Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-rx4j2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-16T20:05:24.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

J. H. McWHORTER
J. H. McWHORTER*
Affiliation:
68 Sussex St, Jersey City, NJ 07302, USAjhmcw5@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that despite traditional skepticism among most specialists on the history of English that Brythonic Celtic languages could have had any significant structural impact on English's evolution, the source of periphrastic do in Cornish's equivalent construction is virtually impossible to deny on the basis of a wide range of evidence. That Welsh and Cornish borrowed the construction from English is impossible given its presence in Breton, whose speakers left Britain in the fifth century. The paucity of Celtic loanwords in English is paralleled by equivalent paucity in undisputed contact cases such as Uralic's on Russian. Traditional language-internal accounts suffer from a degree of ad hocness. Finally, periphrastic do is much rarer cross-linguistically than typically acknowledged, which lends further support to a contact account.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2: Re-evaluating the Celtic hypothesis , July 2009 , pp. 163 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abraham, Werner & Conradie, C. Jac. 2001. Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abun-Nasr, Jamil M. 1987. A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin, north-west Amazonia. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 385–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.). 2001. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Robin, Holmes, Philip & Lunskær-Nelson, Tom. 1995. Danish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andersen, Roger. 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ball, Martin J. & Fife, James (eds.). 1993. The Celtic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. A case of do-support in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. Syntax. Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 2002. Language contact during the Old Nordic period I: with the British Isles, Frisia and the Hanseatic League. In Bandle, Oskar, Braunmüller, Kurt, Jahr, Ernst H., Karker, Allan, Naumann, Hans-Peter & Telemann, Ulf (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the Nordic Germanic languages, vol. I, 1028–39. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breeze, Andrew. 2002. Seven types of Celtic loanword. In Filppula et al. (eds.), 175–81.Google Scholar
Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1994. De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie. Forum der Letteren 35, 282–94.Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1952. Zur Entstehung des englischen Participium Praesentis auf -ing. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16, 5–116.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, Roger, Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem & van der Leek, Frederike (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2001. The Australian linguistic area. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.), 64–104.Google Scholar
Dobson, Eric J. 1962. The affiliations of the manuscripts of Ancrene Wisse. In Davis, Norman & Wrenn, Charles L. (eds.), English and medieval studies, presented to J. R. R. Tolkien, 128–63. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin & Davies, Winifred V.. 1990. Hessian. In Russ, 2104–40.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1998. Periphrastic tun in present-day Bavarian and other German dialects. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon, van der Wal, Marijke & van Leuvensteijn, Arjan (eds.), DO in English, Dutch and German: History and present-day variation, 139–67. Amsterdam: Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. A. 1972 (orig. 1959). Diglossia. In Giglioli, Pier P. (ed.), Language and social context, 232–51. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 2003. More on the English progressive and the Celtic connection. In Tristram (ed.), 150–68.Google Scholar
Markku, Filppula, Klemola, Juhani & Pitkänen, Heli (eds.). 2002. The Celtic roots of English. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake (ed.), 207–408.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2: 283–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Ken. 1993. Cornish. In Ball & Fife (eds.), 410–68.Google Scholar
German, Gary. D. 2000. Britons, Anglo-Saxons and scholars: 19th century attitudes towards the survival of Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. In Tristram (ed.), 347–74.Google Scholar
Grimme, Hubert. 1922. Plattdeutsche Mundarten. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric. 1975. On the disappearing English relative particle. In Drachmann, Gaberell (ed.), Akten der Salzburger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik, 297–301. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hardie, D. W. F. 1948. A handbook of modern Breton (Armorican). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Hemon, Roparz. 1975. A historical morphology and syntax of Breton. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1995. Early contact and parallels between English and Celtic. Vienna English Working Papers 4, 87–119.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard (ed.). 1992. Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1975. On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo. In Li, Charles (ed.), Word order and word order change, 113–47. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Jenner, Henry. 1904. A handbook of the Cornish language. London: David Nutt.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Hogg (ed.), 290–408.Google Scholar
Kaye, Alan & Judith, Rosenhouse. 1997. Arabic dialects and Maltese. In Hetzron, Robert (ed.), The Semitic languages, 263–311. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keller, Wolfgang. 1925. Keltisches im Englischen Verbum. In Anglica: Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie, vol. I: Sprache und Kulturgeschichte, 55–66. Leipzig: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Khanlari, Parviz N. 1979. A history of the Persian language. Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli.Google Scholar
