#1312. 印刷術の発明がすぐには綴字の固定化に結びつかなかった理由 (2)[spelling][standardisation][printing][orthography][caxton]


 昨日の記事「#1311. 綴字の標準化はなぜ必要か」 ([2012-11-28-1]) と関連して,綴字の標準化と印刷術の関係について再考したい.以前,「#297. 印刷術の導入は英語の標準化を推進したか否か」 ([2010-02-18-1]) と「#871. 印刷術の発明がすぐには綴字の固定化に結びつかなかった理由」 ([2011-09-15-1]) の記事で,両者の相関が正か負かを話題にした.この問題について,Schmitt and Marsden (160--61) は印刷術の貢献を支持する意見に対して慎重論を述べている.

[A]lthough the new technology offered the opportunity for rapid standardization of orthography, in practice there is little evidence during the first hundred years of its use that printers were much concerned with such matters. As his own translations and the prefaces to his works show, Caxton himself was wildly inconsistent in his spellings. Within a few sentences in his prologue to Caton (c. 1484), for instance, we find boke, booke, and book, and lytel, lytell, and lytyl (and from another contemporary work of his we may add lityl and lityll). . . . The formative period of English spelling in fact lasted some 200 years; not until 1700 was the standard that we recognize today, with all its familiar conventions, just about in place.

 Salmon (24) も同様に,Caxton に始まり,Wynkyn de Worde, Robert Pynson, Robert Copland などの印刷工へと引き継がれた印刷術の初期の時代には,一貫した綴字への関心は薄かったとしている.

In general . . . printers of the early sixteenth century demonstrate little obvious interest in working towards a standardised orthography. Their lack of concern has been well illustrated in a comparison . . . of five editions of Reynard the fox (1481, 1489, 1500, 1515 and 1550) in which it is difficult to discern any consistent progress towards a standard orthography . . . .


 ・ Schmitt, Norbert, and Richard Marsden. Why Is English Like That? Ann Arbor, Mich.: U of Michigan P, 2006.
 ・ Salmon, Vivian. "Orthography and Punctuation." The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. 3 1476--1776. Ed. Roger Lass. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. 13--55.

[ | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow