Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T08:44:43.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The quest for the most ‘parsimonious’ explanations: endogeny vs. contact revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Markku Filppula
Affiliation:
Professor of English Language University of Joensuu, Finland
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
Universität-Gesamthochschule-Essen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In his book Historical linguistics and language change (see Lass 1997) and in a number of influential papers (see, e.g., Lass and Wright 1986; Lass 1990a, b), Roger Lass has put forward the argument that, whenever there is a possibility of dual or multiple origin for a given feature, endogeny is always to be preferred to language contact because it provides the most ‘parsimonious’ explanations for linguistic innovations. According to Lass, this methodological principle can also be applied to the various ‘Extraterritorial Englishes’ (ETEs) such as American English, South African English, or Hiberno-English: most of their distinctive characteristics are best explained as perfectly normal internal developments rather than as results of influence from languages other than English.

In this chapter I will discuss some lexical and structural evidence from some varieties of English spoken in, or near, the (formerly) Celtic-speaking areas of the British Isles which shows that, although Lass's methodological principle is a useful tool, it does not suffice to account for some of the problematic linguistic phenomena found in these varieties. More specifically, I will argue that the case for contact influence remains strong even with respect to some features which have formal parallels both in earlier English and in the various Celtic ‘substratum’ languages.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braaten, B. 1967. ‘Notes on continuous tenses in English’, Norsk tidskrift for sprogvidenskap 21: 167–80Google Scholar
Breeze, Andrew. 1994. ‘Celtic etymologies for Middle English brag “boast”, gird “strike”, and lethe “soften”’, Journal of Celtic Linguistics 3: 135–48Google Scholar
Breeze, Andrew. 1995. ‘Old English gop “servant” in Riddle 49: Old Irish gop “snout”’, Neophilologus 79: 671–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Andrew. 1997. ‘A Celtic etymology for Old English deor “brave” ’, in J. Roberts and J. L. Nelson with M. Godden (eds.), Alfred the wise: studies in honour of Janet Bately on the occasion of her sixty-fifth birthday. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1–4
Dal, Ingerid. 1952. ‘Zur Entstellung des Englischen Participium Praesentis auf -ing’, Norsk tidskrift for sprogvidenskap 16: 5–116Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 1999. The grammar of Irish English: language in Hibernian style. Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics 5. London and New York: Routledge
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1989. ‘Tense and aspect categories in Irish English’, English World-Wide 10: 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Wolfgang. 1925. ‘Keltisches im englischen Verbum’, Anglica: Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie (Alois Brandl zum siebzigsten Geburtstage überreicht), 55–66Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1991. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki
Lass, Roger. 1990a. ‘Where do Extraterritorial Englishes come from?’, in Sylvia Adamson et al. (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference of English Historical Linguistics, Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 245–80
Lass, Roger. 1990b. ‘Early mainland residues in Southern Hiberno-English’, Irish University Review 20: 137–48Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge University Press
Lass, Roger and Wright, Susan. 1986. ‘Endogeny vs. contact: “Afrikaans influence” on South African English’, English World-Wide 7: 201–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macafee, Caroline. 1996. ‘Editor's introduction’, in Caroline Macafee (ed.), A concise Ulster dictionary. Oxford University Press, xvi–xxxvii
Macafee, Caroline. Forthcoming. ‘The under-representation of Celtic etymologies in English dictionaries’, Folia Linguistica AnglicaGoogle Scholar
Macafee, Caroline and Colm Ó Baoill. 1997. ‘Why Scots is not a Celtic English’, in Hildegard L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 245–86
Mossé, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique ETRE + participe présent en germanique. Deuxième partie: moyen-anglais et anglais moderne. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck
Odlin, Terence. 1997. ‘Bilingualism and substrate influence: a look at clefts and reflexives’, in Jeffrey L. Kallen (ed.), Focus on Ireland. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–50
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1992. ‘The perfect in Modern English’, Ériu 43: 39–67Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Mícheál. 1980. Learning Irish: an introductory self-tutor. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies
Poussa, Patricia. 1990. ‘A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of OE-Celtic contact’, in Sylvia Adamson et al. (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference of English Historical Linguistics, Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 407–33
Preusler, Wolfgang. 1956. ‘Keltischer Einfluss im Englischen’, Revue des langues vivantes 22: 322–50Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1991. ‘The be/have variation with intransitives in its crucial phases’, in Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 343–54
Sabban, Annette. 1982. Gälisch-Englischer Sprachkontakt. Heidelberg: Julius Groos
Thomason, Sarah G. and Terence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Visser, Gerrard J. 1955. ‘Celtic influence in English’, Neophilologus 39: 276–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×