Animal_Vocalization_and_Human_Polyglossia_in_Walter_of_Bibbesworth’S_Thirteenth-Century_Domestic_Treatise_in_Anglo-Norman_French_and_Middle_English

Sign Systems Studies 37(3/4), 2009 Animal vocalization and human polyglossia in Walter of Bibbesworth’s thirteenth-century domestic treatise in Anglo-Norman French and Middle English William Sayers Department of Comparative Literature, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, USA e-mail: ws36@cornell.edu Abstract: Walter of Bibbesworth’s late thirteenth-century versified treatise on French vocabulary relevant to the management of estates in Britain has the first extensive list of animal vocalizations in a European vernacular. Many of the Anglo-Norman French names for animals and their sounds are glossed in Middle English, inviting both diachronic and synchronic views of the capacity of these languages for onomatopoetic formation and reflection on the interest of these social and linguistic communities in zoosemiotics. In the late thirteenth century, the Essex knight Walter of Bibbesworth composed a Tretiz or treatise that editor William Rothwell states “was written in order to provide anglophone landowners in late thirteenthcentury with French vocabulary appertaining to the management of their estates in a society where French and Latin, but not yet English, were the accepted languages of record”1. The addressee of the tract is, Walter of Bibbesworth 1990, Introduction, 1. This edition of Le Tretiz, however welcome, is without lexical notes or glossary. In all, sixteen manuscripts of Walter’s work have been preserved. Earlier editions include those of Wright in 1 526 William Sayers however, not the male landowner but rather the mistress of the house, mesuer in Anglo-Norman French, housewif in the Middle English of the tract. Walter passes in review such specialized vocabularies as the terminology for the human body, clothing, fields and their crops, and tasks associated with preparing a house for a feast. Of greater interest, especially for the history of technology, he addresses such important domestic undertakings as the dressing of flax and spinning of linen thread, the brewing of beer, baking of bread, even the management of fish-ponds. His objective is not so much lively description or an explanation of techniques and processes as a simple communication of pertinent vocabulary. In one of the best preserved of the many manuscripts (Cambridge University Library MS Gg. 1.1) the columns of French verse have interlinear English glosses in red ink. This gives us a nearly unique opportunity to compare Norman French to Middle English vocabulary in select areas and to scrutinize the interface–loans in one direction or another, calques, differences underlying imagery, and other matters both lexical and cultural.2 One section of the Tretiz is devoted to collective terms for various domesticated and wild animals, for example, a flock of sheep. This is followed by a relatively long section (vv. 244–309) on animal vocalization, in which the terminology, while essentially onomatopoetic in both English and French, reveals that, although a French and British piglet may make the same squeal, they are not heard in the same fashion in the two countries, nor in the Middle Ages and the present. The sound is variously characterized by the verbs gerir in AngloNorman and winen in Middle English, but preferentially by crier (nonspecific) and squeal (among others) in the modern languages. This is hardly surprising. Among the more compelling reasons to study Femina (Walter of Bibbesworth 1909) and Owen (Walter of Bibbesworth 1929); the latter, with its many shortcomings, is now superseded by Rothwell’s edition of the same manuscript. Since the present essay was completed, Rothwell has published an annotated edition; see Bibbesworth 2009. 2 For a study of Walter’s vocabulary for brewing, see Sayers 2009. Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 527 Walter’s lists is less to review the varying detail in the perception of animal vocalizations over time and through space (part of the larger zoosemiotics), than to examine how the author approaches his task, how his own interests, as a pedagogue and possibly also as a word buff, in disambiguating homonyms and in noting such seemingly haphazard affinities as between words that rhyme, brings him as a layman into one of the great debates of the Middle Ages, on the nature of language before and after the Fall and, from a slightly different cultural and theological perspective, during and after a distant Golden Age.3 Walter also takes a modest place in the debate, initiated in Antiquity, on the semiotic status of animal sounds.4 But Walter is no theorist nor does he set himself too lofty a goal. He introduces the Tretiz as a whole simply as follows: Le tretiz ki munseignur Gauter de Bithesweth fist a madame Dyonise de Mountechesni pur aprise de langage. [Then follows a list of topics] e tut issint troverez vous le dreit ordre en parler e en respundre qe nuls gentils homme coveint saver. Dount tut dis troverez vous primes le fraunceis e puis le engelise amount. (3) The treatise that Sir Walter of Bibbesworth made for Madame Dionisie de Muntchesny for learning [the French] language. [...] and thus in all of this you will find the proper [terms and] order for speaking and responding that any cultivated person ought to know. In all of this you will first find the French and then the English above. For a thorough recent discussion of the language debate, with focus on some principal medieval authors, see Fyler 2007. 4 Landmarks in the debate are Aristophanes’ The Frogs, lists of animal sounds in Suetonius (reflected in Isidore’s De natura rerum), Phocas, Lucretius, Aldhelm, and the medieval Latin poem, De filomela (Anthologia Latina 1870:1.2.224–27); see Benediktson 2002 for details and references. An overview of the long-running debate on the proper categorization of animal sounds is found in Eco 1990 (On Animal Sounds, 111–122). 3 528 William Sayers Walter names his patroness in his preface but, since Joan de Munchensi (her better known name) was a descendant of William the Marshall, and her husband, William de Valence, was French-born, there can be little doubt about the family’s linguistic competence in French. The stated aim of providing good French vocabulary for their offspring may then be a literary fiction. Other scenarios can be imagined: the treatise was intended for the wives of Joan’s feudal landholders or for unmarried daughters perhaps exposed to too much English-language influence in the kitchens and on the grounds of the rural estate. Below follows his Anglo-Norman French text with the interlinear Middle English glosses moved to the right. Here Walter’s vocabulary presents far fewer problems than in comparable discussions of brewing, baking, and spinning, and the pursuit of etymologies offers fewer opportunities to speculate on technological transfer, for example, as reflected in Gaulish brewing terms retained in Gallo-Romance, or later Frankish and even Norse loans. The English translation immediately follows and Walter’s English terminology will be preferred when it is still among options open to modern speakers of English. The verses have been renumbered from the original edition in order to facilitate an easier overview of the structure of the passage. Ore de la naturele noise des toutes manere des bestes: Ore oiez naturément Des bestes le diversement Checun de eus e checune, Solum ki sa nature doune. Home parle, ourse braie 5 berre Ki a demesure se desraie; Vache mugist, gruue groule, cow lowes crane crekez Leoun rougist, coudre croule, romies hasil quakez Chivaule henist, alouwe chaunte, neyez larke Columbe gerist e coke chaunte, 10 croukes Chate mimoune, cerpent cifle, mewith cisses Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 529 Asne rezane, cine recifle. Louwe oule, chein baie E home e beste sovent afraye. Putois li aynel afraie, 15 Gopil cleye, thesson traie Quant li venour li quer praie. Ouwe jaungle, jars agroile. Ane en mareis jaroile, Mes il i ad jaroil e garoile; 20 La difference dire vous voile: Li ane jaroile en rivere Si hom de falcoun la quere, Mes devant un vile en guere Afichom le garoil en tere 25 Pur le barbecan defendre A 1'assaut ke home veut rendre, Si ki la porte i perde rien Si .l. guerreour le seet bien. Crapaut coaule, reyne gaille, 30 Collure proprement regaille. Purcel gerist, cengler releie, Cheverau cherist e tor torreie. Troye groundile quant drache quert; Faucoun tercel le plounoun fert. 35 Ausint diez li geline patile Quant pouné ad en gardin ou en vile, Car de Fraunce ai tele estile Ki geline huppé poune et patile, E ki trop se avaunce sanz resoun 40 A la geline est compaignoun Ki plus se avaunce pur un eof Ki sa arure ne fet li boef. Berbiz baleie, dame bale, Espicer prent ces mers de bale. 45 Par trop veiller home baal; A sun serjaunt sa chose bailie. Aprés dormer hom se espreche; Le prestre en le eglise preche; Li peschour en viver pesche 50 roreth suan cisses wolfe yollez berkes fereth fulimard sterez fox welleth brocke gandre enede quekez quekine trappe the trappe tode crodeth frogge snake gris wineth boor yelleth kide muteres bole yelleth souue grounes draf doukere kakeles leyth a henne coppet leith and kakeles szep bleteth hoppeth bagge gones raxes him 530 William Sayers Ore de sa rey, ore de son hesche. Faily lest sa tere fresche Pur achater sa char freische. Quant povre femme mene la tresche, Plus la vaudreit en mein la besche. 55 Car el n'ad ou se abesche De payn ne a bribe ne a lesche, Soun chael la paele lesche. Ore donez a chael a flater Ki lesche la rosé de 1'herber. 60 Eschuez flatour ki seet flater E les genz espeluper. E tun chaperoun ne veut lesser Un poyton, tant ad cher Noun pas tei, mes tun aveir 65 Ke desire de tei aver. nette hock ring spade lompe szivere liketh lappen dewe losenge glonden a mote catel have Now about the natural sounds of all kinds of animals Now hear nature’s diversity [of vocalization] in animals, each and every one of them, according to what its nature prescribes. A human speaks, the bear roars [5] when it rages beyond measure; the cow lows, the crane croaks, the lion roars, the hazel quakes (rustles), the horse neighs, the lark sings, the dove coos and the cock crows [10], the cat mews, the snake hisses, the ass brays, the swan also hisses, the wolf howls, the dog barks and often frightens (afraye) both man and beast. The polecat rubs [its scent] off on (afraie) the lamb [15]. The fox barks, the badger shrieks when it is the prey of the hunters. The goose gabbles, the gander cackles, the duck quacks in the marsh. But there is both a jaroil (quacking) and garoile (defensive trap, light palisade) [20], and I want to tell you about the difference. The duck quacks (jaroile) on the river if we hunt it with a falcon but before a town at war we set a palisade or trap (garoil) up in the earth [25] in order to protect the barbican from the attacks that people want to make on it, with the result that the gate does not yield as long as one fighter mans it well. The toad croaks, the frog pipes [30], the adder properly also hisses, the piglet squeals, the boar grunts, the kid bleats and the bull bellows. The sow grunts when it is looking for swill, the tercel falcon strikes the coot (diver) [35]. You similarly say that the hen clucks when it has laid an egg in the garden or on the estate grounds, for the usage in France is that a cackling hen lays (poune) and clucks (patile). And a person who is too forward without good cause [40] is companion to the hen, which boasts more over one Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 531 egg than does the ox over its [day’s] ploughing. The lamb bleats (baleie), ladies dance (bale), the grocer takes his wares from his pack (bale) [45]. Staying up too late makes a person yawn (baal); a person charges (baille) his servant with his affairs. After sleeping a person stretches (se espreche); the priest preaches (preche) in the church; the fisherman fishes (pesche) in the fish-pond [50], now with his net (rey), now with his hook (hesche). This one has to leave his land fallow (fresche, that is, untilled and unsown) in order to buy fresh (freische) meat. A poor woman who leads the round dance (tresche), would have been better off with a spade (besche) in her hand [55], for she has nothing with which to feed herself (se abesche), having neither a crumb nor slice (lesche) of bread. Her pup licks (lesche) the pan. Now let’s leave the pup to lap (flater), as it licks (lesche) the dew from the grass [60]. Avoid flatterers (flatour), who are accustomed to flatter (flater) and strip people of their goods, and would not leave you (lit. your head) as much as a rose hip, so desirous are they, not of you, but of your possessions (aveir) [65], which they wish to have (aver) from you. Walter’s “naturele noise” seems to echo terms from the taxonomy of the learned debate on the status of animal vocalization, for example, the group “voces significativae — naturaliter”, but this is likely fortuitous. Walter does, however, see animal sounds as closely tied to the animals’ essential being. He does not question why French and English should differ so and his goal is a pragmatic one. He is similarly incurious that the terminology for animal vocalization should differ in the two languages, although he is concerned in other ways with the shiftiness of language, its elusive, mercurial and polysemous quality. Verses 1 through 19 are straightforward: the names of animals and birds, and their sounds, with the English glosses fairly evenly distributed between the two categories. We occasionally find a brief amplification, for example, the bear’s anger when it roars. This meets the needs of rhyme and also breaks the paratactic and somewhat monotonous listing of animal-nouns and sound-verbs. Anomalies are the abandon of zoophonics to note the sound of the trembling hazel leaves (in the economical French phrase, coudre croule), and the polecat’s interaction with the lamb. 532 William Sayers Walter had noted that the barking of the dog often frightens (afraie) humans and other animals. This is the first of a very few examples of interspecies interaction. He then has the verse “Putois li aynel afraye”. Anglo-Norman Dictionary (1992, s.v. afraer) recognizes only a single verb afraer (its orthography for the headword), related to Modern French effrayer, and we might then assume that the verse meant that the polecat frightened the lamb. Since one of the rules of the popular medieval sub-genre of catalogue or narrativized list is that no term should be repeated, we should see this as Walter’s first unacknowledged bit of play with homophones, then look for an independent origin for the second afraer. Both noun (putois) and verb are glossed in English. Fulimard (foul-marten') assists us in identifying putois (“stinker”) as ‘polecat’, but the English verb (steren) is not transparent.5 In addition to the more common steren ‘to steer’, Middle English Dictionary notes an independent steren with the following significations: “To burn or offer incense; to treat (a sick person with the smoke or fume of a burning medicinal substance or preparation); suffuse or perfume somebody with incense” (Middle English Dictionary 2001, s.v. treten 2). The example from Walter is not noted here. I suggest that in the Tretiz the English gloss sterez means that the polecat sprays the lamb, infuses its fleece with a malodorous secretion. The Old French verb here is then, its standard orthography, esfroiier ‘to rub off against’ (< Late Latin *exfricare), employed, like the simplex froiier, for different instances of animal behavior, for example, a stag rubbing the velvet of its new antlers against a tree (Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1928–, 3.781, s.v. fricare). Recognition of this distinct word authorizes us to question AND’s inclusion of an attenuated, secondary meaning, ‘to be startled’, in a quotation from Thomas of Britain’s romance Tristan under the entry 5 Much of Walter’s treatise was adapted into an early fifteenth-century work, Femina, but the polecat does not figure at the equivalent passage in this work, which then provides no help in the identification. On this work, see Rothwell 1998. Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 533 for efraer ‘to frighten’: “De la fraidur (of the splashed water) s’esfroie Ysodt” (Anglo-Norman Dictionary 1992, s.v. afraer). This is from the scene in which Tristan’s wife (not his lover), Yseut aux blanches mains, remarks of their unconsummated marriage that the water splashed up by her horse’s hoof has mounted her thigh higher than the hand of any man, even the bold Tristan (Thomas 2003, vv. 1317–49). She has indeed been startled by the cold water splashing up along her parted thighs, since she gives a brief cry, but the verb references not the emotion but the invasive water, seen in almost feral terms. The seemingly minor amendment assists in redefining Yseut more as a frustrated agent than as a timorous, emotionally volatile young victim (see Sayers, forthcoming). With verse 20 and after the play on afraer, Walter begins his first explicit discussion of homophones, distinguishing between jaroil ‘quacking’ and garoille, a light palisade, glossed trappe in English, employed in the defense of a fortified gate.6 Homophones blur semantic boundaries, and a comparable metaphorical transfer of category is evident in the quaking or rustling of the hazel, a sound but not an animal’s, and in the polecat’s spraying, the projection not of a sound but of a bodily secretion. Some ten verses later, Walter returns to animal sounds. Then again, as with the polecat and the lamb, we have an active scene not dependent on sound (although sound can be imagined), when the tercel falcon strikes the diver (coot, doukere in English). With this, Walter turns from near-homophones to figurative language, with metaphor and literalness standing at the same uneasy distance from one another as two words that nearly sound alike, or differing words in English and French for the same animal (crapaud and tode) and the sounds it makes (coauler, croden). Walter’s point of departure is the hen clucking over a newly laid egg. In his view, people who vaunt themselves for minor accomplishments may well be likened to the hen, which makes more of an egg than does the ox of a 6 Full discussion of the identity of garoille in Möhren 2000. 534 William Sayers day’s ploughing. This is the fullest development on the pairing of an animal with its behaviour, clucking linked to laying, although the dog’s barking does have an external effect. And we do see the bear enraged, the badger in flight, and the sow seeking swill. The comparison of the hen to the ox makes a neat return to the vocalizations of the woods and fields. But Walter stays with his topic for only a single sound: the lamb’s bleat. Then he strings together five French words (all but one, verbs) — baleier, baler, bale, baaler, bailler — that unravel in English into the varied meanings of bleating, dancing, bales of goods, yawning, and delegating. Walter next tries gnomic statement. Since the lark sings, we might say that in the proper order of things, the lark should sing. Such statements are richly represented in Old English and Old Irish wisdom