Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (44)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Review (2)
- Other (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (51)
Keywords
- Altenglisch (1)
- Anglistik (1)
At the suggestion of the then editor of 'Studia Celtica Japonica,' Professor Toshio Doi, this bibliography lists the returns of a questionnaire sent to all scholars in Germany who were actively involved in Celtic Studies between 1980 and 1995. They were asked to list all their publications in the field of Celtic Studies, so as to allow to carry out a survey of their research activities during this period. While most scholars kindly obliged by returning their lists, there were notable exceptions who never answered the query. Regretably, the present bibliography therefore contains important gaps, which, however, may be quite telling as far as the research situation in Germany was concerned during that period.
The great Old English epic 'Beowulf' has been dated to practically every century between the 6th and the 11th century, depending on the criteria of dating adopted and the approaches advocated by the respective scholars. As the text successfully avoids to provide definite cues or evidence for a definitive date, these scholarly attempts reveal more about the respective scholars' research interests than offering uncontroversial dates. The point of dating 'Beowulf' then seems to provide scholars with the opportunity to anchor their own personal understanding of the poem within the century of their own personal predilection.
DO in Contact?
(1997)
Periphrastic English constructions involving the verbs BE/HAVE + a nominalised verb form expressing [+imperfectivity] and [+perfectivity] have close analogues in the Insular Celtic languages, where Celtic analogues of the English verb BE + a prepositional construction marker + Verbal Noun are used. The two constructions in English and teh Celtic languages are not identical and cannot be so, because the Celtic languages do not feature present and past participles and English has no verbal nouns. But the two types of the periphrastic mode of expressing aspect are close enough to suggest either a shift scenario, a borrowing scenario and/or an areal spread by diffusion over a long period of time. Since Old English did not mark aspect, neither morphologically nor syntactically, but Old Welsh and Old Irish already did so syntactically, it is suggested here that a unilateral transfer process was involved here, which proceeded from the Celtic languages to the English language. Aspectual transfer is even more pronounced in the so-called 'Celtic Englishes,' where in addition to the periphrastic marking of [+ imperfectivity] and [+perfectivity] the marking of [+habituality] is a grammaticalised feature and is periphrastically expressed.
In this brochure, Tristram argues that Standard English may be more indebted to the influence of 'Late British' than hitherto acknowledged by mainstream historical scholarship. By 'Late British' the native (or source) language of the about 2m language shifters in the wake of the Anglo-Saxon Conquest is meant who constituted the bulk of the native population of the island of Britain in the early middle ages. Although predictably, the influence of 'Late British' on Old English neither shows in the lexis of written Old English nor in its core grammar, it does show in the phonology (Peter Schrijver) and the inflectional syncretism of the Northern dialect texts. The influence of the interlanguage of the shifters only really surfaces in Middle English texts, after the diglossia between the language of the HIGH variety of Old English of the ruling elite and the LOW variety of the working population was discontinued under Norman rule. A number of grammatical features are listed in this brochure, which show that Present Day Standard English typologically sides with the Celtic languages, and with the Neo-Brittonic languages in particular, rather than with the other Continental Germanic languages. The brochure also calls for more research into this matter and in particular detailed investigations into the individual features mentioned.
Breton and Irish, two Celtic and strongly endangered European minority languages, enjoy (or suffer) different fates of official recognition. While France does not officially recognise Breton as an independent language and has no even signed the European Charter of Minority Languages as most other EU countries did, Irish is by its constitution the first national language of the Republic of Ireland and therefore enjoys a very high official prestige. It is an obligatory subject in the schools and all EU documents need to be translated both into Irish and English. In spite of this difference of status and prestige, both languages have suffered, during the past 50 years, from a dramatic loss of speakers, as the young generation sees no need to preserve a regionalised minority heritage in a world of globalised communication and exchange. While both inherited languages were, traditionally and sociologically speaking, the medium of communication of the rural population, albeit with a long and venerable written tradition reaching back to the middle ages, the language of the future is that of the urban middle classes learnt as a second language (L2) und for all intents and purposes not used as a community language in the home. Middle class Breton and Irish are token languages, serving its users as identity markers in order to set themselves off from the English and French, most of whom only speak English and French and have no additional regional language. The linguistic gap between the inherited rural and the new urban varieties is great, so that older native rural speakers do not understand school Breton and school Irish. It is predictable that only the urban varieties will survive for still quite a while, whereas the rural varietes are unlikely to escape language death due to the ongoing change of living conditions in the rural areas and the absence of localised language engineering.
A close comparative analysis of the attrition of inflections in historical English and Welsh reveals that Welsh had already lost its entire NP inflection when it surfaces in writing in the 7c AD, while English was still fully inflected both in the NP and VP. The comparison of the modern English and Welsh morphological categories shows that English overtook Welsh in its rate of analyticising drift. This shows first in writing during the Middle English period. Thus in English, the attrition bothfully affected the NP and the VP, while in modern Welsh the attrition of the verbal inflection in the VP is much less advanced than in English. Both languages, however, share the shift in the VP from the synthetism of verbal tense, mood (and voice) marking towards analytic aspect marking, which continues to gain in importance in both languages today. The question is raised, whether this joint development may have been due to the influence of the 'Late British' speaking shifters to Old English, to prolongued areal contactin the island of Britain ("Sprachbund") and/or to a more general drift from syntheticity to analycity in (Western) IE languages in Europe, which affects some languages more than others. The Appendix prints the earliest Old English and Old Welsh texts (dated by absolute chronology) and marks their loss of inflections, in order to highlight the advanced analycity in the Old Welsh NP as opposed to the Old English NP.
The continued linguistic contact in the islands of Britain and Ireland over the past two millenia has led to linguistic convergence processes between the Insular Celtic and West Germanic languages involved. While the Latin, Old Norse and Norman French contact scenarios were recognised and have been well studied since the 19c, the Celtic component received much less scholarly attention until the 1990s because of the continued linguistic bias, once fostered by 19c Anglo-Saxonisms and the idea of racial purity of the Egnlish population. It is only in the very recent past that the many different contact areas between English and the Insular Celtic languages have received recognition after New Labour's post-1997 introduction of "devolution" politics. The closest and longest interaction took of course place between English and Welsh. The present article looks at three major types of interaction which led to convergence in a number of important linguistic features: (1) mutual retention of shared archaic features, (2) mutual shared innovations, and (3) transfer from one language to another, either by unilateral or by bilateral transfer. The exemplary contact features discussed in this article relate to the retention of interdental fricatives, the shared innovation of analycity and multi-word verb formation, and clefting as feature transfer. Transfer is likely to have taken place under the following conditions: (a) earlier written documentation in the donor language, (b) higher frequency of occurrence in the donor language, (c) conformity with other structures in the donor language, and (d) grammaticalisation in the donor language. The conclusion endorses Salikoko Mufwene's claim that the making of English in the island of Britain was subject to the same contact processes which created the English based creoles from indigenised Englishes during the colonial period.
DO-Periphrasis in Irish
(2002)
Periphrastic DO constructions are very common both in English and in the Neo-Brittonic languages and are used for various functional purposes. These form part of a larger linguistic area in western and northern Europe. The literature does not mention comparable constructions for Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Irish informants, however, confirm orally that they are in common use among present day Gaeltacht speakers. They appear also to have been common in late spoken Manx. This study is based on the "Caint Chonamara" electronic corpus, the field work for which was first untertaken by Hans Hartmann (Hamburg) and Tomás de Bhaldraithe (Dublin) in the early 1960s und brought to a close by Arndt Wigger (Wuppertal) in the 1990s. The file for the Ros Muc dialogues yielded a very low return of potential DO constructions, i.e. 14 tokens of DÉAN + VN out of 494 DÉAN tokens altogether in the file. This shows that the DÉAN + VN construction was grammatically correct and acceptable to the native speakers, but was not grammaticalised and had a very low frequency. This result is interesting, but not surprising, since the informants chosen for this file conformed to the NORMS category (non-mobile old rural males. They were born around the turn of the 19c/20c and acquired their language now more than 100 years ago. This was well before the independence of the Republic. They would have acquired their Irish orally from native speakers and underwent very little formal training in Irish, or none. This small sample confirms that Irish did not belong to the broad linguistic area in Western Europe which makes use of periphrastic DO constructions, at least not until very recently.
A report of Mikhail Gasparov's 1989 book on the 'History of European Versification' is the starting point of the discussion in this article of the types of versification found in the Insular Celtic literatures from their first documenation in the early middle ages to the present day, as Gasparov's survey does not cover these poetries. It is claimed here that their metrical constraints were pre-literate and first and foremost geared at aural reception. The introduction of writing led to an increase in metrical sophistication which, while still basically oral, because of the process of "prelecting" (i.e. reading out aloud to illiterate or semi-literate audiences), required a very careful appreciation of their metrical skills. Contact with English and French syllabic poetry in the later middle ages and particularly in the modern period produced so-called "free verse" poetry. The word "free" in this particular context meant that the rather loose metrical constraints of these majority literatures in no way compared with the extraordinarily high metrical sophistication of the native oral derived or "bardic" poetry.