Celtic

Author(s):  
Joseph F. Eska

Greek and Roman ethnographic writers provide information about the bardic poets of Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul, as well as the character of their poetry. Among the fragmentary epigraphic records of the Cisalpine Celtic and Transalpine Celtic languages, furthermore, a number have been claimed to display poetic features such as alliteration, rhyme, and non-standard word order. The poetic features of two inscriptions whose status as poems can hardly be doubted are discussed.

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-124
Author(s):  
Bernard Mees

The inscriptional remains of Gaulish preserve syntactic behaviours that are not expected from the perspective of the diachronic schemes usually posited for the development of early Insular Celtic syntax from Proto-Indo-European. Widespread evidence is attested, particularly for the behaviour of clitics, that does not seem reconcilable with many of the assumptions made in previous studies regarding the nature of the syntax of Proto-Celtic. Gaulish also evidently features scrambling-type phenomena such as left branch extraction that are not usually thought to appear in other Celtic languages. An analysis which begins with an assessment of these features leads to a more empirically predicated and consistent understanding of the early development of Celtic word order than has been proffered previously.


Author(s):  
Markku Filppula ◽  
Juhani Klemola

Few European languages have in the course of their histories undergone as radical changes as English did in the medieval period. The earliest documented variety of the language, Old English (c. 450 to 1100 ce), was a synthetic language, typologically similar to modern German, with its three genders, relatively free word order, rich case system, and verbal morphology. By the beginning of the Middle English period (c. 1100 to 1500), changes that had begun a few centuries earlier in the Old English period had resulted in a remarkable typological shift from a synthetic language to an analytic language with fixed word order, very few inflections, and a heavy reliance on function words. System-internal pressures had a role to play in these changes, but arguably they were primarily due to intensive contacts with other languages, including Celtic languages, (British) Latin, Scandinavian languages, and a little later, French. As a result, English came to diverge from its Germanic sister languages, losing or reducing such Proto-Germanic features as grammatical gender; most inflections on nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and verbs; verb-second syntax; and certain types of reflexive marking. Among the external influences, long contacts with speakers of especially Brittonic Celtic languages (i.e., Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrian) can be considered to have been of particular importance. Following the arrival of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from around 450 ce onward, there began an intensive and large-scale process of language shift on the part of the indigenous Celtic and British Latin speaking population in Britain. A general wisdom in contact linguistics is that in such circumstances—when the contact is intensive and the shifting population large enough—the acquired language (in this case English) undergoes moderate to heavy restructuring of its grammatical system, leading generally to simplification of its morphosyntax. In the history of English, this process was also greatly reinforced by the Viking invasions, which started in the late 8th century ce, and brought a large Scandinavian-speaking population to Britain. The resulting contacts between the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings also contributed to the decrease of complexity of the Old English morphosyntax. In addition, the Scandinavian settlements of the Danelaw area left their permanent mark in place-names and dialect vocabulary in especially the eastern and northern parts of the country. In contrast to syntactic influences, which are typical of conditions of language shift, contacts that are less intensive and involve extensive bilingualism generally lead to lexical borrowing. This was the situation following the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066 ce. It led to an influx of French loanwords into English, most of which have persisted in use up to the present day. It has been estimated that almost one third of the present-day English vocabulary is of French origin. By comparison, there is far less evidence of French influence on “core” English syntax. The earliest loanwords were superimposed by the French-speaking new nobility and pertained to administration, law, military terminology, and religion. Cultural prestige was the prime motivation for the later medieval borrowings.


2012 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 51-63
Author(s):  
Maria Shkapa ◽  

P. Mac Cana in his paper on Celtic word order notes that modern Celtic languages preserving VSO have a special construction where “the emphasis expressed by the abnormal word-order applies to the whole verbal statement and not merely, or especially, to the subject or object which takes the initial position” (Mac Cana 1973: 102). He gives examples from Welsh and Irish: ‘Faoi Dhia, goidé tháinig ort?’ ars an t-athair. by God what.it happened to.you said the father “In God's name, what happened to you?” asked the father. ‘Micheál Rua a bhuail mé,’ ars an mac. Micheál Rua rel hit me said the son “Micheál Rua gave me a beating,” said the son. In recent literature sentences of this kind acquired the name thetic. Thetic (Sentence Focus) construction is a “sentence construction formally marked as expressing a pragmatically structured proposition in which both the subject and the predicate are in focus; the focus domain is the sentence, minus any topical non-subject arguments” (Lambrecht 1997: 190). Cleft construction “designed” for focussing one XP of a clause is used in the sentence above to mark the whole clause as focussed. The effect is achieved by extracting the usual topic of a sentence – its subject – from its normal position and thus ascribing to it and to the whole clause a new pragmatic function. Such usage of cleft is by no means universal (e.g. it is not possible in English) but meets a parallel in Russian eto-cleft which has the same two meanings – focussing an XP and forming a thetic sentence. These two usages are generally regarded as two different constructions having different syntactic structures (see [Kimmelmann 2007] and literature cited there). However, existence of a typological parallel enables us to view it as a case of pragmatic homonymy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O'Grady

AbstractI focus on two challenges that processing-based theories of language must confront: the need to explain why language has the particular properties that it does, and the need to explain why processing pressures are manifested in the particular way that they are. I discuss these matters with reference to two illustrative phenomena: proximity effects in word order and a constraint on contraction.


1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 600-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope B. Odom ◽  
Richard L. Blanton

Two groups each containing 24 deaf subjects were compared with 24 fifth graders and 24 twelfth graders with normal hearing on the learning of segments of written English. Eight subjects from each group learned phrasally defined segments such as “paid the tall lady,” eight more learned the same words in nonphrases having acceptable English word order such as “lady paid the tall,” and the remaining eight in each group learned the same words scrambled, “lady tall the paid.” The task consisted of 12 study-test trials. Analyses of the mean number of words recalled correctly and the probability of recalling the whole phrase correctly, given that one word of it was recalled, indicated that both ages of hearing subjects showed facilitation on the phrasally defined segments, interference on the scrambled segments. The deaf groups showed no differential recall as a function of phrasal structure. It was concluded that the deaf do not possess the same perceptual or memory processes with regard to English as do the hearing subjects.


Author(s):  
Jae Jung Song
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document