Du point de vue de l'historien, qu'est-ce qu'une grammaire de référence ?

This article aims to show that, when examining Linguistic and grammatical traditions over a very long period, the defining characteristics of a "reference grammar" are not necessarily given a precise, or at least not a unified, formulation with respect to a standard or canonical form. In fact, many heterogeneous criteria can be used to define this type of work. From an analysis of the 540 notices of the Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques [Representative Corpus of Grammars and Linguistic Traditions] (http://ctlf.ens-lsh.fr) we have selected 14 titles of works which, in our view, have a legitimate claim to this status. We seek to show that very diverse works can be considered "reference grammars," e.g., books founding a tradition, or books providing a crucial element of Linguistic description. While editorial success might have been an important criterion guiding our choice, it has not necessarily been primordial. Similarly neither the size of the work, nor its adaptation to its subject have been primary criteria. Pedagogical and institutional factors also enter into play in our selection. Our aim is to emphasize the variety and lack of homogeneity among these criteria