's plays into Slovene. This information, which may be particularly relevant for foreign readers, ends with the year 1922, when Kelemina's last writ­ing about Shakespeare's plays appeared. In 2007 we commemorate the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of Kelemina's birth and fiftieth anniversary of his death, which is another reason why his work on Shakespeare should be finally researched and evaluated. This study should also help expand our knowledge about Jakob Kelemina's contribution regarding translations of Shakespeare's plays for the Slovene theatre and for Slovene culture generally.

Outside linguistics, Jacob Grimm, together with his brother Wilhelm, is known for his Kinder- und Hausmarchen, ‘Grimms' Fairy Tales.’ Within linguistics, Jacob Grimm is mainly remembered for ‘Grimm's Law’ and having started the compilation of the largest German language dictionary. But his significance and influence inside and outside Germany was widespread and truly immeasurable. He made lasting contributions to many scholarly fields. His Deutsche Grammatik (–1837) is usually credited with having established the historical approach to language studies on a sure footing. His research work became paradigmatic in many areas of German and Germanic studies.

Heinrich Wagner (1923–1988), Swiss by birth, studied Indo-European, Germanic philology, and phonetics at Zurich University. He came to Ireland to study Irish in 1945 and proposed the creation of a linguistic atlas of Irish dialects. This he accomplished in the years 1949 to 1955, and the four volumes appeared after 1958. He held professorships in Utrecht and Basel before becoming Professor of Celtic and Comparative Philology in Belfast, where he remained from 1958 until 1979. His other work concerned linguistic typology. Wagner's best-known work is Das Verbum in den Sprachen der britischen Inseln, which examines the verb in English, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh and compares them typologically with Hamito-Semitic languages.

Wilhelm Wackernagel (1806–1869), prevented from obtaining academic appointments in Germany due to some ‘politically incorrect’ letters he wrote in his mid-teens, accepted a position in Basel in 1833 and was appointed to a full professorship at the University of Basel in 1835. Apart from North Germanic languages he covered in his lectures and publications, he was expert in all areas of Germanic philology. Linguistic subjects stand beside literary and cultural subjects that ranged from early periods to the beginning of modern time. Both in lectures, and in his published research, he also dealt with comparative grammar involving German, Greek, and Latin. The quality of his research as well as its scope hold their own when compared with the publications of Grimm or scholars of equal reputation.

In his relatively short life, Wilhelm Scherer contributed extensively to Germanic linguistics and philology. He is perhaps best known for his handbooks on the history of the German language and on the history of German literature.

Hermann Osthoff (b. 1847) studied Germanic philology, Sanskrit, and comparative grammar. He belonged to the Neogrammarian movement, but was nevertheless a scholar who soon came to establish his own scientific agenda. He contributed substantially to drawing practical conclusions from the theoretical teachings of the Neogrammarians by exploring in greater detail the development of the sounds and the grammatical forms in the older stages of the IE languages. His specialty, aside from the Germanic languages, included Classical Greek and Latin as well as the Old Indic languages.

Hermann Moller (1850–1923) received an early classical education but devoted his career to the Germanic languages of his upbringing. After earning a Ph.D. at Leipzig, he joined the Germanic philology faculty at Copenhagen, where he remained until retirement. His earliest works included writings on Indogermanic phonology, Old High German poetics, and his native North Frisian. In later work he offered proofs for the Indo-European ablaut proposed by Schleicher and Saussure and analyzed Saussure's coefficients sonantiques as laryngeals. Moller spent his later career seeking proof for a posited link between Indo-European and Semitic.

Hermann Collitz, a professor at Johns Hopkins University from 1907 to 1927, was a German comparative diachronic linguist. He did not join the German Neogrammarian group at Leipzig, but moved abroad to the United States instead. He worked on Indo-European languages, specializing in the Germanic languages. His work included comparative phonological and morphological research, the editing of Greek dialect inscriptions, the creation of dialect dictionaries of his Low German dialect, and nonlinguistic philological research.

Languages studies date back to at least Greek and Roman antiquity. Scientific language study, however, is of a comparatively recent vintage. The first decisive event of far-reaching consequences for the establishment of historical and comparative language studies was the proclamation of Sir William Jones (1746–1794), made in 1786 and published two years later. The framework for comparative and historical linguistics subsequently created at the beginning of the 19th century by scholars like Franz Bopp, Rasmus Rask, and Jacob Grimm was by no means without influential antecedents. During the previous several centuries, linguists from various European countries contributed greatly, through their labors and their insights, to the foundations upon which the achievements of the 19th century and beyond could be solidly built. This article provides an overview of some of the pioneering forces at work.

Ferdinand Wrede was born in Berlin and, after having received his doctor's degree, he was a collaborator on the Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs [Linguistic atlas of the ‘Deutsches Reich’] project in Marburg, and later on, full Professor of Germanic philology. Wrede's fundamental studies first were concerned with Germanic: the languages of the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. In 1908, he founded the series Deutsche Dialektgeographie in which dialect monographs, mostly on the basis of direct investigations (other than Wenker's indirect method), were published. He initiated many scientific projects, e.g., the Hessen-Nassauisches Worterbuch, an area dialect dictionary, he interpreted dialect maps, expanded dialect research over all German dialects in Central Europe and classified the German dialects on the basis of the Deutscher Sprachatlas, which he began to edit in 1926.

Joseph Wright was illiterate until he was a teenager but eventually earned a doctorate in Germanic philology and became a professor at Oxford. He worked extensively on historical Germanic linguistics, publishing handbooks of Gothic, Middle High German, and Old English, among others, as well as in dialectology. He served as editor of the English Dialect Dictionary. A number of his students became eminent philosogists in their own right, including his wife Mary and J.R.R. Tolkein.

1. Foreword (by Lippi-Green, Rosina L.) 2. German standard pronouns and non-standard pronominal clitics Typological corollaries (by Abraham, Werner) 3. The epistemic use of German and English modals (by Fagan, Sarah M.B.) 4. Arguments for two verb-second clause types in Germanic: A comparison of yiddish and German (by Velde, John R. te) 5. On the syntax of Dutch er (by Barbier, Isabella) 6. The attributive genitive in the history of German (by Lanouette, Ruth Lunt) 7. The verscharfung as feature spread (by Davis, Garry W.) 8. Germanic Class IV and V preterits (by Niepokuj, Mary K.) 9. Germanic in early roman times (by Polome, Edgar C.) 10. Toward a phonological description of l Palatalization in Central Yiddish (by Jacobs, Neil G.) 11. Phonology, Orthography and the Umlaut puzzle (by Fertig, David) 12. Subject index 13. Language index 14. Authors index

Germanic: an innovation cluster In the conventional model of language relationships, as in the family trees in the previous chapter, the growth of linguistic diversity, the origin of ‘new’ languages, is imaged as a process of branching. The tree has one ultimate ‘mother’ node, and the rest of the languages in the family arise by successive splits. Genealogical trees of this kind are familiar from biology and other fields; in linguistic history however the parent-offspring relations are most often parthenogenetic (only one parent per child!). Multiple parentage (except in the case of pidgins and Creoles) is supposed to be relatively rare; though some ‘normal’ languages, like Dutch, may well be examples of something of the sort. There are problems in an oversimple interpretation of genealogical trees for languages (e.g. straight-line developments may be interrupted by diffusion of features from one dialect to another, etc.); but the metaphor is useful, is usually reasonably consistent with the facts, both linguistic and historical, and for most families is a useful organizing device. Linguistically, ‘branching’ can be defined more or less as it is in biology: we propose a split in a lineage when one subgroup becomes different enough to merit being assigned to a new class. In other words, branchings are dialect splits; they represent the emergence of one or more structural innovations that are striking enough to make us give a new name to the innovating group.

1. Foreword 2. On the Morphological Analysis of German: In Defense of the Category Adjective/Adverb (by Antonsen, Elmer H.) 3. On Two Case-Based Reanalysis Representations of the Causative Construction in Dutch (by Coopmans, Peter) 4. The Unaccusative Hypothesis and a Reflexive Construction in German and Dutch (by Fagan, Sarah M.B.) 5. On the Origin and Development of Relative Clauses in Early Germanic, with Special Emphasis on Beowulf (by Hock, Hans Henrich) 6. Out of Control: Control Theory and its Implications for Empty Categories, Expletives, and Missing Subjects in German (by Hoeing, Robert G.) 7. Modern Evidence for Ancient Sound Changes: Old English Breaking and Old High German Vowel Epenthesis Revisited (by Howell, Robert B.) 8. Inflections and Paradigms in German Nominal Declension (by Leibiger, Carol A.) 9. Phonologization in Germanic: Umlauts and Vowel Shifts (by Liberman, Anatoly) 10. The Sound-Shift Revisited - or Jacob Grimm Vindicated (by Marchand, James W.) 11. The Role of Semantic Restrictions in German Passive Formation (by Moorcroft, Regine) 12. The Rise of Periphrastic Tenses in German: The Case Against Latin Influence (by Morris, Richard L.) 13. On the Syllabic Motivation of Inflectional Suffixes in Germanic (by Shannon, Thomas F.) 14. On a Parameter of Case Percolation (by Sprouse, Rex A.) 15. Master List of References 16. Index of Names

The contributions in New Insights in Germanic Linguistics III are representative of the stimulating and productive medley of offerings presented at the April 2000 meetings of the Berkeley Germanic Linguistics Roundtable. Formal syntax informs the essays of Boas, Janko, Mallen, and Roehrs, which yield evidence from German, English, Scandinavian, and Romance languages. The syntax essays of Waltz and Wilhelm deal with Old English/Latin and with Old Hittite. Phonological studies by Barrack and Goblirsch draw on Spanish, Arabic, Dutch, and Danish relative to North Frisian. While Liberman presents work on the West germanic vocalism through time, Scheuringer concentrates on Modern German dialect reflexes of Old High German. Old Saxon serves as the database for Jeep's study of binomials and Rauch's pragmatic strategies. Finally, Cleek offers new North and South German fieldwork data on banking terminology. Contents: Charles M. Barrack: Gamkrelidze versus Grimm: Devoicing in Proto-Germanic - Hans C. Boas: Syntactic or lexical licensing of non-subcategorized arguments? - The case of German « Satzchen - John Cleek: Money talks: Evidence from fieldwork in the Federal Republic of Germany - Kurt Gustav Goblirsch: The North Frisian lenition and Danish linguistic hegemony - Jiri Janko: Case attraction construction in Old High German - John Jeep: The rhetorical significance of the alliterative tradition in the Heliand - Anatoly Libermann: From the history of closed vowels in West Germanic - Enrique Mallen: On the distribution of restrictive vs. nonrestrictive adjectives Germanic and Romance - Irmengard Rauch: Historical pragmatics: Pervasive evidence from Old Saxon - Dorian Roehrs: Towardeliminating case as a driving force for movement: « Licensing of case and default case - Hermann Scheuringer: Still needed - Old High German vocalism explaining New High German dialect variation - Heidi Waltz: Delbruck's Umdrehung in context - Christopher Wilhelm: Old Hittite postpositions: A fuzzy problem.

PHILOLOGY EMERGED as a discursive institution, that is, as a specific historical organization of knowledge, textual strategies, and subjects, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. In examining that emergence, I will be speaking primarily about language theory and not about the more fully developed and specified science of linguistics. In addition, my remarks will be restricted to the discipline of classical philology before the explicit formation of Germanic philology and comparative historical linguistics in the early nineteenth century.' Language theory around 1770 in the work of Johann Gottfried Herder and Georg Christoph Lichtenberg and the organization, teachings, and practices of the Philological Seminar at Gottingen provide the material for an investigation into the inception and transformation of the institutional discipline of philology. Tracing this process of institutionalization from the critique of Enlightenment semiotics in the language theory and hermeneutics of 1770-1780, I seek to show the sociocultural impact of this new form and practice of knowledge, which culminated in the plans for the construction of the University of Berlin in 1809-1810. It has been generally recognized that the University of Gottingen represented a

Throughout his life, Jefferson maintained an active but intermittent interest in the study of Old English. He collected a sizable library in the subject and advocated the utility of Old English to the professions, especially law. His major work, the Essay on the Anglo-Saxon Language, proposed radical simplifications in pedagogy and instituted at the University of Virginia the first college course of Old English ever taught in America. In several important ways Jefferson accurately predicted the future of Old English studies, and he rightly criticized the Latinate bias of contemporary grammars. Nevertheless, his ignorance of Germanic philology undermined many of his ideas on the grammar and phonology of Old English.