literature, and elsewhere. Walter now employs rhyme to link disparate activities. His neatest pairing, with alliterating agents and actions is “Le prestre en le eglise preche; Li peschour en viver pesche” (“The priest preaches in the church, the fisherman fishes in the fish pond”). Viver is from Latin vivarium, although Walter uses it of places with running water (l’eau vive) where fish are kept or may be had. If we factor in theological notions of fishing for men and of the quick and the dead, Walter’s couplet becomes richer than even he may have hoped. His last complementary pair is rey and hesche, nette and hock, one semantic pair alliterating, the other not. Several domestic vignettes are then sketched as Walter continues his rhyming on -esche. Then one word for licking (lescher) generates another (flater) for the same notion and this in turn has a homophone meaning ‘to flatter’. On the moralizing tone afforded by a condemnation of flattery, Walter rounds off his section, returning to what we might see as a basic and minimal semantic pair, aveir seen as ‘to have’ and also ‘that had, possessions’. According to the Old Testament, Adam was given the authority to name the animals after their creation and in that perfect language we may be sure that the name embodies the essential being of the animal Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 535 and that the words Adam may have chosen for their various sounds would have echoed, in his original ear, their true sounds. In Walter’s fallen world, language is part of the overall contingency. Languages differ, both among themselves and within themselves. The French and English names for a given animal would seem to be discrete entities, despite their common point of departure in the animal world, but, within either language, homophones may destabilize meaning. Other fortuitous similarities (rhyming words, humanly crafted or discovered puns) may represent deeper affinities; as metaphor illuminates both vehicle and tenor, and similes work in both ways. By a ratio of two to one, Walter’s animals are predominantly domesticated adults and the lion is the only non-native species. His vision ranges over the estate, its fields and meadows, and into its woods, but game animals are not well represented in Walter’s “Gentle Kingdom”.7 Where, for instance, is the belling stag' But these are real animals, if none too complex, not the allegorized beings of the Physiologus tradition or the otherwise symbolic animals of bestiaries. In the immediate context of the Tretiz and this sub-section, vocalization is seen as the quintessence of the animal in question, its “naturele noise”. We note that both the French and English verbs for animal vocalization are what we may call synthetic, “the dog barks”, rather than analytic, “the dog goes bow-wow”. Clearly bow-wow does not need to follow the regular morphological rules of English nor oua-oua those of French as do bark and aboyer, but we should be cautious in asserting that analytical forms were thought more truly — and accurately — onomatopoetic and echoic in a given culture. While an English bulldog may understand a French poodle, English and French speakers understand them both only imperfectly, and not always each other. Walter prioritizes the animal-human interface, not those at 7 Walter was from Essex and his patroness, Denise (or Joan) de Munchensi, had a large estate in nearby northern Kent, at Swanscombe, which may be reflected in various ways in his treatise. 536 William Sayers which animals relate to each other, whether within or across species boundaries. And, since each animal is represented by only one characteristic sound, Walter does not truly enter the field of zoosemiotics, where the canine bark is accompanied by the growl and whine. While the French text gives us both the name of the animal and the verb used to designate its sound, the English glosses are not similarly exhaustive, as the author glosses now a noun (the animal’s name, 22 times), now a verb (the animal’s sound, 23 times). French words, whether animals’ names or names for their sounds, that are not glossed in English do not fall into any recognizable categories, although it seems justified to assume that those without a gloss were thought to be well known. Walter’s concerns are exclusively synchronic, late thirteenth-century French (the term Anglo-Norman would have been foreign to him) and (Middle) English. But in addition to its several tensions, even if these do not quite amount to a dynamic, the treatise invites modern readers to adopt a diachronic perspective.8 Of the some 30 medieval French verbs for animal vocalization, fewer than half have survived into Modern French. At times the adjustment is slight, mimouner of the cat yielding to miauler. As often, a substitution has occurred: braier of the bear (which