Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 159

provides insights into chronology (e.g., the general absence of loan translations
and renditions in the earliest texts) and generic differences (e.g., interactions
between loans and native terms in religious and technical texts). For instance, the
need for a relevant technolect triggers the use of a large number of pairs, often in
explicative insertions intended to help the reader understand the technical loan-
word, as opposed to other textual genres (cf. the “law of semantic specificity”).
In the Introduction (p. xxxiii), these lexical dynamics are outlined as follows:
the loanword can be marginalized in comparison to its native synonym, or
it can earn a prominent place in the lexicon and relegate the native word to
a peripheral position. […] One of the objectives of the present study is,
indeed, discerning in each case whether it was the loanword or the native
synonym which first entered the Icelandic lexicon.
The sources comprise 40 texts in 10 literary genres, based on the standard divi-
sions of modern literary research. Matteo briefly addresses the problem of
typological affinity, i.e. fuzzy borders and possible overlaps in the standard
classification, e.g., between “Translated Chivalric Sagas” and “Legendary Sagas”.
The groups are as follows (for further elaboration see Introduction, pp. xxxvii–
xxxviii):
1. Religious texts, e.g., Icelandic Homily Book;
2. Law texts and diplomata, e.g., Grágás;
3. The four Grammatical Treatises plus a selection of medical, computistical
and astronomical texts and Algorismus;
4. Historiographical texts, e.g., Íslendingabók;
5. Hagiographical texts, e.g., Hungrvaka;
6. Sagas of the Icelanders, e.g., Egils saga;
7. Kings’ sagas, e.g., Sverris saga;
8. Translated chivalric sagas, e.g., Alexanders saga;
9. Indigenous chivalric sagas, e.g., Gibbons saga;
10. Legendary sagas, e.g., Vǫlsunga saga.

On this basis, Matteo is able to shed new light on Icelandic word-history. The
strength of this work lies in its systematic approach to loanwords as compared to
earlier, more restricted and biased approaches which focus on the impact of sin-
gle languages and language groups more broadly — especially from Latin, Greek,
Old French, Old English, Middle English, Old Saxon and Low German.
Aiming at a systematic approach, Matteo tries to classify the loans in terms
of their ultimate (and intermediary) origin, their lexical fields and their first attes-
tation in an Old Icelandic source. The study demonstrates the versatility of the
Icelandic language in response to lexical needs, viz. the fact that Icelandic exploit-
ed its contact languages and coped with various effects of language contact and
Comments from the first opponent 159