The noun phrase and the ‘Viking Hypothesis’

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Crisma ◽  
Susan Pintzuk

ABSTRACTIn this article we use the syntax of the noun phrase to evaluate two competing hypotheses: the traditional account, that Middle English is a West Germanic language with Old English as its immediate ancestor, and Emonds and Faarlund's (2014) proposal, that Middle English is a North Germanic language, the direct descendant of Old Norse. The development of nominal syntax shows that the Middle English noun phrase can be derived only from Old English, not from Old Norse. We examine six nominal characteristics; in each case, we find in Middle English exactly the construction that one would expect given the nominal syntax of previous Old English stages. The evidence from Old Norse shows that, although some of the same constructions did develop in the same way in the attested Norse varieties, the development occurred only at a later stage, too late to have affected the syntax of Middle English.

Author(s):  
Robert McColl Millar

Perhaps the central chapter of Contact, we focus here on the rapid and radical changes English passed through in relation to inflectional morphology (in particular but not exclusively in the noun phrase) in the later Old English and early Middle English periods. Comparison is made to other Germanic languages; the concept of drift is introduced. Theories for why these changes occurred and why the changes took place where, when and how they did are considered, with particular focus on earlier contact explanations. Recent proposals that bilingualism with Celtic languages was the primary impetus for the changes are critiqued. It is suggested that, while Celtic influence should not be dismissed, it is contact between Old English and Old Norse in the North of England which acted as catalyst. This contact is seen as a koine whose origin is markedly similar to that postulated for modern new dialects.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Holmberg

The conclusion seems inescapable, if the facts in Emonds & Faarlund are more or less right: Middle English would be the outcome of a shift from West Germanic grammar to an eccentric form of North Germanic grammar.


2019 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-277
Author(s):  
Philip Durkin

Abstract It is well known that the set of kinship terms in Middle English showed considerable influence from French. In the case of aunt and uncle, this accompanied major restructuring of the system of kinship terms, as the Old English set of four distinct terms for paternal and maternal uncles and aunts were replaced by just two terms for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’, regardless of whether paternal or maternal. In comparison, the words for ‘grandfather’ and ‘grandmother’ have attracted little attention, as their story has appeared simpler: Old English had words for ‘grandfather’ and ‘grandmother’, irrespective of whether paternal or maternal, and so did Middle English. The terms are also similar in structure, with native terms in which words for ‘father’ or ‘mother’ are the head and eald ‘old’ is the modifier (whether in a compound or a phrasal structure) being replaced by borrowed terms (grandsire, granddame) or hybrid terms (grandfather, grandmother) in which French grand ‘big’ is the modifier. This paper shows that behind this apparently simple story there lurk some significant complications which point to considerable disruption and instability in the terms for ‘grandfather’ and ‘grandmother’ in both Middle English and French (with interesting and perhaps significant parallels also in other West Germanic languages). Consideration of these complications also casts new light on early lexical borrowing into Middle English from Anglo-Norman.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
Sarah G. Thomason

The Viking hypothesis is fatally flawed, in part because syntax is readily borrowed in intense contact situations, while inflectional morphology usually is not—and Middle English inflectional morphology is overwhelmingly of West Germanic origin. The dismissal of lexical evidence is also misguided: the vast majority of basic vocabulary items come from Old English, not from Norse.


Diachronica ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Lass

SUMMARY The received wisdom among historians of English is that the modern quality/length distinction in the pairs /I, i:/, /u, u:/ is of ancient date, going back at least to Middle English, if not Old English or earlier (WGmc * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ are the main sources). In a recent paper (Lass 1989), I claimed that these pairs were distinct only in length (/i, i:/, etc.) until well into the 17th century. This was contested by Minkova & Stockwell (1990) on the grounds that, inter alia, no such systems exist in modern West Germanic, and therefore cannot be reconstructed for earlier periods. In the present paper it is shown that in fact such systems are attested in geographically peripheral West Germanic dialects (Dutch, South German), and argued that this supports the conservative interpretation of the orthoepic descriptions of these pairs, which consistently show qualitative identity until the 1680s. RÉSUMÉ Selon l'opinion reçue dans l'érudition parmi les historiens de la langue anglaise la distinction qualité/longueur dans les paires A, i:/, /u, u:/ a des origines lointaines, remontant au moins à l'anglais moyen, peut-être même au viel anglais ou plus loin encore (germain occ. * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ comme sources principales). Dans un article récent (Lass 1989), j'avais émis l'hypothèse que ces paires ne restaient distinctes qu'au niveau de la longueur (/i, i:/, etc.) et cela jusqu'à la fin du XVIIe siècle. Une telle opinion fut contestée par Minkova & Stockwell (1990) qui, en autres chose, se basèrent sur l'argument de tels systèmes n'existent pas dans les langues ouest-germaniques modernes et que, par conséquent, on ne pouvait pas reconstruire un tel système pour des périodes plus anciennes. Dans le présent article il est démontré qu'en effet de tels systèmes sont attestés dans des dialectes ouest-germains qui se trouvent géogra-phiquement à la périphérie (le hollandais, l'allemand méridional). Selon l'argument présenté ici, cette évidence mène à une interpretation conservatrice des descriptions orthoépiques de ces paires qui démontrent, d'une façon consistante, une telle identité qualitative jusqu'aux années 1680. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der traditionellen, von Historikern der englischen Sprache rezipierten Auf-fassung zufolge ist die Unterscheidung Qualität/Länge der Paare /I, i:/, /u, u:/ von hohem Alter, wenigstens bis zum Mittelenglischen zurückgehend, wenn nicht gar zum Altenglischen oder soger früher (WGerm. * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ als deren Hauptquellen). In einem jüngeren Aufsatz (Lass 1989) vertrat ich die Auffassung, daß diese Paare (/i, i:/, usw.) bis weit ins 17. Jahrhundert hinein bestanden hätten. Diese Auffassung ist von Minkova & Stockwell (1990) zu-riickgewiesen worden, und zwar u.a. mit dem Hinweis darauf, daB solche Systeme in modernen westgermanischen Sprachen nicht bestünden und daher auch nicht fur frühere Zeiträume rekonstruiert werden könnten. Im vorlie-genden Artikel wird nachgewiesen, daB in der Tat solche Systeme in geogra-phisch am Rande befindlichen westgermanischen Dialekten (Niederländisch, Siiddeutsch) vorhanden sind. Dies sollte die vom Autor vertretene konservative Interpretation der orthoepischen Beschreibungen dieser Phonem-Paare unter-stiitzen, die bis in die 80er Jahre des 17. Jahrhunderts hinein in konsistenter Weise qualitative Identitaten aufgewiesen haben.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gjertrud Flermoen Stenbrenden

AbstractThis article argues against the claim by Emonds and Faarlund (2014,English: The language of the vikings. Palacký University: Olomouc) that English died out after the Norman Conquest, and was replaced by a North Germanic variety referred to as “Anglicised Norse”, which had been formed in the Danelaw area in a concerted effort by the Norse and Anglo-Saxon populations, presumably to overthrow the ruling French elite. Emonds and Faarlund base their claim on the existence of some 20–25 linguistic features which are said to have been absent from Old English, but which are present in Present-Day English and in Scandinavian languages. This article argues that genetic affiliation cannot be inferred from shared syntactic, morphological or lexical features, which may easily result from independent convergence in historically related languages. The main counter-argument, however, is chronological: the majority of the features adduced are indeed attested in Old English and often in other West Germanic languages also, and hence may not be attributed to Old Norse; nor can features which are not attested in English until late Middle English or early Modern English come from Old Norse. The continuity of English in the written record likewise renders the suggested scenario highly unlikely.


Author(s):  
Merja Stenroos

This chapter uses a new resource, the Middle English Grammar Corpus (MEG-C), a corpus of 14th and 15th Century English texts, to answer an old question: it is possible to find traces of a systematic distinction between the reflexes of Old English e/ē and eo/ēo in Middle English? An investigation into the spelling variation found in 27 lexical items that contain a vowel representing Old English eo/ēo as well as the equivalent Old Norse element jó throws up a wide range of spellings, the vast majority of which show <e>/<ee>. Spellings that might suggest a rounded pronunciation are also fairly robustly present, however, particularly <eo>, with the Southwest Midlands as its core area. The second part of the investigation retrieves all words that were spelled with the digraph <eo>. The vast majority of these turn out to be reflexes of Old English eo/ēo, and almost all of them are localized to the Southwest Midlands. They occur either as reflexes of OE y/ȳ, or in unstressed syllables, or in words where <eo> follows <w> – three groups for which a rounded pronunciation would be plausible.


PMLA ◽  
1931 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C. Ehrensperger

In Middle English, or rather beginning with Old English and coming down to about 1500, including all works listed by J. E. Wells in his Manual of the Writings in Middle English, there are approximately 553 dream references. By dream references are meant actual dreams or remarks made about dreams which throw light on the attitude of the time toward dreams. Repeated references to the same dream are counted as a single reference. Of these references, 59 occur in Old English and 494 in Middle English. Old Norse is even richer than Middle English in dream references, no less than 530 being found. The large number of dream references in Old Norse is all the more significant in view of the smaller bulk of Old Norse literature in comparison with Middle English.


2010 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
Guus Kroonen

In Germanic, the Proto-Indo-European accusative of the feminine demonstrative, i.e. *, emerges in two different forms: Gothic versus Old Norse and Old English . Since PIE * regularly gives *ō in Germanic, it is usually assumed that the reflex developed out of * through an unstressed stage. But this view was recently questioned by Peter Schrijver. He argued that the merger of *ā and *ō was forestalled in North West Germanic by a tautosyllabic nasal, and that therefore must be regular. This solution seems to be contradicted by Faroese, however, where the demonstrative form is . This may continue an Old Norse variant with a short vowel, and thus seems to indicate that PNWGm. indeed developed out of * through an unstressed form, viz. *.


2021 ◽  
pp. 007542422199909
Author(s):  
Victorina González-Díaz

This paper explores the development and establishment of intensificatory tautology (specifically, size-adjective clusters, e.g., “ great big plans,” “ little tiny room”) in the history of English. The analysis suggests that size-adjective clusters appear in the Late Middle English period as a result of the functional-structural reorganization of the English noun phrase. It is only towards the end of the Early Modern English period that they start to become (relatively) productive in the language, and in Present-Day English that they acquire a wide(r) intensifying functional range (i.e., adjective modifier, emphasizer, degree intensifier) and become associated with informal, spoken-based registers. More broadly, the paper suggests that more research is needed as regards the role of collocation in processes of intensifier creation in the noun phrase and, more generally, as regards how collocation interacts with word-formation processes in this context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document