gave English bray for the donkey) is replaced by rugir, now also used for the lion. And in English, even allowing for changes in vocalism that would have been part of larger, all-encompassing sound shifts in English, for example, ME queken, ModE quack for the duck, only nine English verbs from Walter’s glosses have maintained themselves, while twelve have been replaced, as exemplified in the piglet whose voice-verb in ME is winen (ModE whine) but in ModE squeal. Some verbs even seem to have The pursuit of the etymology of Walter’s technical terminology is often illuminating as concerns the transfer of technology, for example, his verb for retting flax (soaking, so as to cause rotting) rehaer, is traced to Old Low Franconian, a Germanic language. But etymologies are of necessity much more tentative in the area of onomatopoetic vocabulary and, conversely, much less illuminating. 8 Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 537 “changed animals”, for example, the medieval ass roreth but it is the modern lion who roars (cf. bray, above). Yellen was used of the medieval bull and muteren of the kid but modern yell and mutter are specific to the sounds and volume of human speech. For the historical lexicographer, Walter’s texts are of interest in offering the earliest written attestation of words of a semi-technical nature, although this is truer of his English glosses than his French vocabulary, as post-Conquest English gradually found its way into written form. A few examples from the present section are cissen (hissen), croden, crouken, muteren, quaken/queken, and wellen (in the sense here represented). Language is power and command of correct terminology can only have enhanced the authority of the nominal English-speaking mistress to whom the work is addressed, even in avoiding errors that would make her ridiculous, such as “the dog mews”. Taken as a whole, Walter’s work also poses important questions, little addressed here, on multilingualism in thirteenth-century Britain, code-switching, language-mixing, loans, calques, neologisms, and the like,9 and on the social and supervisory networks of the English-speaking mistresses of rural estates in Britain in the last quarter of the thirteenth century.10 There is little to suggest that English was seen as a subaltern language and, in 1275 or thereabouts, England seems to have evolved past the occupied or colonial state. Walter’s lists and his interest in their curious internal dynamics may be thought to reflect a selection from See, for example, the rich offering of essays in Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain (Trotter 2000), and other articles on Anglo-Norman French with a strong theoretical component by David Trotter and by Tony Hunt. 10 While the point is made in this essay that Walter’s interest for the history of the French and English terminology of rural life and its crafts has largely been ignored, other scholars have seen the treatise as principally a pedagogical work. This prompted Rothwell’s squib (1982), A mis-judged author and his mis-used text. For a more recent assessment of Walter’s work in the sphere of second language acquisitions, see Kennedy 1998. 9 538 William Sayers the vocabularies in English and French, with their differing centers of gravity, of cultivated but not particularly learned laypersons of late thirteenth-century Britain. In many areas, such as brewing and spinning, the nominal addressees of the Tretiz, the mistresses of estates, may well have known more but about actual processes than did Walter, the ad hoc language teacher. There has been a long-running debate as to whether medieval people saw children as moderns do, that is, as innocents with limited capabilities in certain areas but essentially objects of pride and affection. Historical human relations with animals have been much less studied, although we no doubt assume an affectionate bond between a knight and his charger, but what about the Mongol warrior with the string of ponies he took on campaigns' Walter’s interest in animal vocalization does assure us that animals had discrete identities for medievals — which is hardly surprising — and also that he shared some of our wonder and pleasure at the diversity of their natures and their sounds. The result is a section that may well be thought the least practical in the Tretiz for its nominal intended public, but not the least entertaining. Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 539 Appendix: Animal vocalization, French and English, medieval and modern11 Anglo-Norman agroiler baier baleier braier chaunter chaunter cherir cifler cleyer coauler crouler gailler gerir gerir grouler groundiler henir jaroiler jaungler mimouner mugir ouler parler patiler recifler regailler releier rezaner rougir torreier traier Animal gander dog lambs bear cock lark kid snake fox toad hazel frog dove piglet crane sow horse duck goose cat cow wolf man hens swan snake boar ass lion bull badger ME berken bleten crouken muteren cissen wellen croden quaken ModF jargonner aboyer bêler grogner chanter grisoller bramer, réer siffler glapir buffler coasser roucouler grogner grogner hennir cancaner crialler, cacarder miauler meugler, beugler hurler parler caqueter trompetter siffler grogner braire rugir mugir, beugler crier ModE honk bark bleat growl crow sing bleat hiss bark croak quake, rustle croak coo squeal croak, trumpet grunt neigh quack gabble, honk mew moo, low howl speak cackle cry, trompet hiss grunt bray roar bellow cry winen creken gounen neyen queken mewen lowen yollen kakelen cissen yellen roren romien yellen I am grateful to Nicole Margirier, Cornell University Library, for help in compiling the list of Modern French terms. 11 540 William Sayers References Anglo-Norman Dictionary. 1992. Rothwell, William et al. (eds.). London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub, Anthologia Latina: Pars Prior. 1870. [Alexander Riese (ed.)] 2 vols. Lipsiae: In aedibvs B. G. Tevbneri. Benediktson, D. Thomas. 2002. Cambridge University Library L12 1 14, F. 46R-V: A late medieval natural scientist at work. Neophilologus 86: 171–77. Eco, Umberto. 1990. The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington and Indianopolis: Indiana University Press. Femina: Trinity College, Cambridge MS B 14.40. 2005. William Rothwell (ed.). The Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub. Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1928–. Walther von Wartburg et al. (eds.). Bonn, F. Klopp Verlag. Fyler, John M. 2007. Language and the Declining World in Chaucer, Dante, and Jean de Meun. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, Kathleen E. 1998. Changes in society and language acquisition: The French language in England 1215–1480. English Language Notes 35: 1–19. Middle English Dictionary. 1952–2001. Hans Kurath et al. (eds.), Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. . Möhren, Frankwalt 2000. Onefold lexicography for a manifold problem' In: Trotter, T. A. 2000: 157–68. Rothwell, William 1982. A mis-judged author and his mis-used text: Walter de Bibbesworth and his 'Tretiz'. The Modern Language Review 77: 282–293. — 1998. The place of Femina in Anglo-Norman studies. Studia Neophilologica 70: 55–82. Sayers, William 2009. Brewing ale in Walter of Bibbesworth’s 13 c. French treatise for English housewives. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 14: 255–66. — (forthcoming). The splash to the thighs of Iseut aux blanches mains (Thomas, Tristan): Rereading the emotions. Dalhousie French Studies 87. Thomas (of Britain) 2003. Le roman de Tristan: suivi de la Folie Tristan de Berne et la Folie Tristan d’Oxford. Baumgartner, Emmanuèle; Short, Ian (trans.); Lecoy, Felix (ed.). Paris: Champion. Trotter, T. A. (ed.) 2000. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer Animal vocalization and human polyglossia 541 Walter of Bibbesworth. 1909. Le Tretiz. In: Wright, W. (ed.), Femina. London: Roxburghe Club. — 1929. Le Traité de Walter de Bibbesworth sur la langue française. [Owen, A. (ed.)] Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. — 1990. Le Tretiz. [William Rothwell (ed.)] London: Anglo-Norman Texts Society. — 2009. Le Tretiz. [William Rothwell (ed.)] Aberystwyth: Anglo-Norman Online Hub. Голоса животных и полиглоссия людей на основе трактата о домоведении Уолтера Биббсуорта Стихотворный трактат конца 13 века Уолтера Биббсуорта содержит первый известный список описания голосов животных в одном из европейских языков. Рядом со многими старофранцузскими (англонормандскими) названиями животных и производимыми ими звуками дан и перевод на среднеанглийский язык, что предоставляет возможность анализировать оформление ономатопоэтики на этих языках как в диахронии, так и в синхронии, а также дает материал к размышлению о роли этих социальных и языковых сообществ в зоосемиотике. Loomade hääled ja inimeste mitmekeelsus Bibbesworth’i Walteri 13. sajandi koduõpetuse traktaadis anglonormanni prantsuse ja keskinglise keeles Bibbesworth’i Walteri 13. sajandi lõpust pärit värsivormis traktaat Britannia mõisavalitsemisega seotud prantsuse keele sõnavarast sisaldab esimest teadaolevat nimekirja loomahäältest ühes euroopa rahvakeeles. Paljudele anglonormanni prantsuse keelsetele loomanimedele ja nende häälitsustele on kõrvale kirjutatud keskinglise keelne tõlge, pakkudes ühtaegu nii sünkroonilist kui diakroonilist võimalust analüüsida nende keelte onomatopoeetika kujunemist ning andes mõtteainet nende sotsiaalsete ja keeleliste gruppide rollist zoosemiootikas. Copyright of Sign Systems Studies is the property of University of Tartu, Department of Semiotics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.