Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-bsnn5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-13T09:41:32.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical variation in Irish English

The grammatical features of Irish English provide insights into language change in a contact situation.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2011

Karen P. Corrigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Irish English (IrE) was initially learned as a second language as a result of the successive colonizations of Ireland by speakers of English and Scots dialects that began in the Middle Ages and reached a peak during what is termed ‘The Plantation Period’ of Irish history. The scheme persuaded English and Scottish settlers to colonize the island of Ireland, hailing from urban centres like London as well as more rural areas like Norfolk and Galloway. This intensive colonization process created the possibility that a novel type of English could emerge. This new variety is characterized by: (i) innovative forms; (ii) the incorporation of features drawn from Irish, the indigenous language prior to colonization, and (iii) other characteristics caused by the mixing of Irish with the regional Scots and English vernaculars of the new settlers. Interestingly (and not uncommonly when migratory movements of these kinds arise), modern varieties of IrE still retain this mixed heritage. Moreover, the colonization is preserved culturally – particularly in the north of Ireland – by ethnic divisions between the descendants of the migrant and indigenous populations. Thus, Catholics, who reflect the latter group, celebrate events like ‘St Patrick's Day’ while their Protestant neighbours commemorate ‘The Glorious Twelfth’ each July, celebrating the day in 1690 when King William III's victory at the Battle of the Boyne ensured the ultimate success of the Plantation scheme in which their forefathers participated. The linguistic consequences of this contact permeate all aspects of the speech used within these communities (accent, grammar and vocabulary). Moreover, some of the grammatical features that are the focus of this article have travelled to regions that have been intensively settled by Irish migrants. Hence, these features also have important implications for the study of transported dialects, which has recently become very topical and is the focus of a new strand of research in English variation studies typified by the publication of Hickey (ed. 2004).

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
English Today , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Barbiers, S. 2005. ‘Theoretical restrictions on geographical and individual word order variation in Dutch three-verb clusters.’ In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P. (eds), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 233–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, J. C. 1993. ‘The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English.’ In Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. J. 1972. ‘Languages in contact: some problems of Hiberno-English.’ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 72, 63–82.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. J. 1979. Spoken English in Ireland: 1600–1740. Dublin: Dolmen Press.Google Scholar
Brown, K. 1991. ‘Double modals in Hawick Scots.’ In Trudgill, P. & Chambers, J. K. (eds), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman, pp. 74–103.Google Scholar
Corrigan, K. P. 1993. ‘Hiberno-English syntax: nature versus nurture in a creole context.’ Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 95–131.Google Scholar
Corrigan, K. P. 2000a. ‘What bees to be maun be: Aspects of deontic and epistemic modality in a northern dialect of Irish-English.’ English World-Wide 21(1), 25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, K. P. 2000b. ‘What are small clauses doing in South Armagh English, Irish and Planter English?’ In Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.), Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
Corrigan, K. P. 2009. ‘Irish daughters of Northern British relatives: Internal and external constraints on the system of relativization in South Armagh English.’ In Filppula, M., Klemola, J. & Paulasto, H. (eds), Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts. London: Routledge, pp. 133–62.Google Scholar
Corrigan, K. P. 2010. Irish English, Volume 1: Northern Ireland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 2000. ‘Combining English auxiliaries.’ In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. & Stein, D. (eds), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–47.Google Scholar
Fennell, B. & Butters, R. 1996. ‘Historical and contemporary distribution of double modals in English.’ In Schneider, E. (ed.), Focus on the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M. 1993. ‘Changing paradigms in the study of Hiberno-English.’ Irish University Review 23, 202–23.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 1997. ‘Cross-dialectal parallels and language contacts: Evidence from Celtic Englishes.’ In Hickey, R. & Puppel, S. (eds), Language History, Contact and Change: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 943–58.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 1999. The Grammar of Irish-English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 2004. ‘Irish English: morphology and syntax.’ In Kortmann, B. & Schneider, E. in collaboration with Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds), Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. 2, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–101.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, P. & Lambkin, B. 2008. Migration in Irish History, 1607–2007. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1991. ‘Conservatism versus substratal transfer in Irish-English.’ In Trudgill, P. & Chambers, J. K. (eds), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 2000. ‘Models for describing aspect in Irish English.’ In Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, pp. 97–116.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 2004. ‘Dialects of English and their transportation.’ In Hickey (ed.), pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 2006. ‘Contact, shift and language change. Irish English and South African Indian English.’ In Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Englishes IV. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, pp. 234–58.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 2007. Irish English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. 2009. ‘Modal verbs in English and Irish.’ In Penttilä, E. & Paulasto, H. (eds), Language Contacts Meet English Dialects. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 259–74.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. (ed.) 2004. Legacies of Colonial English. Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. 1988. ‘The English language in Ireland.’ Journal of the Sociology of Language 70, 127–42.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. 1990. ‘The Hiberno-English perfect: grammaticalisation revisited.’ Irish University Review 20, 120–36.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. 1991. ‘Sociolinguistic variation and methodology: after as a Dublin variable.’ In Cheshire, J. L. (ed.), English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, J. L. 1997. ‘Irish-English: Contexts and contacts.’ In Kallen, J. L. (ed.), Focus on Ireland. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, J. L. & Kirk, J. 2007. ‘ICE-Ireland: local variations on global standards.’ In Beal, J. C., Corrigan, K. P. & Moisl, H. L. (eds), Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, Volume 1: Synchronic Databases. Houndmills: Palgrave, pp. 121–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1990. ‘Early mainland residues in Southern Hiberno-English.’ Irish University Review 20, 137–48.Google Scholar
McCafferty, K. 2004. ‘Innovation in language contact: be after V-ing as a future gram in Irish English, 1670 to the present.’ Diachronica 21(1), 113–60.Google Scholar
McCafferty, K. 2005. ‘William Carleton between Irish and English: using literary dialect to study language contact and change.’ Language and Literature 14(4), 339–62.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. 1981. Variation in the Use of the Modal Verbs with Special Reference to Tyneside English. PhD, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. & Beal, J. C. 1987. ‘Modal verbs in Tyneside English.’ Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 9, 43–55.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 1992. English in Language Shift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mishoe, M. & Montgomery, M. B. 1994. ‘The pragmatics of multiple modal variation in North and South Carolina.’ American Speech 69, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. B. 2006. ‘The morphology and syntax of Ulster Scots.’ English World-Wide 27(3), 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. B. & Nagle, S. 1993. ‘Multiple modals in Scotland and the Southern United States: Trans-Atlantic inheritance or independent development?’, Folia Linguistica Historica 14, 91–107.Google Scholar
Nagle, S. 1993. ‘Double modals in early English.’ In Henk Aertsen & Robert J. Jeffers (eds), Historical Linguistics 1989. Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 363–70.Google Scholar
Ó Corráin, A. 2006. ‘On the “after perfect” in Irish and Hiberno-English.’ In Tristram, H. L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Englishes IV. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, pp. 152–72.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, D. 2004. ‘The “after” perfect and related constructions in Gaelic dialects.’ Ériu 54, 179–248.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, M. 1989. Modern Irish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2007 [1997] Ulster-Scots: A Grammar of the Traditional Written and Spoken Language, Second revised edition. Belfast: Ullans Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarallo, F. 1996. ‘Turning different at the turn of the century.’ In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D. & Baugh, J. (eds), Towards a Social Science of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tristram, H. L. C. 2009. ‘On perfect constructions in Irish English, Irish and Earlier English.’ In Penttilä, E. & Paulasto, H. (eds), Language Contacts Meet English Dialects. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–34.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1984. ‘Orphan prepositions in French and the concept of null pronoun.’ Recherches Linguistiques 12, 46–91.Google Scholar