The 'Fazienda de Ultramar' is considered to be the earliest extensive prose work in Castilian. The aim of this study is to assess, quantify and examine in detail the linguistic variation in the text and attempt to explain this variation with reference to the various factors that may influence it: internal linguistic factors such as palaeographic, morphological and syntactic considerations, or external extra-linguistic factors comprising variatio, register and scribal considerations. I focus on six variables. Three are orthographic: the use of < m >, < n >, or < ˉ > to represent /M/ before a bilabial; the use of < i > or <y> to represent /i/; the use of < l > to represent /ʎ/ and < r > to represent /r/ intervocalically. Three are morphological variables: variant forms for derivatives of Latin quōmŏdo; -ie and -ia Imperfect and Conditional forms; weak object pronoun apocope. Amongst the most significant conclusions from this study are the following: I demonstrate that the extent of leísmo in the Fazienda is much greater than that proposed by Echenique (1981). On the basis of my analysis of the data from the Fazienda, I argue that the extent of leísmo in other medieval Castilian texts needs to be re-assessed. The information provided by CORDE on the use of cuemo and cumo pre-1250 shows a concentration of these forms in documents from Northern Castile. The discovery of the phrase por consieglo, previously unique to the Fazienda, in one of these documents also establishes a further connection to Northern Castile. I suggest that the manuscript may well originate from this region. It is generally accepted that more than one scribe was involved in the copying of the Fazienda. I test the hypothesis that different scribal interventions may account for some of the variation in the Fazienda and find evidence to support this hypothesis.

The problem of this study was to address the question of the relationships between linguistic principles and film surface-structure. The analysis of motion pictures traditionally has been an analysis of films as art. At the same time, the techniques and effects of film often have been referred to as the "language of film." Until recently, however, no one took seriously the linguistic implications of the phrase. The theoretical evidence for linguistics of film is controversial but growing in acceptance and maturity of the concept. The study began with the assumption that film is a language. The method bypassed much of the philosophical discussion of whether film is a language in favor of finding the theory's practical usefulness. The findings produced some clues to the linguistic structure of particular films which may relate to film as a whole. The analysis clearly demonstrated the presence of visual rules of grammar. The findings not only supported a linguistic view of film but also generated structures that resembled accepted linguistic form. The basic units of analysis were found to have unit integrity, class form qualities, limitations on their employment, and a hierarchical relationship to other larger units. The analysis also pointed out some visually ungrammatical structures.