| Project/Area Number |
12610494
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
英語・英米文学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
NAKAO Yoshiyuki Hiroshima University, the Graduate School of Education, Professor, 大学院・教育学研究科, 教授 (10136153)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MATSUO Masatsugu Hiroshima University, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Professor, 総合科学部, 教授 (40106787)
JIMURA Akiyuki Hiroshima University, the Graduate School of Letters, Associate Professor, 大学院・教育学研究科, 助教授 (00131409)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2000 – 2001
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2001)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,200,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000)
Fiscal Year 2000: ¥1,400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,400,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Computer / text criticism / The Canterbury Tales / The Hengwrt Manuscript / The Ellesmere Manuscript / Collation concordance / manuscript variants / Chaucer's language / チョーサの言語 / コーパス言語学 / 「カンタベリー物語」写本の電子テクスト / 比較コンコーダンス / チョーサーのテクスト批評 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
What follows is an interim report of a computer-assisted comprehensive textual comparison between the Hengwrt Manuscript and the Ellesmere Manuscript of The Canterterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. The Hengwrt Manuscript is the oldest and therefore regarded as closest to Chaucer's original, and the Ellesmere Manuscript is the edited and revised version of the Hengwrt by the same scribe. Jimura, Nakao and Matsuo (1995) undertook a comparison of Blake's (1980) and Robinson's (1957) editions. The former edition is a faithful reconstruction of the Hengwrt Manuscript and the latter is primarily based on the Ellesmere. Our report is a sequel to Jimura, Nakao and Matsuo (1995), but here the objects of our comparison are manuscripts themselves.
Our basic method in this study is to compare the two manuscripts line by line, and then to compare them word by word within pairs of "the same lines." In order to perform this kind of comparison, it is first necessary for us to make pairs of corresponding lines, taking one from the Hengwrt and the other from the Ellesmere. To make each line correspond to the other line, we need to make a machine readable text. In this study we have obtained permission to use the machine readable text, The Hengwrt Chaucer Digital Facsimile (ed. Estelle Stubbs, 2000).
In "Lines with Different Word Forms" of the present book, we have listed all pairs of lines which contain one or more word differences. For each pair, the upper line shows the Hengwrt Manuscript and the lower line the Ellesmere.
We hope that this study will contribute to the text criticism of Chaucer and thus to a better recontruction of his own language and text.
|