King, Gareth. 2003. Modern Welsh: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1969. Gibt es ein Finnougrisches Substrat im Slavischen? Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1996. Non-standard periphrastic do: A study in variation and change. University of Essex PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 2000. The origins of the northern Subject Rule: a case of early contact? In Tristram (ed.), 329–46.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 2002. Periphrastic do: dialectal distribution and origins. In Filppula et al. (eds.), 199–210.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Myhill, John & Pintzuk, Susan. 1982. Understanding do. In Tuite, Kevin, Schneider, Robinson & Chametzky, Robert (eds.), Papers from the Eighteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 18, 282–94.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret. 2000. Never the twain shall meet: Early Middle English – the East−West divide. In Taavitsainen et al. (eds.), 97–124.Google Scholar
Le Gleau, René. 1973. Syntaxe du Bretonne moderne. La Baule: Éditions La Baule.Google Scholar
Lee-Smith, Mei W. 1996. The Tangwang language. In Wurm, Stephen A., Mühlhäusler, Peter & Tryon, Darrell T. (eds.), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, vol. 2, 875–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire & Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 2002. A grammar of Fongbe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Henry. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelkornischen. Innsbruck: Insbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. (German translation by Stefan Zimmer.)Google Scholar
Lewis, Henry & Piette, J. R. F.. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelbretonischen. Innsbruck: Insbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. (German translation by Wolfgang Meid.)Google Scholar
Lipski, John M. 1994. Latin American Spanish. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McKenna, Malachy. 1988. A handbook of modern spoken Breton. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 19, 217–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. Gary & Leffel, Katherine. 1994. The Middle English reanalysis of do. Diachronica 11, 171–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Middle English dialectology. In Blake (ed.), 156–206.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Tadao. 1999. The light verb construction in Japanese: The role of the verbal noun. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax, part I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob. 2000. Encyclopedia-Lexicon distinctions in Jingulu grammar. In Peeters, Bert (ed.), The encyclopedia/lexicon interface, 393–431. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppe, Erich. 2003. Progress on the progressive? A report. In Tristram (ed.), 65–84.Google Scholar
Poussa, Patricia. 1990. A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of OE-Celtic contact. In Adamson, Sylvia, Law, Vivien, Vincent, Nigel & Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987, 407–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preusler, Walther. 1956. Keltischer Einfluss im Englischen. Revue des langues vivantes 22, 322–50.Google Scholar
Russ, Charles V. J. (ed.). 1990. The dialects of Modern German. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1989. Altpersisch. In Schmidt, (ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 56–85. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy. 2000. Standard language in Early Modern English? In Taavitsainen et al. (eds.), 125–39.Google Scholar
Spangenberg, Karl. 1990. Thuringian. In Russ (ed.), 265–89.Google Scholar
Stephens, Janig. 1993. Breton. In Ball & Fife (eds.), 349–409.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1892. A new English grammar, logical and historical, Part I: Introduction, phonology and accidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu, Pahta, Päivi & Rissanen, Matti (eds.). 2000. Placing Middle English in context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah J. & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1988. The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: A case of destigmatization. Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 3.Google Scholar
Tolkien, John R. R. 1963. English and Welsh. Angles and Britons: O'Donnell Lectures, 1–41. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1983. The missing link or, why is there twice as much negation in spoken English as in written English? In Jacobson, Sven (ed.), Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, Stockholm, May 15–16, 1982, 67–74. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg (ed.), 168–289.Google Scholar
Trépos, Pierre. 1968. Grammaire Bretonne. Rennes: Simon.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 1997. Do-periphrasis in contact? In Ramisch, Heinrich & Wynne, Kenneth (eds.), Language in time and space: Studies in honor of Wolfgang Viereck on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 401–17. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 1999. How Celtic is Standard English? St Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.). 2000. The Celtic Englishes, vol. II. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 2002. Attrition of inflections in English and Welsh. In Filppula et al. (eds.), 111–49.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.). 2003. The Celtic Englishes, vol. III. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1999. Periphrastic ‘do’: typological prolegomena. In Tops, Guy A. J., DeVriendt, Betty & Geukens, Steven (eds.), Thinking English grammar: To honour Xavier Dekeyser, 457–70. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Genee, Inge. 2002. English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics 6, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes. 2003. What verbal morphology can tell us about creole genesis: The case of French-related creoles. In Plag, Ingo (ed.), Phonology and morphology of creole languages, 293–313. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2000. English as a ‘Celtic’ language: Atlantic influences from above and below. In Tristram (ed.), 399–406.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2001. Atlantis Semitica: structural contact features in Celtic and English. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999, 351–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Gerrard. 1955. Celtic influence in English. Neophilologus 39, 276–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1963–73 A historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Watkins, T. Arwyn. 1993. Welsh. In Ball & Fife (eds.), 289–348.Google Scholar
White, David L. 2002. Explaining the innovations of Middle English: What, where, and why. In Filppula et al. (eds.), 153–74.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1987. Persian. In Comrie, Bernard (ed.), The world's major languages, 523–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar