Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T20:08:43.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standard Average European and the Celticity of English intensifiers and reflexives: some considerations and implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

ERICH POPPE
ERICH POPPE*
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Fremdsprachliche Philologien, Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Wilhelm-Roepke-Str. 6E, D-35032 Marburg, Germanypoppe@staff.uni-marburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My contribution explores the potential of Standard Average European (SAE) as a methodological yardstick for the assessment of the Celticity of Standard English (SE), i.e. the degree to which SE may have been influenced by Insular Celtic languages. SAE allows a quantification of the extent to which SE differs from other SAE languages and at the same time shows similarities with Insular Celtic languages which are generally thought to deviate from SAE. The concept of SAE will be introduced and a complex test case will be analyzed: the rise of identical reflexives and intensifiers and the frequency of ‘labile’ verbs, e.g. to break both intransitive and transitive, in English. Reflexives and intensifiers are identical in Insular Celtic, but separate categories in SAE. According to Haspelmath (1993), labile verbs are unusually frequent in English by SAE standards, and they are also very frequent in Insular Celtic. It will be shown that the frequency of labile verbs in SE and Insular Celtic results from the identity of reflexives and intensifiers in these languages. Since the frequency of labile verbs thus can be shown to be a typologically secondary phenomenon, it is the rise of the new system of identical reflexives and intensifiers in SE which is methodologically the relevant linguistic subsystem within the complex test case for which Insular Celtic influence can be proposed and which can be adduced as an argument in favor of the Celtic hypothesis. For the assessment of the Celtic hypothesis, it will therefore be rewarding to complement the initial comparison of SE and Insular Celtic with further data from SAE and general typology whenever the linguistic subsystems under scrutiny allows the inclusion of such data.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2: Re-evaluating the Celtic hypothesis , July 2009 , pp. 251 - 266
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.)

References

Bammesberger, Alfred. 1983. A handbook of Irish, vol. 2: An outline of Modern Irish grammar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 1991. Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-distance anaphora, 77–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2006. The grammar of identity: Intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Payne, Doris L. & Barshi, Immanuel (eds.), External possession, 109–35. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), Language typology and language universals / Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien / La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, vol. 2.2, 1492–1510. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2001. Internal and external possessors. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), Language typology and language universals / Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien / La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, vol. 2.2, 970–8. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker. 2007. Understanding English-German contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. 2001Der europäische Sprachbund. In Reiter, Norbert (ed.), Eurolinguistik. Ein Schritt in die Zukunft, 111–27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17, 39–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2006. Reflexivity and intensification in Irish English and other New Englishes. In Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Englishes, vol. IV: The interface between English and the Celtic languages, 259–82. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2007. Reflexivity and intensification in English: A study of texts and contexts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena & Vladimir, P. Nedjalkov. 2005. Reciprocal constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 430–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. I. Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parina, Elena. 2007. Reflexivpronomina im Mittelkymrischen. In Birkhan, Helmut (ed.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachiger Keltologinnen und Keltologen, 389–96. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Thomas, Peter Wynn. 1996. Gramadeg y Gymraeg. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 1999. How Celtic is Standard English? St Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 2007. Why don't the English speak Welsh? In Higham, Nicholas J. (ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England, 192–214. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1998. Conclusion. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 813–36. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2001. Atlantis Semitica. Structural contact features in Celtic and English. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999, 351–69. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2002. On the rise of ‘Celtic’ syntax in Middle English. In Lucas, Peter J. & Lucas, Angela M. (eds.), Middle English from tongue to text: Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Middle English: Language and Text, 203–34. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia. 2005. The development of himself in Middle English: A ‘Celtic’ hypothesis. In Ritt, Nikolaus & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and literary approaches, 228–43. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
White, David. 2002. Explaining the innovations of Middle English: What, where, and why. In Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani & Pitkänen, Heli (eds.), The Celtic roots of English, 153–74. Joensuu: University of Joensuu/Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar