Language contact in the British Isles: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man, 1988 9783111678658, 9783484302389

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

238

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Herbert E. Brekle, Hans Jürgen Heringer und Heinz Vater

Language Contact in the British Isles Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man, 1988 Edited by P. Sture Ureland and George Broderick

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1991

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Language contact in the British Isles : proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man, 1988 / ed. by P. Sture Ureland and George Brodcrick. — Tubingen : Niemeyer, 1991

(Linguistische Arbeiten ; 238) NE: Ureland, Per Sture [Hrsg.]; International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe ; GT ISBN 3-484-30238-0

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen 1991 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages

unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Einband: Heinr. Koch, Tübingen

TABLE OF CONTENTS Programme of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man

1

List of the authors' addresses

7

Introduction

11

A. CONTACTS IN THE ISLE OF MAN MANX - LATIN - OLD NORSE - OLD FRENCH - ENGLISH 1. George Broderick The decline and death of Manx Gaelic

63

2. Robert L. Thomson Foreign elements in the Manx vocabulary

127

3. Margaret Gelling The place-names of the Isle of Man

141

4. Diarmuid 0 S6 Prosodic change in Manx and lexical diffusion

157

B. WALES OLD WELSH - OLD IRISH - LATIN 5. Anthony Harvey The Cambridge Juvencus Glosses - Evidence of Hiberno-Welsh literary interaction?

181

VI

C. CORNWALL CORNISH - ENGLISH 6. Martyn Wakelin (t) The Cornishness of Cornwall's English

199

D. PAN-CELTIC - ENGLISH 7. Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn The Colour systems of the modern Celtic languages Effects of language contact

227

Ε. CONTINENTAL CONTACTS

CONTINENTAL GERMANIC - OLD ENGLISH 8. Hans F. Nielsen The Straubing Heliand-Fragment and the Old English dialects

243

ANGLO-NORMAN - MIDDLE ENGLISH 9. Cecily Clark Towards a reassessment of "Anglo-Norman influence on English place-names"

275

F. CONTACTS IN ENGLAND BRITTONIC - OLD ENGLISH 10. Patricia Poussa Origins of the non-standard relativizers WHAT and AS in English

295

VII OLD SCANDINAVIAN - OLD AND MIDDLE ENGLISH 11. Karl Inge Sandred The study of Scandinavian in England: A survey of Swedish contributions including ongoing research in East Anglia 317 12, Gillian Fellows-Jensen Scandinavian influence on the place-names of England

337

13. Torben Kisbye (t) Compatibility and incompatibility - three important periods of English-Danish onomastic contact

355

14. Otmar Werner The incorporation of Old Norse pronouns into Middle English. Suppletion by loan

369

15. John Hines Scandinavian English: a creole in context

403

G. ORKNEY AND SHETLAND NORN - SCOTS 16. Michael P. Barnes Reflections on the structure and the demise of Orkney and Shetland Norn

429

17. Gunnel Melchers Norn-Scots: a complicated language contact situation in Shetland

461

VIII

H. THE WESTERN ISLES (HEBRIDES) AND SKYE GAELIC - OLD NORSE 18. Richard A.V. Cox Norse-Gaelic contact in the west of Lewis: the place-name evidence

479

SCOTS GAELIC - SCOTS - (STANDARD) ENGLISH 19. Kenneth MacKinnon Language-maintenance and viability in contemporary Gaelic communities: Skye and the Western Isles today

495

I. SCOTLAND (MAINLAND) SCOTS - (STANDARD) ENGLISH 20. John M. Kirk Language contact and Scots

535

J. IRELAND IRISH - ENGLISH 21. Nancy Stenson Code-switching vs. borrowing in Modern Irish

559

22. Donall P. 0 Baoill Contact phenomena in the phonology of Irish and English in Ireland

581

23. Terence Odlin Syntactic variation in Hiberno-English

597

24. Markku Filppula Subordinating and in Hiberno-English syntax: Irish or English origin?

617

IX

25. P. Sture Ureland Bilingualism and writing in the Irish Gaeltacht and the Orisons (Switzerland) with special reference to Irish and English. Index Index of personal names Index of languages

633 695 713

TORBEN KISBYE 1.02.1930 - 27.04.1990

HEINRICH WAGNER 16.01.1923 - 11.09.1988

MARTYN FRANCIS WAKELIN 5.09.1935 - 4.11.1988

In memoriam

PROGRAMME Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe Wallberry Conference Suite, Sefton Hotel, Douglas, Isle of Man; 18-24 September 1988 Sunday 18. 09. 1988 16.00 - 22.00

Registration of Conference Participants at the Sefton Hotel Dinner: 18.15 - 21.15 Informal Gathering in Conference Bar

Monday 19. 09. 1988 09.00

Official Opening of the Eighth Symposium by Mr Alun Davies, LLB, Director of Education

09.15

Prof. Dr. Sture Ureland, Universität Mannheim Introduction

09.45

Dr. George Broderick, Universität Mannheim The Isle of Man: an historical introduction

10.15

Mr Robert L. Thomson, (formerly) University of Leeds Foreign elements in the vocabulary of Manx Chair: Dr. George Broderick

11.15

Dr. Martyn Wakelin. University of London Cornish and English Reconsidered Chair: Dr. Anthony Harvey

H.OO

Dr. Michael J. Evans, Universität Heidelberg Germanic-Brittonic contacts before AD 430: the implications of Hadrian's Wall Chair: Prof. Dr. Otmar Werner

14.45

Dr. Hans F. Nielsen, Odense University, Denmark The Straubing Heliand-Fragment and the Old English dialects Chair: Prof. Dr. Otmar Werner

15.45

drs. Lauran Toorians, University of Leiden, Netherlands A Flemish settlement in Pembrokeshire: historical corpse or linguistic body? Chair: Dr. Karl Inge Sandred

20.00

Official Reception given by the Corporation of Douglas in the Garden Room of the Villa Marina

Thuesday 20. 09. 1988 09.30

Prof. Dr. Otmar Werner, Universität Freiburg The incorporation of Old Norse pronouns into Middle English Chair: Prof. Michael P. Barnes

10.15

Mrs Patricia Poussa, University of Helsinki Origins of the Non-standard relativizers what, at, as Chair: Prof. Michael P. Barnes

11.15

Dr. Karl Inge Sandred, University of Uppsala The study of Scandinavian in England: a survey of Swedish contributions including on-going research in East Anglia Chair: Dr. Gunnel Melchers

14.00

Dr. Gillian Fellows-Jensen, University of Copenhagen Scandinavian influence on the place-names of England Chair: Dr. Margaret Gelling

3 14.45

Prof. Dr. Torben Kisbye, University of Arhus, Denmark Compatibility and incompatibilty: three important periods of English-Danish onomastic contact Chair: Dr. Margaret Gelling

15.45

Dr. John Hines, Coleg y Brifysgol Caerdydd Scandinavian English: a Creole in context Chair: Dr. Michael Evans

20.00

Guest Lecture Prof. Dr. Klaus Friedland, "Hanse" in England

Universität Kiel

Wednesday 21. 09. 1988 09.30

Prof. Michael P. Barnes, University College London What more can we learn about Orkney and Shetland Norn? Chair: Prof. Dr. Sture Ureland

10.15

Dr. Gunnel Melchers, University of Stockholm

Norn-Scots: a complicated language contact situation in Shetland Chair: Prof. Dr. Sture Ureland 11.15

Dr. John M. Kirk, The Queen's University of Belfast Language Contact and Scots Chair: Prof. Dr. Sture Ureland

13.30 - 14.30

Guided tour of the Tynwald Legislative Buildings by Mr Arthur Bawden, Clerk to the Legislative Council

14.30 - 18.00

Excursion 1 Tynwald Hill, St. John's and Gregneash Folkmuseum, led by Mr Walter Clarke. Arrival at St. Patrick's Isle, Peel, at 18.00 Excursion 2 Kirk Maughold (for Norse rune stones), Bishop's Court and Tynwald Hill, St. John's, led by Mr Robert L. Thomson and Mr Bernard Caine. Arrival at St. Patrick's Isle, Peel, at 18.00

18.00 - 19.30

Guided tour of the St. Patrick's Isle Archaeological Excavations Guides: Dr. David Freke and Mr John Shakespeare

20.00

Official Reception and Buffet hosted by the Peel Town Commissioners, Phillip Christian Centre, Peel

Thursday, 22. 09. 1988 09.30

Dr. Richard A. V. Cox, University of Glasgow Norse-Gaelic contact in the west of Lewis: the place-name evidence Chair: Mr Robert L. Thomson

10.15

Dr. Kenneth MacKinnon, Hatfield Polytechnic Language maintenance and viability in contemporary Gaelic-speaking communities: Skye and the Western Isles today Chair: Mr Robert L. Thomson

11.15

Dr. Nancy Stenson, University of Minnesota Code-switching and borrowing in Irish and English Chair: Dr. Donall 0 Baoill

U.OO

Dr.

Terence

Odlin,

Ohio

State

University

Syntactic variation in Hiberno-English Chair: Dr. John M. Kirk 14.45

Prof. Dr. Markku Joensuu, Finland

Filpulla,

University

of

Subordinating and in Hiberno-English syntax: a case of direct Irish influence? Chair: Dr. John M. Kirk 15.45

Dr. Donall 0 Baoill, Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann, Dublin

Contact phenomena in the phonology of Irish and English in Ireland Chair: Dr. Nancy Stenson 20.00

Official Reception hosted by Castletown Commissioners in Castle Rushen, Castletown Short talk on Castle Rushen by Mr Frank Cowin. Manx traditional music and dancing by Perree Bane

Friday 23. 09. 1988

09.30

Prof.

Dr.

Helmut Lüdke,

Universität

Kiel

Middle English - French Chair: Mrs Patricia Poussa 10.15

Miss Cecily Clark, Cambridge

Towards a reassessment of "Anglo-Norman influence on English place-names' Chair: Mrs Patricia Poussa 11.15

Dr. Anthony Dublin

Harvey, Royal Irish

Academy,

Digraphs for fricatives: a spelling convention of Insular Celtic origin Chair: Mr Robert L. Thomson

14.00

Dr Diarmuid Ö So, Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann, Dublin Stress-shifting in Southern Irish and Manx as a contact phenomenon Chair: Dr. George Broderick

14.45

Dr. Patricia Kelly, Universität Innsbruck The development of Hiberno-English in the 17th century Chair: Prof. Dr. Markku Filpulla

15.45

Ms Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn, University of Pennsylvania The colour system of the modern Celtic languages: effects of language contact Chair: Dr. Martyn F. Wakelin

c. 16.30

Close of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe Prof. Dr. Sture Ureland

20.00

Informal Gathering in Conference Bar Manx traditional music and poetry

Saturday 24. 09. 1988 Departure of Conference Participants

LIST OF THE AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

Michael P. Barnes

Gillian Fellows-Jensen

Dept. of Scandinavian Studies University College London Gower Street LONDON WG1G 6BT ENGLAND

Institut for navneforskning Njalsgade 80 DK-2300 COPENHAGEN 5 DENMARK

George Broderick

Markku Filppula

Seminar für Allgemeine Linguistik Universität Mannheim Schloß D-6800 MANNHEIM l GERMANY

Dept. of English University of Joensuu P.O. Box III SF-80101 JOENSUU FINLAND

Cecily Clark

Margaret Gelling

13 Church Street Chesterton CAMBRIDGE CB4 IDT ENGLAND

31 Pereira Road Harborne BIRMINGHAM BI7 4JG ENGLAND

Richard Cox

Anthony Harvey

Dept. of Celtic University of Glasgow 5 University Gardens GLASGOW GG8 QQ SCOTLAND

Royal Irish Academy 19 Dawson Street DUBLIN 2 IRELAND

8 John Hines

Gunnel Melchers

Dept. of English University of Cardiff University College P.O. Box 78 CARDIFF CF1 1XL WALES

Dept. of English University of Stockholm S-10691 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN

John Kirk

Hans F. Nielsen

Dept. of English The Queen's University of Belfast BELFAST BT7 INN NORTHERN IRELAND

Dept. of English University of Odense Campusvej 55 DK-5230 ODENSE DENMARK

Torben Kisbye (t)

Terence Odlin

Dept. of English University of Arhus

DK-8ooo ARHUS

DENMARK

Dept. of English The Ohio State University COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210 USA

Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn

Donall 0 Baoill

810 Moose Hill Road GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT 06437 USA

Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann 31 Pläs Mhic Liam BAILE ÄTHA CLIATH 2 / DUBLIN 2 EIRE / IRELAND

Kenneth MacKinnon

Diarmuid 0 S6

Hatfield Polytechnic Lesser-Used Languages Research Unit Balls Park

Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann 31 Pläs Mhic Liam BAILE ATHA CLIATH 2 / DUBLIN 2 EIRE / IRELAND

HERTFORD SGI 38QF ENGLAND

Patricia Poussa

P. Sture Ureland

c/o Gectal Centre University of Sheffield SHEFFIELD StO 2TN ENGLAND

Seminar für Allgemeine Linguistik Universität Mannheim Schloß

Karl Inge Sandred

Martyn F. Wakelin (t)

Dept. of English University of Uppsala Box 513 S-75120 UPPSALA SWEDEN

Dept. of English Royal Holloway and Bedford New College University of London Egham Hill SURREY TW20 OEX ENGLAND

Nancy Stenson

Otmar Werner

Dept. of Linguistics University of Minnesota 142 Klaeber Court 320 SE 16th Avenue MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55404 USA

Deutsches Seminar Institut für Vergleichende Germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik Universität Freiburg Werthmannplatz 3 D-7800 FREIBURG GERMANY

Robert L. Thomson 35 Friary Park Ballabeg CASTLETOWN ISLE OF MAN

D-6800 MANNHEIM l GERMANY

INTRODUCTION "all languages have typologial links with their neighbouring languages (Trubetzkoy 1939: 86)

The present volume contains 25 papers given at the 8th International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, which was organized by the Linguistischer Arbeitskreis Mannheim (LAMA) under the title Language Contact in the British Isles and held in Douglas, Isle of Man, September 18 - 24, 1988. The choice of Man as a conference place was not accidental but logical from a geographical, historical and ethnic point of view, as the Isle of Man is situated so strategically in the middle of the Irish Sea at the cross-roads between Ireland, Northern England, Scotland and Wales. The central position of the island was not the only reason for holding an international conference in Douglas, but also the great historical and cultural role, which the island has played throughout its Celtic and Scandinavian past, was an equally decisive factor. During the Middle Ages the island was a veritable meeting-place of Celtic, Nordic and Anglo-Saxon components, so unique in North-Western Europe and still so visible, that to hold a conference on language contact and cultural fusion here seemed to be a natural thing to do. The members of the conference had here, before their very eyes, a miniature of language development in the British Isles, which has led to recession and death of a lesser-used language. The death of Manx is an excellent example, that a small language cannot be saved, if economic and social factors are negative for its use and survival. In other words, the Isle of Man could be used as a stepping-stone to enter the Celtic world in the past and the present. What has happened here, will be repeated elsewhere, where similar sociopolitical conditions prevail as those leading to the death of Manx Gaelic and where a smaller language is confronted with a dominating larger language (English). The causes of the recession and death of Manx belongs to one of the more fascinating problems in contact linguistics (see RHYS 1894, MARSTRANDER 1932, JACKSON 1955, THOMSON 1954-57, 1969 and 1984, HINDLEY 1984 and BRODERICK 1984 and 1986). What does the death of Manx teach us for preserving other Celtic languages from the same destiny?

12

The papers published here deal directly or indirectly with the consequences of contact between languages spoken in the British Isles in the past and the present. The description of contact processes is also a contribution to understanding cultural and linguistic change, which may lead to the rise of new languages. Our undertaking to describe language contact in the British Isles is thus also a description of the genesis of new language varieties and, if standardized and codified, totally new languages. Keeping in mind that death and birth go hand in hand also in the history of languages, it is motivated to start with death in the present volume by dealing first with Manx. The four first papers publihed here treat the decline of Manx (BRODERICK), foreign elements in Manx (THOMSON), place-names in the Isle of Man (GELLING) and foreign influence on Manx stress (0 S£). The special political and economic status which the small island enjoys and has enjoyed since the Middle Ages with a parliament (The Tynwald), legislation, currency and stamps of its own, was, on the other hand, a problem for the organizers of the symposium, in that the island does not today belong to the United Kingdom or Ireland. Therefore no funding was possible through English or Irish sponsors. The fact that the island is not a member of the EC either, prevented a possible financial support through this international organization as well. Consequently, it was up to the participants themselves to carry the costs of the conference and with the generous help of the local organizations in Douglas, Peel and Castletown the Eighth Symposium on Language Contact could be held. In the light of these difficulties it was so much more satisfying that the symposium was met with such great interest among the experts on language contact in the British Isles. Twenty-eight papers were read by participants coming from the Isle of Man, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, West Germany, the Netherlands and the USA, four of which are not published here. Instead one article has been added which was not presented in Douglas.

13 2. The pan-linguistic view of language contact in the British Isles It is not the first time that a linguistics conference focuses on contacts between the languages of the Bristish Isles, but it is the first one to focus on the whole range of contacts between languages as enumerated in Table 1 below, where a score and more are specified from Caesar to Cromwell and Thatcher. It was the task of the symposium to describe the out-come of such contacts and, if possible, arrive at a general typology of language contact in the British Isles, even though all historical contacts were not covered by the papers offered at the symposium. Of the 34 contacts specified in Table 1 six were not dealt with, as speakers could not be found for the following contacts: la Brittonic Goidelic, 4 Brittonic - West Germanic, 6 Goidelic - Old English, 9 Middle Welsh - Anglo Norman, 10 Middle Welsh - Old/Middle English and 20 Middle Welsh - Old Norse. 30 Norman-French English and 31 Romani - English. Tab. 1: Contact patterns of the languages spoken in the British Isles Contact Pattern la. Brittonic - Goidelic Ib.Old Welsh - Old Irish 2a Brittonic - Latin 2b. Old Welsh - Latin 3a. Goidelic - Latin 3b.Old Irish - Latin 4. Brittonic - West Germanic 5. Brittonic - Old English 6. Goidelic - Old English 7. West Germanic - Old English 8. Mid Irish - Anglo-Norman 9. Mid Welsh - Anglo-Norman 10. Mid Welsh - Old/Mid Eng 11. Old/Mid Cornish -Old/Mid Eng 12. Latin - Old/Mid English 13. Old Norse - Old/Mid English 14. Anglo-Norman - Old/Mid Eng

15. Mid Low Germ - Mid Eng 16. Mid Dutch - Mid Eng 17. Mid Irish - Old Norse 18. Scots Gaelic - Old Norse 19. Manx-Mid Irish - Old Norse 20. Mid Welsh - Old Norse 21. Mid Cornish - Old Norse 22. Norn - (Mid) English 23. Irish - (Mid) English 24. Scots Gaelic - Scots/Eng 25. Manx - English 26. Welsh - English 27. Cornish - English 28. Scots - English 29. Pan-Celtic : English 30. Norman-French - English 31. Romani - English

u Being easily accessible by sea and practically defenseless against, sudden hit-and-run attacks, the British Isles belonged to one of the most contact-intense areas in North-Western Europe during the Middle Ages due to their exposed position between the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Channel. This exposure to foreign contacts has also been known for a long time in Celtology and English studies. A great number of scholarly activities in the British Isles show that the contact perspective has always been present, especially dealing with place and nature names, loan words etc., although not in a pan-linguistic and integrated way in the sense that all contacts have been accounted for, and both sides of given contacts have been taken into consideration. Of the conferences, research projects and major publications which first come to mind I would like to mention the ten Viking Congresses between 1950 and 1985 now in print (SIMPSON (ed.) 1954, FALCK (ed.) 1955, ELDJÄRN (ed.) 1958, SMALL (ed.) 1965, NICOLAISEN (ed.) 1968, FOOTE and STRÖMBÄCK (eds.) 1971, ALMQVIST and GREENE (eds.) 1976, BEKKER-NIELSEN, FOOTE and OLSEN (eds.) 1981, FELL, FOOTE, GRAHAM-CAMPBELL and THOMSON (eds.) 1983, KNIRK (ed.) 1987 and a symposium held in connection with the Quincentenary of Uppsala University in 1977 (ANDERSSON and SANDRED (eds.) 1978). For the older literature on the contacts between the Insular Scandinavian and Celtic languages see the excellent overview and the state of art of the research on Contacts 17 Middle Irish - Old Norse, 18 Scots Gaelic - Old Norse, 19 Manx - Middle Irish - Old Norse, 20 Middle Welsh - Old Norse 21 Middle Cornish - Old Norse in Werner (1968). The contributions published here deal in a similar way with various aspects of the Scandinavian influence on English: Contact 13 Old Norse - Old/Middle English: in the Danelaw and Anglia (SANDRED), Scandinavian influence on place names in England (FELLOWS-JENSEN), onomastic Danish-English contacts (KISBYE), Old Norse influence on the Old/Mid English pronominal system (WERNER), the rise of a Scandinavian-English creole in the Danelaw (HINES).the decline and death of Norn in Orkney and Shetland (BARNES, MELCHERS). Second, the proceedings of the eight International Congresses of Celtic Studies between 1959 and 1987 contain valuable articles on Insular Celtic languages in contact with other languages spoken

15

in the British Isles (0 CUlV (ed.) 1962, Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Celtic Studies held in Cardiff 1963 (printed 1966), NICOLAISEN (ed.) 1968, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Celtic Studies held in Rennes 1971, Mac EOIN, AHLQVIST and 0 hAODHA (eds.) 1983, EVANS, GRIFFITH and JOPE (eds.) 1986). An inventory of all these proceedings shows that a great number of contact-linguistic articles have been published here, especially those dealing with the contact Celtic Old Norse (Contacts 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, e.g. 0 CUlV (ed.) 1962 (see e.g. the articles by CHADWICK 1962, DELARGY 1962, HENRY 1962, JACKSON 1962, Mac CANA 1962, OFTEDAL 1962b, SOMMERFELT 1962). Parts of the 1962 proceedings were reprinted in a special volume containing the major papers on the Celtic Scandinavian contacts at the Dublin congress of 1959 (0 CUlV (ed.) 1975). However, an integrated view of all language contacts documented in the history of the Celtic languages has never been presented systematically at any of the Celtic congresses. This is necessary in order to work out a typology of language contact (see section 2 below) and to give an overall picture of the contact patterns as enumerated in Table 1. It has rather been in a piecemeal fashion. Such a panorama of language contacts in the British Isles in the past and the present was one of the major goals of the Douglas symposium. Besides the Manx-English contacts mentioned above some other historical contacts between Celtic and other languages are dealt with in this volume: Contacts Ib , 2b and 3b (in combination) Old Welsh - Old Irish - Latin in the Cambridge Juvencus Glosses (HARVEY); Contact 5: Brittonic - Old English (POUSSA on the rise of English non-standard relativizers); Contacts 11 Old/Mid Cornish - Old/Mid English and 27 Cornish - English (WAKELIN); Contact 29 Pan-Celtic - English (LAZAR-MEYN) Third, the publications of the Minority Conferences held in Glasgow in 1980 (HAUGEN, McCLURE and THOMSON (eds.) 1981) and Galway in 1986 (Mac EOIN, AHLQVIST and 0 hAODHA (eds.) 1987b) contain valuable articles on the contact between Celtic and English and the specific minority problems of Insular Celtic languages in their fight for survival (e.g. AITKEN 1981, GILLIES 1981, McCLURE 1981, MacKINNON 1987, MAGUIRE 1987, THOMSON, D. 1981, PRATTIS 1981, Scotland; AMBROSE and WILLIAMS 1981, AWBERY 1987, JONES 1981, THOMAS 1987, Wales;

16

AKUTAGAWA 1987, FENNELL 1981, HARRIS and MURTAGH 1987, 0 BAOILL 1987, Ireland; GREENE 1981 (pan-Celtic)). However, excepting Greene 1981 and Fennell 1981, there have been no attempts at the international congresses to a general typology of language recession in the British Isles, nor has any one tried to give an overview of the total number of the historical or present contacts in the British Isles. In the present volume the specific Contact 18 Scote Gaelic - Old Norse is described from the view-point of the place names of Lewis (COXXcf. also HENDERSON 1910, OFTEDAL 1956 and 1962a on lexical and phonological aspects), whereas Contact 24 Scots Gaelic - Scots/ English in the Western Isles and Skye is dealt with in another article (MacKINNON) from a socio-linguistic point of view. Contact 28 Scots-(Standard) English is also discussed with special reference to the use of auxiliaries (KIRK). Fourth, the First Hiberno-English Symposium held in Dublin in 1985 brought together experts on the English variety spoken in Ireland and its interaction with Irish and Standard English (HARRIS, LITTLE and SINGLETON (eds.) 1986). In this context the publications edited by 0 Cuiv (1969), 0 Muirithe 1977, 0 Baoill (1985) and ö Riagäin (1988) deserve also to be mentioned, which are useful handbooks for the problems of Contact 23 Irish (Middle) English. . In the proceedings published here the problem of code-switching or borrowing in Modern Irish (Contact 23 Irish - (Middle) English) is treated at some length with emphasis on syntax (STENSON), whereas the development of Irish and English phonological structures in Ireland is seen in the light of the contact between Irish and Hiberno-English (0 BAOILL). The rise of the subordinating and in Hiberno-English and other syntactic structures deviating from Standard English is also dealt with from a contact point of view (ODLIN, FILPPULA). Bilingualism and writing in West Ireland is the topic of another article, which focuses on how well bilingual children write Irish and English in the Connemara Gaeltacht (sixth school year) as compared to bilingual children of the same age in the Grisons, Switzerland (URELAND). Fifth, a number of dialectological projects have directly or indirectly promoted the contact linguistics of the British Isles in that contact-induced structures are visible in almost every

17

dialectological map or table, e.g. The Survey of English Dialects (ORTON et al 1962 - 1969), Word Geography of England (ORTON and WRIGHT 1975, The Linguistic Atlas of England (ORTON, SANDERSON and WIDDOWSON 1978), Adas of English Sounds (KOLB, GLAUSER, ELMER and STAMM 1979), The Linguistic Atlas of Scotland (MATHER and SPEIDEL 1975 - 1977), The Linguistic Geography of Wales (THOMAS 1973), TTie Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects (WAGNER 1958-1969), The Linguistic Survey of Anglo-Irish (HENRY 1957, 1958 and 1985) and The Tape-Recorded Survey of Hiberno-English Speech (BARRY 1981 and BARRY (ed.) 1981, ADAMS, BARRY and TILLING 1985), Studies in Linguistic Geography (KIRK, SANDERSON and WIDDOWSON 1985 and Word Maps. A Dialect Atlas of England (UPTON, SANDERSON and WIDDOWSON 1987). For a historical perspective of language contacts in the British Isles see A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English (McINTOSH, SAMUELS and BENSKIN (eds.) 1985), which" is valuable for reconstructing past contact patterns. The article written by Wakelin for the proceedings could also be seen more in the framework of the dialectological investigations mentioned above, perhaps more than as a contribution to Contact 27 Cornish - English. Sixth, a number of older and more recent publications on language contact in the British Isles must also be mentioned in order to give a complete picture of the great involvement with language contact, which the following studies give evidence of: Contact la Brittonic - Goidelic and Contact Ib Old Welsh - Old Irish (e.g. SARAUW 1900, O'RAHILLY 1942, JACKSON 1953: 122-U8, CARNEY 1973 and HARVEY 1985 on the two Patricks; THOMAS 1971 on the contact between the Celtic (Irish) church and the Roman-Catholic; Contact 2a Brittonic - Latin and Contact 2b Old Welsh - Latin (LOTH 1892, HAVERF1ELD 1906, ZACHRISSON 1927, MUHLHAUSEN 1941, O'RAHILLY 1942, and JACKSON 1953: 76-121, who summarizes earlier research and estimates about 800 loan words to have been borrowed from Latin into the three British languages; LATHAM (ed.) 1975 - 1981, BROOKS 1982, LAPIDGE and SHARPE 1985, LATHAM and HOWLETT (eds.) 1986, LAPIDGE and DUMVILLE 1985, DEVINE, HARVEY and SMITH 1987; Contact 3a Goidelic - Latin and Contact 3b Old Irish Latin (MacNEILL 1931, JACKSON 1953: 122 - 148, McMANUS 1983,

18

1984, 1986; Contact 5 Brittonic - Old English (LUICK 1914-1940, FÖRSTER 1921, 1941, PARRY - WILLIAMS 1923, KELLER 1925, EKWALL 1924, 1928, 1936 (England); WATSON 1926 (Scotland), THOMAS (1938), WILLIAMS 1945 (Wales); JACKSON 1953: 194 261; Contact 12 Latin - Old/Mid English (POGATSCHER 1888, 1894, COLLINGWOOD and MYRES 1936)

In his Language and History in Early Britain (1953) Kenneth Jackson summarizes the research on the early contacts between British, Latin and Anglo-Saxon by combining both external and internal factors of language change from Brittonic to the modern British languages, Welsh, Cornish and Breton. The rise of these languages is seen within the framework of contacts with Latin and Anglo-Saxon, whereby the role of bilingualism, diglossia, interference, transference, code-switching and language shift for language change and glottogenesis is stressed and included in the description of the Insular-Celtic languages of Early Britain, naturally under other terms than used today, but the description of language contact in Early Britain is surprisingly modern (see in particular Chapter III "Britons and Romans under the Empire" (JACKSON 1953: 76 - 121) and Chapter VI "Britons and Saxons in the fifth to eighth centuries" (idem. 194 - 261). Seventh, for the important contact Anglo-Norman - Old/Middle English (Contact 14) a long series of publications could also be given here. It will suffice here to refer to the extensive bibliographies in Baugh and Cable 1987: 107 - 125 and Berndt 1965 and to the treatment of French loan words in Serjeantson 1935: Chap. V and Jespersen 1938: 78 - 105. In the present volume only one article deals with the influence of Anglo-Norman on the pronunciation of English place-names (CLARK). Eighth, a non-insignificant factor for the development of English was Contacts 15 Middle Low German - (Middle) English and 16 (Middle) Dutch - (Middle) English, which Bense claims to have brought more than 2,500 words of Dutch and Low German origin into the English dialects (BENSE 1939). Like Sense's dictionary there are a number of books and articles which deal generally with the impact of Dutch and Low German on English (HEUSER 1902, de VRIES 1916, BENSE 1925, TOLL 1926, GEORGE 1926, FLEMING 1930, LOGEMAN 1930-31, SERJEANTSON 1935:172) but there are also publications dealing with the influence of Dutch in specific areas of Britain (in Wales, Pembrokeshire: LAWS 1888,

19

OWEN 1895, CHARLES 1938, WALKER 1979; in Kent: SAMUELS 1971; in Scotland: MURISON 1971). Ninth, as examples of recent publications which are of great use for contact linguistics are the contact-oriented book Languages of Britain (PRICE 1984a) and the volume Language in (he British Isles (TRUDGILL (ed.) 1984), in which the contact perspective is present in almost every article ( e.g. AITKEN 1984, Mainland Scotland; BARNES 1984, Orkney and Shetland; BARRY 1984, Isle of Man; BELLIN 1984 and THOMAS 1984, Wales; BLISS 1984 and EDWARDS 1984, Ireland; DOUGLAS-COWIE 1984 and HARRIS 1984 Northern Ireland; MacKINNON 1984 and SHUKEN 1984, The Highlands and The Western Isles; WAKELIN 1984, Cornwall. Tenth, Contact 14 Anglo-Norman - Old/Middle English is still alive on the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey and Sark) as Contact 30 Norman French - English (SJÖGREN 1964, SPENCE 1957, 1984). Eleventh, long distance contacts with the south across the sea have also been assumed on the basis of areal-typological similarities between Insular Celtic languages and other non-Indo-European languages on the Atlantic sea board in the past (Basque and Berber) - the Atlantean Language Area (JONES 1900: Appendix, POKORNY 1927-30, 1949 and 1962, WAGNER 1959, 1962, 1982). Contacts with the north through Norse and even Finno-Ugric languages in Northern Scandinavia (South and North Lappish) during the Viking Age have been assessed for explaining certain phenomena in the North European Language Area posited by Wagner 1962, e.g. preaspiration, pre-occlusives (dn, bm und LM) to mark the plural with a suffix ending. This trend towards suffixal plural structures is a general characteristic of Manx, whereas Irish tends to preserve the old IE vowel alterations to express the sg.-pl. opposition. As with ostems, Manx reflexes of io-, S-, is-, i-, u- stems, lenited velar and dental stems, stems in -t, in -72-, -r- and neuter s-stems generally exhibit only a sg.-pl. contrast, i.e. the plural is the sg. form plus suffix. Fig. 3: A comparison of the number marking in vocalic and consonantal stems in Old Irish, Early Modern Irish and Manx 1.3.1. 1.3.2.

o-stems (cf. Fig. 1 above) /o-stems (m, n); Olr. dalt(a)e 'fosterling'

Sg N PI N

Olr. dalt(a)e /daLte/ dalt(a)i /daLti/

1.3.3. Sg N PI N

ff-stems

EModlr. dalta /daLt9/ daltai /daLti:/

Manx doltey /dolta/ doltaghyn /doltaxan/

(f.): Olr. delb 'image'

Olr. delb /d'elß/ delba /d'elßa/

EModlr. dealb /d'atav/ dealba /d'atava/

Manx jalloo /d'alu/ jallooghyn /d'alu:xan/

The original final bilabial (spirantized) has become vocalized and coalesced with the foregoing svarabhakti vowel in the MX. sg. reflex. 1.3.4. va-stems (f.): soilse 'light' (cf. also Sect. 1.6.2.1.) Sg N PI N

Olr. EModlr. Manx soilse /soLVe/ soillse /soL's'a/ soilshey /sail's'a/ soilsi / soL's'i/ soillsi /soL's'i/ soils haghy n /sail's'axan/ EM, CM soilshyn /sail's'an/ LM

70

Also MX. pi. soilsheeyn /sail's'ian/ LM, a double plural with old plural forms in /i/ plus suffix marker in /an/. 1.3.5. /-stems (m,f,n); Olr. cnaim m. 'bone*

Olr. EModlr. Manx Sg. N cn im /kna:p '/ cn mh /kna:v/ craue /kre:u/ CM, LM PI. N cn m(a)i /kn ^ i/ cn mha /kn -.va/ craueyn /kre-.uan/ Also EM kreyf /kre:f/ (w. non-vocalisation of spirant ΜΗ), knau /kne:u/ with original /n/ after /k/. 1.3.6. u-stems (m* n); Olr. dorus m.: 'door* Sg. N PL N

Olr. EModlr. dorus /doras/ doras /doras/ doirsea /do:r's'a/ doirse /do:r's'a/ dorus /doras/

Manx dorrys /doras/ dorryssyn /dorasan/ dorsyn ?/dorsan/

The second Manx refl. could repr. /dorasan/ without syncope, or the older pi. plus suffix (with depalatized /rs/). 1.3.7. lenited velar stems /χ/, /γ/ (m, f.); Olr. ri m. 'king* Sg. N PL N

Olr. ri /R'i:/ rig /R'i:γ'/

EModlr. ri /ri:/ riogha /ri:a/

Manx ree /ri:/ reeaghyn /ή:χ3η/

Tlie /χ/ in Mx.pl. is unlikely to be a retention of Olr /γ'/ > /χ'/ > /χ/, since original /γ'/ disappears in MX. cf. Olr. doilig /dol'iyV 'hard, difficult'. ScG. /dud'i*7, MX. /doili/ (also the above example). But rather the pi. suffix /χβη/, cf. ScG /ίχ'βη/, with /χ/ to break the hiatus. 1.3.8. lenited dental stems (/Θ/, /d/) 'tongue' Sg. N PL N

Olr. EModlr. teng(a)e /t'enge/ teanga /t'ana/ teng(a)id /t'engid'/ teangtha /t'a^/

(m, f); Olr. teng(a)e m/f Manx ghengey /t'inja/ ghengaghyn /

71

1.3.9. Sterns in -t (?m, f, n); Olr car(a)e m. 'friend' Sg. N PL N

Olr. car(a)e /kare/ car(a)it /karidV

EModlr. Manx cara /kara/ carrey /kara/ caraid /karid'/ caarjyn /karrd'an/ cairde /katr'd'a/

The Manx pi. refl. would represent the old pi. + /an/ suffix causing syncope of /i/ or cairde + an, Olr. caitea ap, cf. also Sect. U.4. 1.3.10. lenited u-stems (cf. Sect. 1.2.) 1.3.11. unlenited jj^stems (m, f, n); Olr. ainm m. 'name' Olr. EModlr. Manx Sg. N. ainm /an'am/ ainm /an'am'/ ennym /enam/ PI. N anman(n)/anmaN/ anmann/anmaN/* enmyn /enman/ CM, LM *For other pi. forms cf. Dinneen 1927 s. ainm

Also Mx.pl. /enmaxan/, /enmian/. For the unusual ending here in -man(n) cf. Thurneysen 1970:213. The similarity of the above MX. reflex may indicate a genuine survival of the Olr. form. 1.3.12. /--stems (m, f. denoting kinship); Olr. ath(a)ir m. 'father' Sg. N PI. N

Olr. ath(a)ir /aGirV a(i)thir /a0'ir'/

EModlr. athair /aharV aithre /ahr'a/

Manx ayr /e:r/ ayraghyn /e:ra%an/

In Olr. / / here is usu. neutral in the sg. and palatalized in the pi. The EModlr. pi. reflex would represent Olr. ap. aithrea 1.3.13. neuter s-stems; Olr. sliab 'mountain* Sg.N PI. N

Olr. EModlr. Manx sliab /sL'iaß/ sliabh /sl'iav/ slieau /sl'u:/ ste(i)be /sL'e:ß'e/ sloibhte /sl'e:ft'a/ sleityn /sl'erd'an/ (Modlr. form)

72

The vocalization of the original medial palatal spirant in the Manx refl. was perhaps regarded as a weakening in articulation requiring the reinforcement of a suffix. 1.3.14. The foregoing examples indicate that formation of plurals in Olr. can be realized as follows: 1.3.14.1. palatalization of the final consonant with or without umlaut (o-stems; lenited Λ-stems) 1.3.14.2. raising of final /a/ to /i/ (io-, /5-etems) 1.3.14.3. suffix in /a/ (ff-stems, u-stems) 1.3.14.4. suffix in /i/ (/-stems), with syncope (la-stems) 1.3.14.5. suffix in /γΎ (lenited velar stems) 1.3.14.6. suffix in /&'/ (lenited dental stems) 1.3.14.7. suffix in /d'/ (stems in -t) 1.3.14.8. suffix in V+/n, N/ (unlenited Λ-stems) 1.3.14.9. internal palatalization of spirants (r-stems) 1.3.14.10. umlaut + palatalization of final consonant * ending in /a/ (neuter «-stems). Bringing all this down to simple terms plurals in Olr. have either final /CV +/- umlaut or /C + a, i/ or both, the suffix /(m)Vn, N/ or internal palatalization of spirants. A plural ending in /i/, because unstressed, would in the Manx reflexes have become indistinguishable with the singular, e.g. (leaving aside older consonant qualities) (1.3.2.) /dolts/ 'fosterling', pi. */do!ti/ -> /dolta/; (1.3.4.) /sailVa/ 'light', pi. */sail's'i/ -> /sail's'a/ (the fact that we have a pi. in /sail's'ian/ indicates that the ending /i/ was felt to be weak), while a plural suffix in /a/ (brought into contact with a preceding vowel due to the loss or vocalization of an intervening spirant) would due to unstress, have been lost , e.g. (1.3.3.) /d'alu/ 'image', pi. */d'alua/ -> »/d'alu/; (1.3.5.) /kre:u/ 'bone', pi. */kre:ua/ -> */kre:u/ (or EM /kre:f/ pi. */kre:fa/ -> */kre:f/). We have seen the other main distinguishing feature indicating plurals, namely palatalization, has also largely disappeared in Manx resulting in phonemic indistinction between sg. and pi., e.g. (1.3.7.) /ri:/ 'king'.pl. */π:γ'/, */ΓΪ:χ7 -> */ri:/, (1.3.8.) /fine/ 'tongue', pi. »/t'ingaoY -> »/t'ina/. In /kara/ 'friend' (1.3.9.) the plural in */karadV has survived, but with /an/ suffix, probably to make

73 the distinction clearer. With /doras/ 'door' (1.3.6.) an original Manx plural /do:r's'a/ has likely suffered twice: a) loss of /a/ and b) depalatalization of /r/ and /s/, thus rendering it almost the same as the sg. The same would also apply to /e:r/ 'father' (1.3.12.), pi. */e:r'a/ -> /e.-r/, or */e:rW has been replaced to distinguish it from the gs /e:ra/ (cf. 2.5.1.3. below). In consequence this unclarity has necessarily led to morphological innovation in the introduction of suffixal structures to distinguish singular from plural. In spite of this, however, older plural structures do survive, either with umlaut (with or without final palatalized consonant), or with palatalized consonant, or with an ending in /a/ or /i/. These survivals are mainly found in o-, is-, lenited velar stems, and stems in -t. 1.4. Survival of older Goidelic plural structures in Manx 1.4.1 with umlaut and/or palatalized final consonant in o-stems 1.4.1.1. Sg.N PL N

Olr. EModlr. fer /fer/ 'man' fear /far/ fir /fir'/ fir /fir'/

Manx fer /fer/ fir /fir/

1.4.1.2. Olr. EModlr. Manx Sg. N mace /mak/ 'son' mac /mak/ mac /mak/ PI. N meicc /m'ekV meic /m'ekV mec /mek/ Note the depalatized consonants in the Manx pi. reflex. 1.4.1.3. Also Olr. capall m. 'work-horse' < L. *cappillus (v. THURNEYSEN 1970: 567) Sg. N PI. N

Olr. capall /kapaL/ capaill /kapiLV capla /kapla/

EModlr. capal /kapaL/ capaill /kapiLV also

Manx cabbyl /ka:h»l/ cabbil /ka:bilV cabbalyn /ka:bobn/ (cf. 2.1.1.1.2.)

Note the retention of the high front vowel in the first Manx plural reflex. 1.4.2. With ending in /a/; /ff-stems: Olr. bliad(a)in f. 'year' (cf. also Sect. 1.5.1.1J Olr. EModlr. Manx Sg.N bliad(a)in /bTiadinV bliadhain XbTianV blein /bl'e.-nV, /blidn/ Pl.N bliadn(a)i /bTiaoni/ bliadhna XbTiaNa/ bleeaney /bliana/ bliadhanta /bTiaNta/bleeantyn /bliantan/ CM, LM blienyn /blianan/EM As with EModlr. XbTiaNa/, the Manx plural /bliana/ is used only with numerals and the frequency of this association probably accounts for its survival. The form /bl'emY likely represents the alternative Olr. ns bkdin /bTe:oinY; cf. OIL B: 119. 1.4.3. With ending in /i/; lenited velar stems: Olr. caira 'sheep* (cf. also Sect. 1.5.3.) Sg. N

Olr. caira /kaira/

PL N

cairig Xkair'iyV

EModlr. caora /ke:ra/ /ki:ra/ caoirigh /ke:r'i/ /ki:r'i/

Manx keyrrey /ke:ra/

kirree /ki:ri/, /kin/ also keyrreyyn /k'erean/ LM The first short vowel /i/ in /kiri/ is secondary. 1.4.4. Sterns in -U Olr. cara m. 'friend' (cf. also Sect. 1.3.9.) EModlr. cara /kara/ caraid /karidV cairde /ka:r'd'a/ For comment on the Manx plural reflex cf. Sg. N PL N

Olr. car(a)e /kare/ car(a)it /karidV

Manx carrey /kara/ caarjyn /ke:rd'an/ Sect. 1.3.9. above.

75 1.5. Survival of older Goidelic case forms in Manx 1.5.1. Genitive singular in /-a/ The older genitive singular form in /a/ survives in Manx mainly in is-, i-, r-, and neuter s-stems. In /ff-stems it seems only to be found in set adverbial phrases which have likely helped to preserve it: car ny bleeaney /ka:r na 'bl'iana/ 'all year round', lit. 'the turn of the year'; fud ny bleeaney /fud na 'bl'iana/ 'throughout the year'. 1.5.1.1. /ff^stems: Olr. bliad(a)in f. 'year' (cf. also Sect. 1.4.2.) Olr. EModlr. Sg.N bliad(a)in /bTiadinVbliadhain XbTianY G bliadn(a)e XbTiaone/bliadhna XbTiaNa/

Manx blein /bl'&nY, /blidn/ bleeaney/bl'iana/

The Manx ns form blein can also appear in genitival position, esp. in LM: jerrey yn vlein /d'era an vl'emV 'end of the year', where it is treated as a masculine with lenition (cf. Sect. 2.2. below) here of the lenit. consonant following the definite article in dependent genitive position. 1.5.1.2. In ./-stems; Olr. suil f. 'eye', muir n. 'sea'. Sg.N G

Olr. suil /su:17 sulo /su.-lo/

EModlr. suil /su:17 suile /su:l'a/

Manx sooill /su:17 sooilley /surl'a/,

sula /su:la/

sula /surla/

sooley /su:la/

The Manx reflex /su:l'i/, probably represents raising after palatalized IX l\ cf. also /ul'a/ 'all* - /uTi/, /dun'a/ 'man' /dun'i/. Sg. N G

Olr. muir /murV moro /moro/ mora /mora/

EModlr. Manx muir /murV, /mir'/ muir /mu:r/ mara /mara/ marrey /ma(:)ra/

76 Originally neuter in Olr. muir in Manx (and ScG) is treated as masculine in n/as; /an mu:r 'mu:r/ 'the great sea, ocean', and as a feminine in gs: /o:r na 'ma(:)r9/ 'edge of the sea'. 1.5.1.3. In r-stems denoting kinship; Olr. math(a)ir f. 'mother' Olr. EModlr. Sg.N math(a)ir /ma:0irV m thair /ma:har'/ m thar /ma:0ar/ m thar /ma:har/ m thara /ma:hara/

Manx moir /ma:r/ mayrey /merra/

Olr. ath(a)ir 'father', brath(a)ir 'brother', siur 'sister' belong also to this class. The Manx gs reflex /me.-ra/ would represent the alternative form /ma:hara/ in EModlr. This had spread by analogy to other nouns of this class in Manx: /e:r/ 'father', gs /e:ra/; /bre:r/ 'brother', gs /bre:ra/; /s'u:r/ 'sister', gs /se:ra/ (with non-palatalized /s/), cf. Olr. gs sethar /seGar/. For Olr. & /a:/ (and 6 /o:/) -> MX έ /e:/ ([ε:3) cf. Broderick 1986:123. 1.5.1.4. In neuter s-stems; Olr. glenn 'valley' Sg.N G D

Olr. glenn XgTeN/ glinne XgTiN'e/ glinn XgTiNY

EModlr. gleann XgTaN/ gleanna XgTaNa/ gleann /gTaN/

Manx glion /glaun/,/lodn/ glionney /gl'ona/ glion /glaun/,/lodn/

The Manx gs reflex /gl'ona/, often attested in place-names: Ballaglionney /barlVgl'ona/ or Ballalonna /ba:lVlona/, /bala'lona/ (with depalatalized /!/) 'glen farm', shows the same heterolitic development as in Middle Irish where the ns form with neutral /N/ (in Manx /n/) was taken into the gs, and the Olr. ds glinn gave way also to glenn and glionn. 1.5.2. Genitive singular in /-i/ Separate gs forms in /-i/ survive in Manx in original masculine nouns of the o-stem type, usually in nominal constructions, e.g. /dun'an Tu:si/ 'bridegroom', lit. 'man of the marriage', ns. /pu:sa/ cf. Modlr. posadh /po:sa/, g. posaidh /po:si/ < Romance sponsare; /tai O:li/ 'cowhouse', lit. 'house of cattle', ns. /οΐβχ/, cf. Modlr.

77 eallach /aLax/, g. eallaigh /aLi/ 'cattle1; /fer 'tos'i/ 'lea- der', lit. man of /at the beginning', ns. /tos'ax/, cf. Modlr. tosach /tosax/, g. tosaigh /tosi/ (with non-palatalized /s/) 'be- ginning'. 1.5.3. Genitive singular in /-αχ/ in lenited velar stems; Olr. caira f. 'sheep' (v. also Sect. 1.4.3.) Sg. N G

Olr. EModlr. Manx caira /kaira/ caora /ke:ra/,/ki:ra/ keyrrey /ke:ra/ c erach /kairax/ caorach /ke:rax/ keyrragh /kerrax/,

The suffix /-αχ/, /-χ/ is usually attached to forms in /-r/, /-rV + V with syncope of V if necessary. In CM it is found in a number of set nominal phrases of the sort that occur regularly: /boxil'a 'ke:rax/ 'shepherd', lit. 'boy of sheep'; (with definite article) /bleina 'ma(:)x3rax/ 'flower, grass of the field', ns. /πΐα(:)χθΓ/, cf. ScG. machair f. g. mach(a)rach. Olr. machaire, io m, later f. with gs macharach. The feminine genitive form in Manx is rare; it is usually treated as a masculine: /me:s a Va(:)xarax/ 'cattle of the field', with len. after the definite article. Loanwords with r-auslaut may sometimes be treated as lenited stems, viz pooar /pu.T/, g. pooaragh /pu:rax/. Examples of this are rare and seem only to be confined to EM, as in er lau iesh ny poyrygh PB 140 (Mark XIV: 62) */er lau jes' na 'pu:rax/ 'at the right hand of power'. The equivalent in CM is rendered er laue yesh y phooar, with lenition after the definite article, i.e. treated as a masculine. Nouns in Manx with non-r auslaut ma v be similarly treated: /trema Τβνβχ/ 'bed-time', lit. 'time of (the) bed', ns. /l'a:vi/, cf. Modlr. leapa(i) /L'apa/, /L'api/. 1.6. Survival of other case forms in Manx 1.6.1. Original Olr. dative singular as Manx nominative singular A common derivation of many Manx nouns. One example will suffice here; cf. Olr. neuter s-stem tech 'house'.

78 Olr. Sg. NA lech Λ'βχ/ G taige /tay'e/ tige /t'iy'e/ D taig /tayV tig /t'iyY The Olr. forms ds. maig, ns. uw# reflex /tai/ would /thai/, also /thoi/. Survival of the /er'xosV, /er'kosV air chois /er'

EModlr. teach /fax/ tighe /t'i:a/

Manx thie /tai/ thie /tai/

tigh /t'i:/ toigh /ti/

thie /tai/ thie /tai/

in a are probably on the analogy of gs. inaige, 'plain* (cf. THURNEYSEN 1970:216). The Manx represent the Olr. ds., as does ScG. taigh old ds can also occur in nominal phrase, e.g. On foot, up (out of bed)', ns. /kas/, cf. ScG.

1.6.2. Original Olr. accusative/dative, singular for Manx nominative singular Also a common derivation for many substantives in Manx. Two examples will suffice: 1.6.2.1. In Af-stems; Olr. soilse f, 'light* (cf. also 1.3.4.) Olr. EModlr. Manx Sg. Ν soilse /soLVe/ soillse /soLVa/ soilshey /sail's'a/, A soilsi /soL's'i/ soillse /soL's'a/ soilshey /sailVi/ G soilse /soL's'e/ soillse /soL's'a/ soilshey D soilsi /soLVi/ soillse /soL's'a/ soilshey The Manx reflex /sail's'a/ would represent the original ns and /sail's'i/ the original a/ds, unless we are to interpret /i/ as a raising after a palatalized liquid or nasal, cf. /ulW, /dun'a/ in Sect. 1.5.1.2. above. 1.6.2.2. In i-stems; Olr. fiche m. 'twenty* Sg. N A G D

Olr. fiche /fi/e/ fichit /fr/id'/OR fichet /fix'ed/ fichit /Γιχ idV

EModlr. fiche /Γ ΐχ a/ fichead /f i^d/ fichead /fi/ad/ fichid /fi/idV

Manx feed /fidV, /fid/ feed

79 The Manx reflex /fid'/ would represent the Olr. a/ds form, cf. Ir. ScG. fichid, and /fid/ (with non-palatal, /d/) the Olr. gs., cf. Ir. ScG. fichead, unless we regard /fid/ simply as a depalatalized form of /fid'/. 1.6.3. Genitive plurals In original o-, io-, 8-, /5-stems in Goidelic the gen. pi. had the same form as the nom. sg. (cf. Sect. 1.1. above). This survives in Manx nowadays almost exclusively (in original masculine o-stems) in placenames: /t's'uvat na 'ga:V9l/ 'well of the horses', cf. Ir. tobair na gcapall, /sl'u: no 'ga:'ne:n/ 'mountain of the little cairns', cf. Ir. sliabh na gcarnan, with eclipsis (cf. Sect. 2.2.) after the genitive plural of the definite article. A gen. pi. in /- / survives in Manx keyrrey /ke:ra/ 'sheep' in EM, CM. Olr. EModlr. Manx PL N cairig /kair'iy'/ caoirigh /ke:ri/,/ki:ri/ kirree /ki(:)ri/ G cäerach /kairax/ caorach /ke:rax/, *keyrragh /ki:rax/ In Manx it is found under eclipsis, viz /geirax/, in the phrase ayns bwoaillee ny geyrragh /uns 'buli na 'ge:rax/ 'in the sheepfold', lit. 'in the fold of the sheep'.

1.6.4. Dative plural in /-u/ The old dative plural suffix in Olr. common to all declensions, is -(a)ib /iß'/ and probably represents an earlier -ibis, -obis, etc, cf. L. -ibus, Skt. instrumental -bhih (cf. THURNEYSEN 1970:182). It has practically disappeared from Modern Irish/ScG, and in Manx survives in the occasional nominal phrase: /er 'bi:lu/ 'before him', lit. 'at his lips, mouth', ns. /bi:l/f /bial/, cf. Modlr. ar boalaibh /er 'b'e:al9v'/, ns. boal 'mouth'. Olr. final /ß'/ in Modlr. essentially became /v7 or /u/, but in Manx has become vocalized to /u/. Survival of /vV in EM may be recognized in meirif PB., Ir. mairbh /mer'iv'/ 'the dead'. In CM. LM this would appear as meiriu /meru/ (probably with depalatal. /r/), sg. marroo /maru/ 'dead'.

80 1.7. Loss of case forms In CM in nominal constructions where genitival inflection may be expected often a non-genitive form is found: (in o-stems) /pu:ra Ve:s/ 'the power of death*. Here we have MX. baase /be:s/ 'death' with lenition (cf. Sect. 2.2. below) in the gs after the definite article, viz /ve:s/, but not the expected *vaaish /ve:sV, i.e. also with palatalization of the final consonant ( cf. ball, g. baiU in Sect. 1.1.), cf. Modlr. has /ba:s/, g. Mis /ba:s7 'death'. Similarly in /le:an '};a:ga/ or /~ka:ga/ 'the day of (the) battle', where in the first example the genitive is marked only by lenition, viz. /^a:g9/, radical /ka:ga/, in the second not marked at all, viz. /ka:g9/, i.e. is morphologically the same as the radical. In addition the genitive marker in /-i/, viz />;a:gi/, /ka:gi/, cf. Modlr. cogadh /koga/, g. cogaidh /kogi/, fails to appear. The Olr. neuter s-stem tlr /t'i:r'/, g. tire (later tiredh; cf. DIL T:187) is found as masculine or feminine in Ir., in CM as feminine in the nominal phrase /kumalti na 't's'i:ra/ 'inhabitants of the country', i.e. gen. /t's'i:ra/ is preceded by the feminine genitive form of the definite article, viz /na/, ns. /t's'i:r/. On the other hand /kum9lti an 't's'i:r/ is also found, i.e. the ns form has supplanted the gen. sg. In LM a noun in the genitive is usually marked only by position: /doraxas 9n 'i:/ 'darkness of the night' as compared with the set nominal phrase /fud n9 'hi:/ 'all through the night', with fern. gen. marking. 1.8. Reduction of the genitival and number forms of the Manx definite article The Manx def. art. sg. yn /an/, fern gs ny /n9/, pi. ny /na/ has also suffered from syncretism in that it is reduced to one single form only : yn (the sg.). 1.8.1. /9n 'ga:u/ 'the smith': /an 'ga:yan/ 'the smiths' earlier /na 'gayan/ The long a in /ga:u/ and /ga:uan/ is secondary; cf. bailey and bainney in 2.1.1.2. below. 1.8.2. /tri: d'en 'de:n'a/: 'three of the men'

earlier /tri: d'ena 'de:n'a/

81

In the last example the genitival function of the earlier plural form 737 has been taken over by yn. 2.1. Simplification of the phoneme system 2.1.1. Lack of contrast between neutral and palatal articulation of consonants 2.1.1.1. In the genitive and plural marking The opposition between neutral and palatal articulation of consonants, in initial position at any rate, is preserved in Manx, even in LM, with perhaps the exception of the labials where it is largely lost (cf. BRODERICK 1986). However, the contrast neutral : palatal is lost in final position where palatalization may have been the only marking of case (gs) and number (n/ap) in orig. masculine o-stems. 2.1.1.1.1. Loss of genitive singular marking N G baase /be:s/ 'death* : baaish /bersV -> baase /be:s/ e.g. /re:da've:s'/ 'dying'., lit. On the road to death' -> /rerda'vers/, not /re:d9've:s'/ with gs marking in /sV; cf. also /pu:ra've:s/ in 1.7. above.

2.1.1.1.2. Loss of nom/acc. pi marking Sg.

cabbyl /ka:bal/

PI.

cabbil

Note the raising of the final syllable before the palatal. /. However, /ka:bol/ also occurs to express the n/ap, and because of the loss of the palatalization rule /C/ -> /CY word finally (in masc. o-stems), the sg. and pi. forms have become homophonous. As a result the suffix plural marker /-an/ has been applied to /karbal/ to distinguish it from the singular, i.e. the loss of allophonic variation has thus led to morphological innovation.

82

2.1.1.2. In the phonemic system The loss of the palatalization rule has not only had consequences for the morphophonemics of Manx described above, but has to an extent changed the phonemic patterning of the Manx consonantal system. For example, the double phonemic contrast /L.N.R/ in Olr., viz. neutral : palatalized, unlenited : lenited: /L:L', 1:1'; N:N', n:n'; R:R', r:r'/ is largely reduced in Manx to a single opposition of neutral : palatalized (in init. pos.) in each of the three, and in LM in L and N, with partial survival in R, viz. /bl'Llj]; nin'Cnj]; r:(Cr'])/. In some cases there is even further reduction to /I, n, r/. The following are given as an example of the simplification of the phoneme system in Manx (Mod.Ir./ScG exx. are given for comparison): /L/

laa 'day /le:/ Ir. la /La:/ Nollick 'Christmas' /nolakV Ir. Nollaig /NoLakY moal 'slow* /mo:l/ Ir. mall /ma:L/

/L'/

Hoar 'book* /l'o:r/ Ir. leabhar /L'aur/ shilley 'sight' /s'il'a / Ir. silleadh /s'iL'a/ keyll 'wood' /kel'/ Ir. coill /koLV

/!/

my laue 'my hand* /ma' le:u/ Ir. mo lämh /ma1 la:u/ bwoalley 'striking' /bula/ Ir. bualadh /buala/ shiaull 'sail' /s'o:l/ Ir. seol /s'o:l/

/!'/

le 'with' /1'e, le/ Ir. le /Ye/ bailey 'town' /ba:l'a, ba:la/ Ir. baile /bal'a/ schoill 'school' /skol', skol/ Ir. scoil /skol'/

/N/

nuy 'nine' /ni:/ Ir. naoi /Ni:/ creeney 'wise' /kri:na/ Ir. crionna /k'r'i:Na/ ayn 'in it' /u:n/ Ir. arm /a:N/

/NY

nhee 'thing1 /n'i:/ Ir. ni /N'i:/ bainney 'milk' /ba:n'a/ Ir. bainne /baN'a/ a win 'river' /aun', aun/ Ir. abhainn /auN'/./awaNV

/n/

zn/ naboonyn 'my neighbours' /ma' na:bunan/ cf. ScG. mo

83

nabuidh /ma1 na: pi/ annym 'soul' /anam/ Ir. anam /anam/ bane 'white' /be:n/ Ir. f>afl /ba:n/ /n7 flee 'will do' /n'i, ni/ ScG ni /n'i:/ (cf. Ir. do-ghnt] bannish 'wedding' /banisV Ir. bainis /ban'is'/ /)/e/n 'year' /bl'e:n', blidn/ Ir. bliadhain /bTian'/ /R/

reayrt View' /re:t/ cf Ir. radharc /rairk/ arragh 'spring' /arax/ Ir earrach baare 'top' /be-.r/ Ir. />rfrr /ba:r/

/R'/

/Ό/Λ 'forearm' /ri:/ Ir. righe /r'i:/ r/o 'frost' /r'o:, ro:/ Ir. reoi/A /r'o:/

/r/

ro/e 'ran' /rei/ ScG. ruith /rui/ arryltagh 'willing' /araltax/ ScG. earaltach /βΓ9ΐΛ,3χ/ mooar 'big' /mu:r, mu:3/ Ir. /ndr /mo:r/

/rV

jbrec/c 'spotted' /brek/ Ir. breac /b'r'ak/ arre/ 'notice' /are/ Ir. a/re /ar'a/ ca;r 'proper' /ke:r/ Ir. cd/r /ko:rV

Neutral consonants, having velar articulation in Irish and Scottish Gaelic, have largely lost this quality in Manx. For the reduction of Olr. /R'>R/ in EModlr. cf. 0 Murchu (1989: U3-U6). 2.2. Loss of initial mutation The main morphophonological pattern of Manx, as with other Insular Celtic languages, is the system of consonant replacement in initial position in nouns, verbs and adjectives. In certain environments the distinctive features which make up certain of the initial consonants or consonant clusters are wholly or partially replaced and the result shares an articulatory position with the radical consonant. Such replacements are systematic and can be predicted for certain environments, e.g. def. art., prep. + art., some poss. particles, some adverbs, one or two numerals, etc. In common with Irish and Scottish Gaelic two forms of initial replacement are discernible in Manx: lenition and nasalization (or

eclipsis). Lenition in Manx essentially spirantizes bilabials, labio-dentals, dentals and velars, while nasalization voices /p, t, k, f/ and eclipses /b, d, g/. The system including palatalized variants for single initial consonants could be sketched as follows: radical /p t t' k' k b d d' g' g m f s s' / len. [f η,χ η,χ' χ χ,η ν y/w γ',] y'.j v 0 h η,χ' ] nas. [b d d' g' g m n n' n' n v ] For consonant clusters (in LM only) radical /tr kw bw mw fw sl snV len. [χτ hw^w w w hw l (n')] (no nas. forms recorded) For exx. cf. Broderick (1986:65). In addition there developed Co] as a modified articulation of /t, d, s/ and Cz, z] of /s, s'/. For exx. cf. Broderick 1986:1. However, associated with the reduction of phonemes and loss of allophonic variation, there occurred also loss of initial mutation, which in LM ceased to have any grammatical or other function, and as meaning could be conveyed without it its failure to appear became more marked in the transition from CM to LM. Some of the first victims included the loss of initial /χ/ and /γ/ (and /χ'/ and /γΎ or /j/) to their radical /k/ and /g/ respectively (cf. also Yn Vible Casherick in the Conclusion below, p.105.). 2.2.1. Loss of lenition

Loss of lenition can be found in the following environments. All lenitable consonants in theory could fall victim, but in the event it is mainly labials and velars which are affected. 2.2.1.1. After def. art. governing an orig. fern, in N/A: /in vedn/ 'the woman* > /in bedn/, (rad. /bedn/) 2.2.1.2. After prep. + art. in dat. sg. /asa Ve:da/ 'in the boat' > /asa 'be:da / (/be:da/) /asa Te.-ba/ 'in the paper' > /asa 'pe:ba/ (/pe:ba/) /ega Ve:ga/ 'at the market' > /ega 'me:ga/ f/me:ga/)

85

2.2.1.3. After poss. part, /ma/ 'my', /da/ 'thy', /a/ 'his' /ma 'jis'ig/ 'my father' > /mo 'd'is'ig/ (/d'is'ig/) 2.2.1.4. After certain numerals, e.g. /de:/ 'two' /de: xid/ 'two hundred' > /de: kid/ (/kid/) /de: wun'a/ 'two men' > /de: dun'a/ (/dun'a/) 2.2.1.5. In adj. after orig. fern. /iris' Vai/ 'good weather' > /iris' mai/ (/mai/) 2.2.1.6. In adj. after qualifying adv. /fi: 'vai/ 'very good' > /fi: 'mai/ (/mai/) 2.2.1.7. In nouns after the prep, /da/ Of /pa:t da 'vi:/ 'some food* > /pa:t da 'bi:/ (/bi:/) 2.2.1.8. In infinitive after /da/ 'to' /da 'hit/ 'to come' > /da 't's'it/ (/t's'it/) /da 'jenu/ 'to do' > /da 'd'enu/ (/d'enu/) 2.2.1.9. In def. noun in dep. genitival position /k'o:n Vrada/ 'Bradda Head' > /k'o-.n 'brada/ /k'ed an 'yau/ 'the smith's trade' > /k'ed an 'ga(:)u/ 2.2.1.10 Def. art. + t to orig. fern. N/A in s/in 'tu:lV 'the eye' > /in 'su:17 (/su:17) As LM began to lose its vitality false lenition also appeared (here in an attributive adj. qualifying an orig. masc. noun: /gila 'beg/ 'a wee lad' > /gila 'veg/. In spite of the above exx. failure of lenition does not occur in secondary forms without base forms: /jinax/ 'would do', cf. Ir. dheineadh, /va:/ 'was', cf. ScG. bha-, /haris'/ Over', cf. Ir. thairis, etc. 2.2.2. Loss of nasalization In LM nasalization is now only found in set phrases or fossilized forms:

86

2.2.2.1. After poss. part /nan/ Our, your, their' /to:s/ 'silence' - /nan 'dors/ 'in their silence' 2.2.2.2. Sometimes after the neg. part /ha/: */krem/ Ί believe' - /ha 'grem/ Ί do not believe' 2.2.2.3. Sometimes after ER 'after1 in the perfect /d'enu/ 'doing' - /e 'n'enu/ 'having done' As with permanent lenition no failure of nasalization occurs in examples showing permanent nasalization: /vel/ 'is, exists' (dep. pres. of TA), cf. Ir. bhfuil /ma'git/ 'around', cf. Ir. mun gcuairt /mar'gedan/ 'also' cf. Ir. mar an gcoadna 2.2.3. Loss of final mutation Final mutation in Manx manifested itself as palatalization of dentals, nasals and laterals to indicate attenuated plural forms (of the o-stem type): /ket/ 'cat' pi. /ketV /bod/ 'penis' /bwidV /je:n/ 'lamb* /je:n'/ /s'o:l/ 'sail' /soil'/ /ka:bal/ 'horse /ka:bi!7; cf. above Sect. 1.4.13., 2.1.1.1.2. However, as the palat. element became indistinct (possibly due to contact with English where final /nV and /Γ/ at any rate are not found), so did the distinction between sg. and pi., thus giving rise to suffix pi. forms: /ketan/, /bodan/, /ka:balan/, etc. 3. English influence This has occurred in LM in a variety of ways:

87 3.1. Substitution of English for native words The initials and numbers refer to the respective speakers and pages in Broderick 1984 I. cur lesh luck mie : aigh /e:x/, sonnys /son9s/ /kur 1'es' luk 'mai/ HK 328 'bringing good luck' aigh, originally treated as a fern., is found in the Abschiedsgru aigh vie /β:χ 'vai/ 'good luck', and because of this association the English loan was likely introduced to express 'luck' in other contexts. Sonnys 'luck' also has the meaning of 'abundance, saiety', which would not be the sense required here. Mixed Manx Normal Manx v'ad geam each elley : v'ad geam da cheilley /vad g'ebm lit's' 'ela/ (sic) JK 254 /vad 'g'ebm de Verb/ 'they would be calling to each other' v'eh feer fond jeh Ihune /ve fi:a 'fond d'e ludn/ NM 348 'he was very fond of ale'

: v'eh currit da'n Ihune /ve kurit' den 1'udn/ 'he was given to ale'

lesh yn Hail /1'es'an' fle:l/ JK 244 'with the flail'

: soost /su:s/ lesh yn soost /Yes an 'su:s/

but shen va shin geddyn : agh /αχ/ (conjunction) /but 's'en vas'in 'g'edn'/ JK 234 agh shen va shin geddyn 'but that's what we were getting /βχ 's'en vas'in 'g'edn'/ 3.2. 'Manxification' of English loanwords In some cases loans into Manx have to an extent become 'manxified', in that they have been fitted into the morphology, phonology, etc: tessyn ny ridgeyn : immyryn /imaran/ (pi.) /tesan na 'rid'an/ TC 190 tessyn ny immyryn 'across the ridges/furrows' /tesan na 'himaran/ (application of suffix pi. -yn]

daa vlister vooar .· bolgan /bolgan/ /de: vlistar Vu:o/ JK 248 daa volgan vooar 'two large blisters' /de: volgan Vu:r/ (application of lenition and number rules, i.e. /de:/ occasions lenition in and the sg. of the following noun) 3.3. Adaptation of English syntax and caiques v'ad coamrit ayns jiarg : va eaddagh jiarg orroo /vad komrit' uns d'erg/ TC 168 /va edax 'd'erg oru/ 'they were dressed in reef 'there was red clothing on them' 'wear* is normally expressed by a prepositional phrase with ER On', coamrit usually describes the manner in which one is dressed, e.g. /ve komrit' goris' bod 'gonax/ 'he was fancilly dressed', lit. 'he was dressed like a sore prick'. daa deiney /de: de:n'a/ HB 274 : daa ghooinney /de: wun'a/ 'two men' (for /de:/ + len. + sg. form v.3.2. above). va'n margey ooilley harrish : ... ec kione /ek k'o:n/ /van me:g9 ul'u herisV JK 252 'at an end' OR 'the fair was all over /va k'o:n kurit'era Ve:ga/ lit. 'an end was put on the fair'. (Again a prep, phrase with ER On'). ta shin laccal laa jeh /tas'an la:l la: d'e:/ JK 230 'we are wanting a day off

: ... laa seyr /la:'se:r/ 'a free day',

ny schoillaryn Airt Chiarn : 0 schoillaryn Phurt Ghiarn /na skolaran po:rt'a:rn/ HK 326 'the pupils of/at Port Erin' In phrases containing a definite dependent genitive no preceding def. art. is felt to be necessary. Though this is sometimes found in Old Irish and later its deletion became the general rule for all

89

branches of Gaelic. Its reintroduction is therefore likely to be due to contact with English where a preceding def. art. in such cases would be required. 3.4. English terminations on native words brasnags 'faggots'

: brasnagyn /bra:snag9n/

3.5. Confusion of idiom and other factors v'ee feer cross er ny paitchyn : corree rish 'angry with' /vei fi:a 'krors er no pet'an/ TC 184 'she was very cross with (lit. on) the children' Here the idiom corree rish has been confused with a similar idiom using ER, viz. ta corree er 'he is angry* lit. 'there is anger on him*. ere t'ou laccal aynshoh...? Reue shiu ass shoh! /kre: teu la:l uns'o: ? reus'u as's'o:/ TC 186 'what do you (sg.) want here? Get ye out of here!' : Fow royd ass shoh! /feu'rord as's'o:/ 'get you (sg.) out of here!' Here the use of the sg. imp. (informal) has been used in combination with the pi. (formal) for the same person. This mixture is common in LM. 3.6. Substantive verb for copula Briefly expressions of equation in Gaelic normally require the copula, e.g. 'he is an Irishman* (Ir.) is oireannach ό lit. 'is an Irishman he'; 'he is the doctor* (Ir.) is έ an dochtur e lit. 'is he the doctor he'. In Manx 'we are Manxmen' would be is/she Manninee shinyn lit. 'is/is it Manxmen we (emph. pn.)' or she Manninee ta shin lit. 'is it Manxmen which we are (with rel. constr.); 'he is the doctor* would be eshyn yn fer-Ihee lit. 'he (emph.) the doctor' (with zero copula).

90

To indicate a present state of affairs or function, e.g. a job, the indefinite form can also be expressed in Manx with TA + nn/pn + IN plus poss. part, coalesced + predicate, so ta shin nyn Manninee lit. 'we are/exist in our Manxmen'; ta shin nyn vir-lhee 'we are doctors', lit. 'we are in our doctors'. Depending on the poss. particle used is whether len. or nas. is occasioned in the following predicate. However, particularly in Manx, the substantive verb has since the eighteenth century become more and more pervasive in such constructions, and probably due to the falling out of the prep./poss.part. element because unstressed the following can appear: tra va shinyn pohnaryn beg 'when we were small children' Are: ve s'irpn p&n'aran 'beg/ HK 326 :tra va shinyn nyn Aohnaryn begCgey] lit. 'when we were in our small children' (with nas. after nyn (1/2/3 pi.)) v'eh ooilley Gaelg v'ad taggloo : she ooilley Gaelg v'ad taggloo /vi ul'u gilg vad'ta:lu/ NM 97 /s'e: ul'u gilg vad 'ta:lu/ 'it was all Manx (which) they were talking' In cleft sentences such as the above the substantive verb regularly replaces the function of the copula in expressing emphasis. Here the past tense of VE 'being' + 3 sg. m. pn. replaces the present of the copula IS + 3 sg. m. pn. viz. /s'e:/. The present of the copula functions for all tenses. The separate past/past conditional form by /ba/ (occasioning lenition) appears only in set idioms (cf. BRODERICK 1984 I: 96-97). ta shoh yn chabbal :shoh yn chabbal /s'o: an t's'abal/ /ta s'o: an t's'abal/ JK248 'this is the chapel' The copula is not used before demonstratives. For exx. cf. Broderick 1984 1:93-97. A fuller description of the linguistic decline of Manx is to appear in a forthcoming book on language death in the Isle of Man.

91

B. The Socio-Linguistic Situation of Manx The arrival of Goidelic, or Gaelic, speech in Man seems to have taken place ca. 500 AD,1 and it eventually ousted a British language apparently spoken there.2 The early history of Goidelic in Man is obscure, but it survived four centuries of Scandinavian presence (9th cent, to 1266).3 From 1289 to 1334 Man was contended for in Scottish-English rivalries, and from 1334 to 1405 it was the property of several Anglo-Norman magnates who retained the title "King of Man". From 1405 to 1736 Man found itself in the possession of the Stanley lords of Knowsley (near Liverpool), after 1485 "Earls of Derby" and from 1521 (if not before) styled "Lords of Man". From 1736 to 1765 Man was in the hands of the anglicized Dukes of Athol.4 Though there is likely to have been a bardic tradition in Man5 supported by a native Gaelic speaking aristocracy before and during the existence of the Manx kingdom of the Isles (ca.950-1266), this is unlikely to have continued under a non-Gaelic speaking hierarchy from the beginning of the 14th century, if not before. Though the language of administration from that time would also have been non-Gaelic, it was nevertheless found necessary, for example, for Bishop John Phillips (1604-1633) to translate the Anglican Book of Common Prayer into Manx, ca.1610 (cf. MOORE & RHYS 1895) and for Bible translations (published 1748-75; last edition of complete Bible 1819. of NT 1825) and a Manx version of the Prayer Book (last published 1842) to be made. These facts make it clear that up until the latter date at least the bulk of the ordinary Manx people spoke Manx, or at any rate felt more at home in that language. The earliest reference, so far as is known, to a Gaelic language in Man, occurs in Gamden 1586: Incolae tarnen, & lingua & moribus ad Hibernicos proxime accedunt, ita autem ut Norwagicum quiddam admisceatur (CAMDEN 1586: s.v. "Yle of Man") In giving the various names which Man was/is known by Gamden has: [...IMenaw Britannis, incolis Maning (G. Manamn] [...]

92

This was confirmed in statements made in 1611 (by Speed), in 1656 (Chaloner), in 1663 (Barrow), in 1695 (Gibson), and in 1702 (Sacheverell)6, though Gibson also claimed that: not only the Gentry, but likewise such of the Peasants as live in the towns, or frequent the town markets, do both understand and speak the English language (GIBSON 7 1695:coU064). Tliis comment, however, has to be seen in context. At that time the population of the Island was no more than ca. 14,000, the four towns (in 1726) being thus populated: Castletown (capital till 1869) 785, Douglas 810, Peel 475, Ramsey 4608. The gentry were also able to understand and speak Manx, as Gibson admits.9 The language of government and law (English) would not have affected the everyday lives of the ordinary people at that time.

1. The first measures of Anglicization The first determined effort, so far as we know, to bring in English in a systematic way to the ordinary Manx people was made by Bishop Isaac Barrow (1663-1671). Barrow's appointment in that year followed the restoration of the Stanley lordship after the collapse of the "Commonwealth". Cromwell's forces, it will be remembered, were introduced into Man in 1651 (though it is known they would have come anyway) through the agency of William Christian ("Illiam Dhone"), Receiver-General and head of the Manx militia, as an act of "rebellion" against the then Earl of Derby.10 As his supporters were the ordinary Manx people who spoke Manx, that language was therefore regarded by Derby and his supporters as identifiable with rebellion and its speakers looked on with suspicion. In addition, as the state of the Church (of England) in Man was considered by Barrow as leaving a lot to be desired,11 the introduction of English was to form part of his "improvement scheme". He had apparently found on his arrival that the Manx clergy (almost all native Manx) extemporized from the English versions of the scriptures before their Manx congregations, and considered that a lack of knowledge of English among the Manx populace was preventing an adequate understanding and

93

appreciation of the scriptures. There was, however, Phillips' translation of the Prayer Book (ca.1610; cf. above), but which was evidently unknown to Barrow.12 Instead of providing the scriptures in Manx (through which the people would have understood them better) Barrow, in line with the thinking of his time, resolved to foist English on the Manx population through a parish school system.13 The scheme met with limited success, until it was revamped by Bishop Thomas Wilson (1698-1755) at the start of the 18th century. Wilson's policy, pursued with vigour, of enjoining all Manx parents under penalty of fines to send their children to school to learn English formed part of his greater scheme of creating a theocratic state. Inevitably the Church under Wilson came into conflict with the civil power in Man, and in 1722 Wilson and his two Vicars-General were committed to prison at Castle Rushen. The supremacy of the State over the Church resulted in the decline of Wilson's education system, and by 1736 it was in virtual collapse.14

2. The translation of the Bible into Manx In spite of Wilson's pro English language stance, he nevertheless realized that the scriptures would have to be made available in Manx simply because the bulk of the people (in Wilson's view more than two thirds)15 could not understand English. In 1707 he had printed bilingually his Principles and Duties of Christianity, known in Manx as Coyrle Sodjey ('further advice') and during their sojourn in jail Wilson and his Vicars-General set about organizing the translation into Manx of St. Matthew's Gospel. This translation is credited to Dr. William Walker, one of the Vicars-General and a Manxman (d.1729), but it came into print only in 1748 (by John Oliver, London, printer to the SPCK) at Wilson's expense. Wilson also encouraged the translation of the Anglican Prayer Book into Manx which came out in 1765 (THOMSON 1979: ii). However, it is due to his successor Bishop Mark Hildesley (1755-1772), also an Englishman, that we owe the main drive to having the full Bible translated into Manx and published 1767-73.16 The advent of Methodism into Man at that time also promoted the use of Manx as a medium of converting

the people, and in this way, in spite of contradictory comments on the Manx language by Wesley himself,17 gained considerable ground from the established Anglican Church. The Methodists also actively supported the old Manx tradition of the Oie'll Voirrey (/itl'vura/; Anglo-Manx /i:l'veri/) at which carvals (comprising an extensive corpus of some 20-25,000 lines of original Manx verse, mostly on religious themes, arranged in a series of songs averaging some 35 stanzas in length) would be sung, initially in the parish churches, then (in the course of the 19th century) in the Methodist chapels on St. Mary's Eve (Oie'll Voirrey) or Christmas Eve,18 Methodism discouraged the secular song tradition, however.

2.1 The school as an anglicizing factor After the virtual collapse of Wilson's "cure" (as his education proposals were termed) for the Manx (CLAMP 1988c:198) English schooling in Man thereafter was never set on a firm footing till Man came fully within the English education ambit in 1858. In 1872 the Manx authorities adopted the English Elementary Education Act of 1870 which provided for compulsory schooling (in English) from 5-13 years. The Manx Act made no provision for the Manx language, but by that time Manx was in an advanced state of demise and any hostile intent towards Manx abetted by the 1872 Act was in reality ineffectual.19 2.2 Trade, migrations, language shift

mining and tourism causes of

The decline of Manx results not so much from rigorous action against it from within, but from a changing set of circumstances emanating from without. Until the mid-18th century Man had little contact with the outside world. Given its small population and resources external trade and contact could hardly have been all that great anyway, and English was therefore unnecessary to people outside the small towns, where it was spoken alongside Manx without displacing it (cf. above). There was little incentive or

95

reason for outsiders to come to Man, and so everyday contact between town and country areas was therefore important and Manx would need to be used. The impetus in the direction of English came about the early/mid-18th century largely as a result of an activity many Manx people profitted from - "smuggling"! Because of restrictive English (British from 1707) trading practices Manx seamen reacted by adopting smuggling into England, Scotland and Ireland of such commodities as wines, spirits, tea, tobacco, obtained principally from France, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Sweden, as a major industry. The practice was not smugglinginto Man, but out of it, since duty on the above items was paid in Man at the (low) Manx rate. However, the "running trade", or the "trade", as it was known, also attracted English and Scottish merchants to the Island and stimulated the Manx ports, particularly Douglas, and with it brought new ideas, capital, and an increase in the use of English. In 1765 the British Government stepped in and through an Act of Revestment20 transferred sovereignty to the British Grown and attempted to suppress "smuggling" by direct rule.21 This meant in effect that the Island's finances were controlled by the British; they paid the costs of Man's administration and kept the rest in London. A direct result of this was an onset of poverty through loss of earnings from the "trade" and the ensuing depression resulted in emigration, for which Manx was useless, and the administration of direct rule enhanced the status of English. The contacts with the outside world, particularly during the latter period of the "trade" (about 100 years) and the depression that followed Revestment caused Manxmen to widen their perspective (CARLISLE 1813:11; 22 CAMPBELL 1885-6:177; HINDLEY 1984:18). In addition, during the course of the 19th century a number of changes and developments militated against Manx. First, immigration into the island from north-west England from ca.1790-ca.18U (MOORE 1900:575) of people on low fixed incomes. The settlement was not restricted to the towns. In the north of the Island there was significant settlement from southern Scotland (CAMPBELL 1885-6:177). This immigration, especially in the towns, formed the basis of the Manx (Methodist) bourgeoisie. Second, a second period of depression, this time after the Napoleonic Wars, but especially from 1825-1837, resulted in mass migration, particularly from northern and western areas to

96

Liverpool, Manchester, but mostly to America (MOORE 1900:930-31; BIRCH 1964:20, 79). Additional "peaks" in emigration occurred also in the 1830s due to a depression in the fishing, a vital industry for local labour, in the 1840s (potato famine), and in the 1860s resulting from commonland reorganization which would have affected many squatter-farmers (BIRCH 1964:79-80, 119, 136-7; HINDLEY 1984:29). Third, the first "modern" roads of 1750-1800 brought closer links between town and country areas. Fourth, the establishment of regular steamer services, especially from 1833 (when the Isle of Man Steam Packet Co. was founded) between Man and Liverpool. Fifth, following on from the foregoing, the advent of the tourist industry. From 1830-50 there were ca.20-30,000 visitors a year when the Island's population was ca.40-50,000. By 1870 or thereabouts the number of visitors rose to ca.60,000 per year, and by the 1890s over 250,000 per year. Though most would find entertainment (then as now) in and around Douglas, the building of the steam and electric railways (between 1873 and 1898), facilitated access to remoter areas. The penetration of the innermost parts of the Island by visitors and the immigration of additional personnel to service the tourist industry meant that a knowledge of English was essential everywhere, i.e. during the 3-4 months (June-September) of the tourist season, but that in itself did not make Manx redundant. Sixth, the transformation of the rural economy by improved agricultural methods and ideas from outside, and by the opportunities of an expanded market due to tourism. Seventh, the expansion of the mining industry at Laxey and Foxdale (ca.1870) and the importation of labour, especially from Cornwall, to service that industry. The localization of mining, essentially in those two areas, would not have contributed much to the decline of Manx outside those areas, nor would the fishing industry have done (also in full swing at that time), staffed as it was by a local Manx labour force. The serious decline to both these industries by 1890, however, and the resultant emigration would have had little linguistic impact, as Manx by then had receded considerably. Eighth, the onset of the 20th century and the increase in internal and external mobility (HINDLEY 1984:30-31).

97

2.3 Comments made on the position of Manx In spite of the above developments Manx did not disappear overnight.23 A cursory glance at Manx newspapers (in English)24 for the earlier part of the 19th century makes interesting reading: MANKS ADVERTISER 10.01.1822: Letter to the editor in support of a resolution by the then bishop (George Murray) not: to admit in future any candidate for the Manks Church, even to Deacon's orders, before he has acquired a complete knowledge of the Manks language [...KbecauselC...] the Manks language, owing to a certain peculiarity belonging to itself, is perfectly understood by the most 25 ordinary capacity to be found in an assembly of Manksmen. The same paper for 11.04.1837 also carries details of a "Bill to prevent the Introduction of Clergymen who are not fully conversant with the Manx language to Parish livings within this Island". MANKS ADVERTISER 06.06.-04.07.1822: Heated correspondence for and against the retention of Manx. An example of the hostility towards Manx even then is given in full in Appendix A. MANKS ADVERTISER 25.07.1822: Notice of a speech delivered by Rev. Hugh Stowell (the elder 1768-1835) at the annual meeting of the Peel Ladies' Bible Assoc. on the need for more Bibles in Manx. MANKS ADVER SER 01.01.1824: English and Manx text of a bill for the commutation of tithes. The editorial (p.3) gives as the reason for printing the Manx text: that they [the Manx speaking population] may the more comprehend the purport of them [the proposals]. It is a remarkable fact, that although the Manks dialect or Gailc is gradually falling into disuse, the generality of the people continue to speak it, and love to hear it - more particularly when it concerns their more intimate interest.26 MANKS ADVERTISER 01.01.1833 (also in MANX SUN 01.01.1833): Letter from Rev. Robert Brown of Kirk Braddan, that as he could not recollect during his time in Douglas that a sick person whom he visited could not converse with him in English.

98

He does not consider a knowledge of Manx absolutely necessary for a minister at St. Barnabas's (Douglas), provided he prevails on neighbouring clergymen to perform the Manx services for him (as he did at St. Matthew's) or employs a "pious young man" in the capacity of a curate for this purpose. MANX SUN 06.08.1842: A long letter questioning the assumption that English is understood and spoken by the rural population at large. Emphasises the need for Manx in church services. Regarding the practicalities of having Manx for business purposes the writer adds: It is well known, that in the principle shops in Douglas it is found absolutely necessary to employ a person conversant with the Manx language to transact business with country customers, and I have lately heard a Douglas tradesman declare that one half of the people resorting on Saturdays to the shop, in which he serves, were unable to ask for what they wanted in English (MANX SUN 06.08.1842).27 MANX SUN 21.06.1845: A long letter advocating the appointment to the vacancy at Lezayre of a person competent in Manx "L...]as it is a fact that two thirds of the parishioners cannot benefit from the religious services performed in any other language than Manx". Interesting also are two letters on this subject from Bishop W.A. Shirley of Sodor and Manx (1847 only), an Englishman, from his seat at Bishop's Court: a) to his son 05.02.1847 [...]You will understand one feature of this responsibility, when I tell you that though I am patron of only four vicarages, these livings, with some chapelries recently constituted in my gift, comprise more than half the population of the island, and have not an aggregate income of one thousand pounds per annum; besides which I have the additional difficulty that the Manx language is required in most of them, which limits my choice to men who, for the most part, are behind the English in vigour, education, habits of business, and even piety and their moral standard (HILL 1849:463).

99

b) to his parents 18.02.1847 C...]The Manx papers amuse me now and then with letters from correspondents about what Bishop Shirley ought to be made acquainted with, and how he ought to act. The great point of discussion is whether Manx-speaking clergymen are to be exclusively appointed to livings. I have appointed one to a vacant vicarage; but they are a heavy set, and will soon be exhausted, for their children do not understand Manx. I am glad to hear that the children in the streets play in English. The Manx is a language without a literature, except the Bible and Prayer-book lately translated, and as far as I can make out, has neither dictionary nor grammar deserving of the name. It is an unmitigated portion of the curse of Babel. I will send you a Manx paper - it is sad stuff (HILL 1849:476). (Shirley had obviously not seen, or had not thought much of, Cregeen's Dictionary (1835) or Kelly's Grammar (1804). The towns are probably meant re the use of English by children on the streets).

3. Surveys and census enumerations concerning Manx Though Ravenstein (1879:591-92) dates the decline of Manx from the beginning of the 19th century, the first survey giving a reliable general assessment of the position of Manx was made by Henry Jenner in November 1874, published in 1875. The survey consists of a series of questions directed at the Anglican clergy in all 17 parishes (exclusive of Douglas) as to the numbers of people who spoke Manx and/or English and the necessity or otherwise of Manx for church services. Though in some cases the clergy could not give accurate details for their parish (either because the living was vacant, or for whatever reason), nevertheless Jenner was able to show that the "strongest" areas where, according to his figures, Manx was habitually spoken were (in the North) the parishes of Bride, Lezayre and Jurby, and (in the South) in Arbory. According to his figures, out of a total population of 41,084 for all the parishes 12,340 spoke Manx habitually and 190 spoke no English at all. With the exception of Kirk Arbory, where the language (for

100

church work) was "indispensible", Manx for the others was considered at the most "useful". With regard to the children Jenner comes to the following conclusions: "English and Manx" (Michael, Maughold, Arbory), "English and a little Manx" (Bride, Jurby, Andreas). "English only" (the remaining 11 parishes)(JENNER 1875:23)/8 However, as is known from the last native speakers and their birthplaces (cf. Map 4 ), scattered families continued to speak Manx. In addition Jenner printed the following comments: From the Rector of Kirk Andreas: Children pick up a little Manx when they leave school. Old people, so to speak, "dream in Manx". Servants like to keep it up as a class language not understood by their masters. From the Vicar of Kirk Arbory: Dissenters (?Methodists) make considerable way owing to the neglect of Manx by the [Anglican] Church. From the Vicar of Kirk Lonan: Manx is preferred by the country people (in parochial ministrations), as they can understand every word, which they cannot in English. From the Vicar of St. George's, Douglas: In country parishes one finds three generations in one cottage. The old speaking Manx only, the middle Manx and English, and the children English only (JENNER 1875:24). In April 1875 Jenner, according to his own account (p.25), visited Man himself and attended a Manx service at Kirk Arbory held on the fourth Sunday after Easter. Although the congregation joined in the service "very heartily", he noticed after the service that "such of the congregation as remained talking together in the churchyard and near it, almost always spoke in English. Indeed I heard but little Manx talked during my stay in the Island, excepting when done for my edification, though the English of many of the old people showed plainly that they must be more at home in Manx". The Rev. Wm. Drury of Kirk Braddan told Jenner (p.25) that he sometimes used Manx in his sermons "to clinch the matter" (as Drury put it) for the benefit of the older people. Jenner adds: During the whole of my tour I only met with one person who could not speak English, though I went into a good many Manx cottages on various pretexts of resting, asking the way, etc, so as to find some 29 such person [who had Manx] if possible (JENNER 1875:26).

101

In conclusion Jenner writes: From the shape and situation of the Island, the phenomenon of a gradual receding of the boundary line between the two languages, so clearly to be seen in the case of Cornish, Welsh, or Scotch, is totally absent in Manx. One cannot speak of any district as the Manx speaking part of the Island, though it prevails in some districts more than others, and those furthest from the four towns of Douglas, Ramsey, Peel and Castletown have preserved more of it than the rest. Still there is but little difference on that account, since no place in the Island is more than ten or twelve miles at the most from one or other of these towns. On the whole the "Manxest" parts of the Isle are Dalby, a hamlet in the parish of Kirk Patrick, Cregneash and the neighbourhood of Spanish Head in Kirk [Christ] Rushen, the parish of Kirk Bride and the north part of Kirk Andreas, and the hill country at about the junction30 of the three parishes of Lezayre, Maughold and Lonan. If there ever comes to be such a thing as a single Manx district, it will probably be the west coast from Peel to Spanish Head. [..Jbut there is a decided feeling on the part of the people, especially the Manx speakers themselves, that the language is only an obstruction, and that the sooner it is removed the better (JENNER 1875:26-27). Rh^s, during his visits to Man 1886-1893, painted a similar picture, but added that he had only come into contact with one all-Manx speaking family in Cregneash, where the woman "was an octogenarian who had two sons living with her, together with a granddaughter in her teens. That girl was the only Manx speaking child that I recollect meeting with in the whole Island". He was also of the opinion that "in ten or fifteen years the speakers of Manx Gaelic may come to be counted on the fingers of one hand" (RHYS 1895:ix).31

102

3.1. Census enumerations The first census enumeration in Man taking into account the Manx language was that of 1901. Subsequent enumerations including this category were made in 1911, 1921, 1931, 1951, 1961, 1971. The 1981 census ignored the matter; by that time no native speakers of Manx existed (cf. below). The figures are as follows: Year

Total popul.

Manx only

Manx/ Eng.

Total Speakers

1871/74 1901 1911 1921 1931 1951 1961 1971 Source:

54042 54752 52016 60284* 49308 55253 48133 54581

190 59 31 19 ---

12340 4598 2351 896 529 355 165 284

13530 4657 2382 915 529 355 165 284

% of total population 25.04 8.51 4.58 1.52 1.07 0,64 0.34 0.52

1. For 1871-1971 official census. For 1911 figures for Manx speakers unofficially published in Mannin 2 (Nov. 1913):80. 2. For 1874 Jenner (1875:23). »Census taken in June; figures also include visitors.

Census figures of Manx speakers according to age

1901 1911 Age group MX ME MX ME 59: 4598 31:2351 All ages — 3-4: 1: 5 5-9: - 27 2: 6 — 6: 11 10-14: 7: 105 9: 51 15-24: 28: 631 4: 179 25-44: 21: 2167 7: 868 45-64: 65+ 3: 1668 1:1230 1 1 Not stated

1921 MX ME 19: 896 —. — —! 7 — . 11 3: 5:

35 67

5: 232 6: 544

1931 M ME - 529 - — - 4 - — - 24 - 58 - 140 - 303

1951 M ME - 355 1 5 - 15 - 42 - 72 - 124 - 96

1961 1971 M ME M ME - 165 - 284 5 - — 56 - 10 8 9 - 31 - 37 - 76 - 57 - 109 - 42 - 54

Source: official census. Mx/M=Manx only; ME=Manx & English.

103

Comments 1. Hie number of 59 for the monoglols in the 1901 census, being made up of 57 males and 2 females, may represent some inconsistency on the part of the enumerator, as the censor for 1921 remarks (CENSUS 1921: xv), though the total figure in itself would not be out of proportion with the 190 recorded by Jenner only 27 years before. That Jenner and Rhys met with very few monoglots does not mean that they did not exist (cf. note 29). However, from the figures of 28 and 21 for monoglots in the age-groups 25-44 and 45-64 respectively, particularly for the former, one would have expected greater figures for this age range well into the 1920s and 1930s, if not later. The fact that such figures do not appear would indicate an exaggeration in the relevant 1901 figures, and perhaps we should read something between 7 and 3 for the two groups respectively. 2. The figure of 27 in 1901 for bilingual speakers for the age-groups 3-4, 5-9, 10-14 is suspect, given the fact that the ages of the last native speakers (cf. below) indicate a date of birth between 1860 and 1880, and should either be discounted or drastically reduced. The appearance of such doubtful figures in the 1901 census (and in 1911 for monoglots in the same age range) may be due to the revival in interest in the Manx language promoted by Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh 'The Manx Language Society', founded in 1899 on the model of Conradh na Gaeilge "The Gaelic League', set up in Ireland a short while before.32 3. The sharp decrease in the number of bilinguals between 1901 and 1921/31 would suggest that the language was not being passed on to the children, because the people were not speaking it anymore.33 As Jenner's comments show (cf. above) Manx lingered on in some areas more than in others, but seems to have passed on as a community language around the turn of the century. According to local knowledge Cregneash, probably because of its isolation, was the last bastion of Manx as a community language, passing from there around the time of the First World War. 4. In 1929 Marstrander could only find some 40 people with any Manx at all, though in an island of the size of Man, it would not be too difficult to miss out on potential informants.34 His comments in 1934 that "as far as I know, there is at present only one person left who could probably be described as a native

104

speaker [Harry Kelly, Gregneash (1853-1935)]", though some 3-4 others had good Manx and about 30 others smatterings (MARSTRANDER 1934:292; cf. also 1929/33:74-75) was quite inaccurate as shown by Charles W. Loch in 1946.35 In April of that year Loch visited Man and interviewed some twenty Manx language enthusiasts from whom he was able to produce a list of twenty persons who were regarded as native speakers, i.e. people whose first language was Manx, or who had acquired Manx in early childhood.36 This list was published by A.S.B. Davies in 1948 (DAVIES 1948:89-91). In 1950 this number had decreased to ten and by 1955 to seven (JACKSON 1955:2-3). By the time of the 1961 census only two known native speakers were still alive: Mrs Sage Kinvig, Ronague, Arbory (b.1870) and Ned Maddrell, Glen Chiass, Port St. Mary (b.1877). Mrs Kinvig died on 13 April 1962.37 5. Loch (1946:4) noted that in 1946 there were four classes held in various parts of Man for learners of Manx, which probably accounts for the figure of 355 (including the known native speakers) in the 1951 census. The same would apply to the figures for 1961 and 1971, i.e. that the adults had acquired it in classes (or from native speakers) in their adult life, and the children either from them or at school, where, depending on the availability of a competent teacher, they may learn Manx in some form or other. In any event English would be their first language. To my knowledge, there is no one in Man today (1990), or since 1972 for that matter (cf. note 32), who regularly uses Manx at home or at work, and in consequence no Manx speaking family at all exists at present in the Island. 4. Conclusion The decline and death of Manx could be summarized as follows: after the passing of Man into the English orbit in 1334, but especially after 1405, English began to establish itself as the language of administration and law, and of the towns, where it existed alongside Manx without displacing it. Because of the Island's isolation and because of the necessity of the few English settlers for their sustenance to cultivate the goodwill of the Manx

105

people, the small world in which Manx existed was thus protected. In line with the trend in Western IE languages from synthesis to analysis Manx progressed in that direction more so than her sister dialects in Ireland and Scotland probably due to the absence, almost certainly from the beginning of the Uth century at the latest, of a literary Gaelic tradition and standard. As we have seen, Manx lost the capacity, for example, to express the plural either due to apocope or to loss of the palatalization rule, resulting in phonemic indistinction, and resorted to morphological innovation for clarity (Sect. 1-3). Phonemic indistinction resulting from loss of palato-velar contrast also affected clarity in case marking (1.2.) which in turn, with the exception of some set adverbial phrases and compounds involving a verbal noun (1.4-7) and in survivals of attenuated plurals (2.2.3.), blurred the distinction in gender marking. (Sect. 1). Loss of allophonic variation manifested itself also in the loss of lenition and the collapse of the rules governing it (2.2.1.). It affected labial and velar spirants. One of the first casualties evidently were the velar spirants /χ/ (< /k/) and /γ/ (< /g, d/). The loss of initial /χ/, for instance, is recognized in Manx orthography even in the 18th century (1771) in the title of the Holy Bible itself: Yn Vible Casherick, where the initial c of casherick would represent /k/ and not the expected /χ/, written ch. The lack of recognition of /χ/ in the title of a book of this nature would suggest that even by that date (1771) the contrast /x/:/k/ (and probably /γ/: /g, d/) in initial position at any rate had largely disappeared. The protected world of Manx became more and more exposed to English from ca. 1700 onwards due to a changing set of circumstances brought on essentially by the "running trade". Participation in the "trade" led to Revestment leading in turn to an impoverishment in the Island which resulted in emigration of Manx-men (and others) in the latter part of the 18th century. Simultaneous immigration of English speakers ca. 1800-1820 and further emigration from the Manx heartland during the course of the 19th century began to tilt the balance (ca. 1840-1880) in favour of English.. The advent of and increase in tourism and a more organized system of education imported from England during those years hastened this trend, so that those born to Manx households ca.

106

1860-1880 became the last generation to receive Manx from the cradle. Tlie shift away from Manx towards English is reflected in the Manx-English contact situation in which the latter comes to have an increasing influence on Manx, e.g. substitution of English for native words (3.1.), adaptation of English syntax and caiques (3.3.), English suffixes on native words (3.4.), etc, mostly, it seems, during the course of the 19th century. Nevertheless, Manx had an enormous capacity to absorb foreign elements into its phonological and morphological systems (3.2. and THOMSON, this volume), and it was able to sustain an effective Abwehrkampf, in spite of heavy pressure from English, to the end. Even the numeric system of Manx, counting as it does by twenties: /[ta mi] k'e:9 fid as kweg d'eg sonan dunax/ '(I am) 95 on Sunday, lit. '...four twenties and fifteen...' (Ned Maddrell 18.08.1972, so far as is known the last academic interview before his death (27.12.1974)), unlike Scottish Gaelic, for example, where numbers are often given in English: Ί am 92 years of age' > /hami ninety two bl'iaNa 'yuLsV - is kept intact to the last. The passing of Manx as a community language took place ca.1870/80-1900/10, with the last native speakers living through the 1920s to the 1950s, decreasing in number gradually towards the end, and resulting in the death of the last native speaker on 27 December 1974.38 Footnotes 1

An early testimony for this is the bilingual Ogam (Goidelic) and Latin Knock-y-Doonee Stone (QIC 500; Andreas 9:5(-) end of 5th/first quarter of 6th cent. AD). The Latin inscription indicates the probable presence of British speech in Man at that time (cf. JACKSON 1953:173). The earliest Ogam inscribed stones in Man range in date from the 5th-7th cent. AD (Personal comm. Dr. Ross TYench-Jellicoe 05.03.1987).

2

In addition to the Knock-y-Doonee (Latin) inscr. there is the (now lost) place-name Hentre (cf. W. Hendref Old farm, stead', MX. shennvalley) recorded in the "Abbeyland Bounds" attached to the Chronicles of Man (cf. BRODERICK 1979:(f.53r.)), as plausible evidence for British speech having once existed in Man.

107 3

For an outline of the difference of opinion as to the language(s) spoken in Man during the Scandinavian period cf. Margaret Gelling, this volume.

4

In 1765 Man came under the sway of the British Crown (i.e. the British government in another guise).

5

The existence of an Early Modern Irish poem by a visiting Irish poet in praise of King Reginald of Man and the Isles (1188-1226) dated ca.1200 suggests that such a tradition was receiving official patronage in Man at that time (cf. 0 CUiV 1957:283-301).

6

Speed 1611: The wealthier sort, and such as hold the fairest possessions, do imitate the people of Lancashire, both in their honest carriage and good housekeeping. Howbeit the common sort of people both in their language and manners, come nighest unto the Irish L...](quoted after PRICE 1984:73). Chaloner 1656: LJtheir language is the very same with that of the Scottish-IrishL.Kquoted after MOORE 1889-92:130). He adds: [...]few speak the English Tongue (quoted after GUMMING 1864:9). Barrow 1663 (with indirect reference): There is nothing either written or printed in their which is peculiar to themselves (quoted after 1988a:12). Gibson 1695: [...]the people are styled Manksmen and their language is Manx [...Kauoted after MOORE 1889-92:130). (So far as 1 am aware, this is the first specific reference to Manx as the language of the Manx people).

108

Sacheverell 1702: The Manks language, according to the best information I can get, differs no more from Irish than Scotch [i.e. Scots! from English and that both are different idioms of the Erse, or Highland (quoted after FELTHAM 1798:61). 7

In 1702 Wm. Sacheverell, governor of Man (1693-96), also made the comment that "in the Northern part of the Island they speak a deeper Manx, as they call it, than in the South" (quoted after PRICE 1984:73). This could be taken to mean either that the Manx in the North was less affected by anglicisms, the South being nearer the centre of government at Castletown, or perhaps this should be taken as an acknowledgement of their being two identifiable dialects in the Island.

8

For details of the population of the Isle of Man from 1726 to 1891 cf. Appendix B.

9

Gibson (1695:col.1063; quoted after PRICE 1984:73): "their Gentry are very courteous and affable, and are more than willing to discourse with one in English than their own language". As Price commented (p. 73 note) they could not, of course, have done otherwise, except to speak Manx with other Gaelic speakers.

10

For details of this cf. Moore (1900:266-75, 376-82), and of the balldd cf. Broderick (1981:105-23).

11

For details of the "Barrovian Design" cf. Clamp (1988a:10-21). Barrow apparently found on his arrival in Man that the local clergy were poorly paid, and to make a living had to resort to keeping ale nouses.

*2 Moore/Rhys 1895. Phillips' version, made ca.1610. exists in one extant manuscript only Manx Museum MS.3&4 (in two vols.) dated ca.1630. Thomson (1969:182) plausibly argues that this ms., rather than having been one of a number of copies distributed to the clergy for use in church, may have been a fair copy for the press, but due to the probable high costs of printing for the so few copies that would have been needed, it never saw the light of day till 1893-94 (Manx Soc. XXXII/XXXIII) when its production then was purely for scholarly purposes. The pertinent comment in the Introduction to the Moore/Rhys edition (1895 I:xii), that the clergy at the

109

time (ca.1610) had difficulty in reading Phillips' orthography suggests that they had seen Manx in another orthography (perhaps a forerunner of that in use today), examples of which have so far not materialized. Had Phillips' translation been printed, however, the clergy would have become used to its orthography, which likely would have had a considerable influence on that used later on for the Bible translation, etc. 13

For those Manx children who would aspire to "higher learning" a grammar school was established in Castletown in 1676. In 166b an Academic Fund was set up with a view to enabling deserving students to proceed on to a university (Dublin or Oxford) for a term of five years. Matters were to be so arranged that they would be obliged to return to the Island for their employment. The upshot 01 this was the acquisition of Ballagilley and Hango Hill farms (the latter acquired through confiscation (cf. STENNING 1956:122-45)), the revenues from which would service the fund for setting up a minor public school. Tliis materialized in 1833 in the form of King William's College (cf. CLAMP 1988a:15).

14

For details cf. Clamp (1988c:185-98).

15 cf. James Wilks (1777; in MOORE 1887:179). 16

For details on the history of the Manx Bible translation and its publication cf. Thomson (1979:Intro.). Hildesley seemingly felt some resposibility towards the Manx language and was disapproving of the attitude of those who wanted it to disappear. In 1761 he wrote the following circular to the Manx clergy: Whereas I find some doubts have arisen among some of the clergy concerning the sense in which they are to observe my late injunctions to instruct the people in a language they best understand. I here think fit more explicitly to declare my meaning to be not that every sermon preached in the Country Churches should be in the Manx tongue, but that the Sundays thro-out the year in the English and the Manx shall be proportioned to the capacities and talents of the Congregation, for each respectively as near as the Minister can be able to compute from his knowledge or enquiry. This I take to be righteous, and the excess either way, if considerable, both cruel and unjust, and for which I might appeal to the conscience of any equitable person whatever, that does not think that respect of

110

persons, in spiritual dispensations, is to be had according to the temporal possessions or stations they hold in the external appearances of this world. Mark Sodor and Man. Oct. 2. 1761 (MOORE 1887:99). A little later, ca. autumn 1763, he wrote the following to Rev. Philip Moore, general editor of the Manx Bible translation: I presume your Douglas assistant will be disposed to breathe a little northern air among his relations on this side, at the ensuing holidays [Christmas 17631, and then he will be at hand to try his voice at Lezayre. Has he made a Manks sermon yet? If he has not, 'tis fit he should; unless he is one of those geniuses of the South, who think the cultivation of that language unnecessary. If I were not frought with full conviction of its utility, and with resolution to pursue my undertaking, what with the coolness of its reception by some, and the actual disapprobation of it by others, I should be so discouraged as to give it up. This, I believe, is the only country in the world, that is ashamed of, and even inclined to extirpate, if it could, its own native tongue (BUTLER 1799:449-50J. 17

In a letter dated 1783 to one of his preachers in Man Wesley exhorted him, "If you would learn the Manx language I would commend you"(TELFORD 1931 VII:178). However, six years later, in 1789, in a communication to another of his preachers George Holder he admonished: I exceedingly disapprove of your publishing anything in the Manx language. On the contrary, we should do everything in our power to abolish it from the earth, and persuade every member of our Society to learn and talk English. This would be much hindered by providing them with hymns in their own language (TELPORD 1931 VIII:189). Nevertheless his ministers in Man saw the situation more realistically and went ahead in 1795 (and again in 1799) with their publication in Manx of Wesleyan hymns (v. CUBBON 1939:792-93).

18

This tradition has a certain similarity with the Welsh Plygain (cf. FISHER 1929:308-16). From personal enquiry it seems that Oie'll Voirreys in Manx are remembered as late as the 1920s, but mostly in English, and in English exclusively till the Second World War. The last reputed carval singer in Manx was Will

Ill

Wade of Orrisdale, Michael, who died in 1948. 19

Nevertheless, children were allegedly actively discouraged from speaking Manx at school by means of a "knot" or "tally" passed from one child to another till the close of school, when the last recipient would be punished (v. also letter in Appendix A). Stories of such treatment can still be heard in Man today from descendants of those affected.

20

For details of English rule in Man as a result of Revestment in 1765 till ca.1800, cf. Dolley (1977:207-45). This transference of sovereignty was felt by many Manxmen to have been an act of gross injustice - Revestment beinff known in Man at the time as Yn Chiale Vooar 'the great deception'- because they were operating within their own laws, and it was not their fault if the British were losing money hand over fist as a result of their own trading restrictions. However, the whole issue was evidently conducted in a clandestine manner, due largely, it seems, to the presence of not insignificant numbers of English and Scottish operators in the Island, which caused the British authorities to see matters differently (cf. KINV1G 1975:120-22). It is interesting to note that, though the "trade" lasted ca. 100 years, very little about it has come down into Manx folklore, probably because of the covert way in which it was conducted (cf. KILLIP 1975:143-55).

21

The "trade" evidently continued in some form till after 1800, cf. Broderick (1984 1:256-59).

22

Such emigration would also include those English and Scottish merchants engaged in the "trade" who lived for the most part in the towns and who would have spoken English.

23

Comments on Manx during the 19th century from Carlisle (1813), Bullock (1816), Lewis (1831), Gumming (1848, 1861), and Rosser (1849) make it clear that anglicization first took place in the towns (Peel a little later due to its strong contacts with the fishing industry), then the spread of bilingualism into the country areas via the children, and lastly the retention of Manx in everyday use in the mountain areas and in districts well away from the main ports, e.g. in the north-west. In 1859 Gill (1859: v) lamented the passing of Manx from the schools, law-courts, and church. Jenner (1875:21) noted the gradual decline in the number of services in Manx per month in the churches, from three Sundays a month "in many parishes" at the beginning of the 19th century to only one service a month

112

in one parish (Arbory) at the time of writing; cf. also Hildesley's view (note 16 above) on the language to be used in church. 24

Manx newspapers, such as the Manx Mercury (1792-71801), Manks Advertiser (1801-1845), The Manx Sun (I821-1906)(for other titles cf. CUBBON 1939:1337), etc, whose news was largely culled from English newspapers (though some would contain some Manx news), were set up to serve the needs of a growing English speaking population (of non-Manx as well as Manx) in the Island. Material in Manx is occasionally found; cf. note 26.

25

The same letter also comments on the inadequacy of the Manx of some of the clergy, arguing that they study the dead languages sufficiently, but not living ones necessary for their parish work.

26

For articles, poems, letters, comments (usually of a political nature) in Manx, cf. Mona's Herald for 27.12.1833, 21.02.1834, 06.06.1834, 08.08.1834, 06.02.1835, 23.07.1835, etc; Manx Sun for 20.12.1845, etc.

27

Nevertheless, the falling into disuse of Manx had become sufficiently marked by ca.1840 as to prompt the Manx engineer and inventor, William Kennish (1/99-1862), to compose a 21-quatrain ballad in Manx lamenting the demise of the Manx language: Dobberan Chengey ny Mayrey Elian Vannin 'lament for the mother toncue of the Isle of Man' (MOORE 1896:142ff). In addition, wnen Strachan was collecting a version of the Manx folksong EC ny Fiddlervn ('at the fiddlers') in 1883 (which he later printed in the first issue of ZGP (1897)), his informant Tom Kermode of Bradda told him that he had not heard a Manx song sung "for the last forty years" (STRACHAN 1897:54-58). This would suggest a similar date for the falling into disuse also of the Manx secular song tradition (whether due to Methodism (cf. above) or to the general decline in the use of the Manx language, or both).

28

There appears to be some inconsistency here. "English and Manx" (750-50) is given for the children of Michael with a proportion of 1267(pop.):300(adult habit, speakers), but "English and a little Manx" for Jurby (788:600), a parish equally, if not more, remote.

29

It is perhaps not surprising that Jenner heard little Manx during his visit, simply because he was a stranger, and he

113

would have been spoken to in English, albeit in broken English. Rh^s experienced something similar some ten years later and commented: When I met people in the roads and lanes in places where I was unknown, I used to ask them questions in Manx. They would invariably answer in English; for Manxmen, when addressed by a stranger in Manx, regard him as taking liberties with them, and feel altogether different from my own countrymen, who usually dote on any stranger who learns a few words of Welsh (RHYS 1895:viii). 30

This comment is rather curious, as the junction mentioned is uninhabited mountainous area save for a few sheep. What is probably meant is the hill area south of Glen Trainman in Lezayre and in and at the head of Sulbv Glen, which apparently was heavily populated till the late 19th cent.

31

Marstrander made a similar comment some thirty five years later: The material I have collected [from the native Manx speakers] will without doubt have significant value when Celtic speech has completely disappeared from the island in 5-10 years timeC...](MARSTRANDER 1929/33:63). For Rhys's comment on his hearing little Manx, cf. note 29.

32

The "Revival" in reality began ca.1890 and embraced also the collecting of folk songs and folk music, principally by Dr John Glague of Castletpwn (1893-98) and A.W. Moore (1895/6). In the course of its life down to the present the "Revival" has experienced three major periods of impetus in enthusiasm and activity: ca.1890-ca.1917; ca.1930-ca.1940; ca.1972 to present (though at the time of writing the "Revival" is experiencing a "trough").

33

Comments even today (1990) by older people in their 80s/90s that their parents or grandparents spoke Manx when they didn't want the children/grandchildren to understand are common. Questions asked of older people in the northern parishes of Jurby, Andreas, Bride in the summer (August) of 1989 as part of a place-name survey as to whether Manx had been heard or spoken within their lifetime largely produced a negative response. In other words Manx, according to their

114

memories, had not been spoken as a community language in that area from ca.1900, if not before. 34

This is evidently the case. According to his Diary (1929/33:57), he was given the name of a "Mr Kneen" (then) of the Lhen, whom he apparently never visited. This same "Mr Kneen" turned out to be one John Kneen (of Ballaugh Curraghs), one of the best of the last of the native speakers (cf. BRODERICK 1984 I:230ff).

35

Loch (1946:2-3).

36

The late Mr Chaise Craine of Ballaugh (d.1979), one of the enthusiasts of that time (also mentioned by Loch), told me when I visited him in July 1974 that a search began for the last native speakers during the mid-thirties as a result of Marstrander's visits. He told me he was personally instrumental in "discovering" three of the four/five surviving native speakers from the north, ca.1936.

37

General Registry, Douglas.

38

Ewan Christian of Peel, a "semi-native speaker" told me (August 1972) he had learned his Manx originally, not from his parents, but from two old ladies from the same street when lie was about five years old, then later from farmer/fishermen in and around Peel. He died in January 1985, aged 78.

I would like to thank Diarmuid ö So for helpful suggestions concerning the Olr. & EModlr. forms in the paradigms. Any errors that remain are my own.

References BERGER, Marianne (1988): Sprachkontakt in der Bretagne. Sprachloyalität versus Sprachwechsel, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie. Bd. 220. Tübingen: Niemeyer. BIRCH, J.W. (1964): Isle of Man. Cambridge.

115

BRODERICK, George (ed.)(1979): Cronica Regum Mannie & Insularum. Chronicles of the Kings of Man and the Isles. BL.Julius Cotton Avii. Douglas: Manx Museum and National Trust. (1981): "Baase Illiam Dhone". Celtica XIV: 105-23. (1984/86): A Handbook of Late Spoken Manx. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 3 vols. BULLOCK, H.A. (1816): History of the Isle of Man, London. BUTLER, W. (1799): Memoires of Mark Hildesley, DD. London. CAMDEN, William (1586): Britannia. London. CAMPBELL, D. (1885-6): "The Isle of Man, its history and language". Trans, of the Gaelic Soc. of Inverness 12. CARLISLE, N. (1813): A topographical dictionary of Scotland and of the islands in the British Seas. London (unpaginated, s.v. Isle of Man). CLAMP, Peter (1988a): "English schooling in the Isle of Man 1660-1700: The Barrovian Design". Journal of Educational Administration and History XX/2 (July 1988): 10-21. — (1988b): "The struggle for the Common School System in the Isle of Man: 'A compulsory Education Bill for Mona!'". History of Education Soc. Bulletin No.42 (Autumn 1988): 18-33. — (1988c): "Bishop Wilson's Discipline: Language schooling and confrontation in the Isle of Man 1698-1755", Journal of Religious History 15/2: 185-98. CUBBON, William (1933 and 1939): A bibliographical account of the works relating to the Isle of Man. London. 2 vols. GUMMING, J.G. (1848): The Isle of Man. Its history, physical, ecclesiastical, civil, and legendary. London. (ed.)(1859): Wm. Sacheverell (1702): An account of the Isle of Man. Douglas: Manx Soc. I (1861): A guide to the Isle of Man. London. — (ed.)(1864): J. Chaloner (1656): A short treatise of the Isle of Man. Douglas: Manx Soc. X. DAVIES, A.S.B. (1948): "Cyflwr presennol iaith Geltaidd Ynys Manaw". Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 12: 89-91.

116

DENISON, Norman (1977): "Language death or language suicide?" In: DRESSLER and WODAK-LEODOLTER (eds.) (1977): 13-22. DIL: Dictionary of the Irish Language (1913-76). Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. DINNEEN, Patrick S. (1927): Focloir Gaedhilge agus Bearla. An Irish-English Dictionary. Dublin: Irish Texts Society (Repr. 1970) DOLLEY, Michael (1977): "Procurator extraordinary - Sir Wadsworth Busk (1730-1811)". Proc. Isle of Man Nat. Hist, and Antiqu. Soc. VIII/3: 207-45. DORIAN, Nancy C. (1973): "Grammatical change in a dying dialect". Language 49: 413-38. — (1976): "Gender in a terminal Gaelic dialect". Scottish Gaelic Studies 12: 279-82. — (1977a): "A hierarchy of morphophonemic decay in Scottish Gaelic language death: the differential failure of lenition". Word 28: 96-109. — (1977b): "The problem of the semi-speaker in language death". In: DRESSLER and WODAK-LEODOLTER (eds.) (1977): 23-32. — (1978a): "The preservation of the vocative in a dying Gaelic dialect". Scottish Gaelic Studies 13: 98-102. — (1978b): "The fate of morphological complexity in language death". Language 54: 590-609. (1978c): East Sutherland Gaelic: The dialect of the Brora, Golspie, and Embo fishing communities. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. (1980): "Language shift in community and individual: the phenomenon of the laggared semi-speaker". International Journal of the Society of Language 25: 85-94. — (1981): Language death. The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia. DRESSLER, Wolfgang (1972): "On the phonology of language death". Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Soc. (April 1972).

117

—

(1981): "Language shift and language death". Folia Linguistica XV/1-2: 5-28. DRESSLER, Wolfgang and WODAK-LEODOLTER, Ruth W. (1977): "Language preservation and language death in Brittany". In: DRESSLER and WODAK-LEODOLTER (eds.)(1977): 33-44. — (eds.)(1977): Language Death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12. DURGAGZ, Victor E. (1987): The decline of the Celtic languages. Edinburgh: John Donald. FELTHAM, John (1798): A tour through the Isle of Man in 1797 & 1798. Bath: Grutwell. FENNELL, Desmond (1981): "Can a shrinking minority be saved?". In: HAUGEN, McCLURE, THOMSON (eds.)(1981): 32-39. FISHER, J. (1929): "Two 'Welsh-Manx Christmas customs". Archaeologia Cambrensis LXXX1V: 308-16. GIBSON, Edmund (1695): Camden's Britannia. London (Facsimile repr. 1971. Newton Abbot: David & Charles). GILL, William (ed.)(1859): John Kelly. A practical grammar of the Antient Gaelic, or language of the Isle of Man, usually called Manks. Douglas: Manx Soc. II. First published in 1804. GREENE, David (1981): "The Atlantic Group: Neo-Celtic and Faroese". In: HAUGEN, McCLURE, THOMSON (eds.) (1981): 1-9. HAUGEN, Einar, McCLURE, J. Derrick, THOMSON, Derick (eds.)(1981): Minority languages today. Edinburgh: University Press. HILL, Thomas (ed.)(1849): Letters and memoir of the late Walter Augustus Shirley, DD, Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. London. HINDLEY, R. (1984): "The decline of the Manx language: a study in linguistic geography". Bradford Occasional Papers. No. 6 (Autumn 1984]·. 15-39. JACKSON, Kenneth H. (1953): Language and history in Early Britain. Edinburgh. — (1955): Contributions to the study of Manx phonology. Edinburgh.

118

JENNER, Henry (1875): "Hie Manx language: its grammar, literature, and present state". Trans. Philological Soc.: 1-29. JONES, Bedwyr Lewis (1981): "Welsh: linguistic conservatism and shifting bilingualism". In: HAUGEN, McCLURE, THOMSON (eds.)(1981): 40-53. KILLIP, Margaret (1975): The folklore of the Isle of Man. London: Batsford. KINVIG, R.H. (1975): The Isle of Man: a social, cultural, and political history. Liverpool: University Press. LEWIS, G. (1960): "Migration and the decline of the Welsh language". In: F1SHMAN, J. (ed.)(1972): Advances in the study of societal multilingualism. The Hague: Mouton. LEWIS, S. (1831): A topographical dictionary of England. London. LOCH, Charles W. (1946): Some notes on the present state of the Manx language, April 1946. Manx Museum MS.5134B. Unpublished. MACKINNON, Kenneth (1977): Language education and social processes in a Gaelic community. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. — (1987): "Occupation, migration and language maintenance in Gaelic communities". Hatfield Polytechnic Business and Social Science Occasional Papers Series No. BSS 15. Hatfield: Herds. MACLENNAN, Gordon W. (ed.) (1988): Proceedings of the First North American Congress of Celtic Studies. Ottawa. University of Ottawa. MARSTRANDER, Carl J.S. (1929/33): Dagbok ('Diary'Xunpublished). Manx Museum MS.5357B. In Norwegian; Eng. trans, made in 1983 by Knut Janson, Dublin, at the request of George Broder ick. — (1934): "Remarks on the place-names of the Isle of Man". Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap VII: 287-334. MOORE, Arthur W. (ed.)(1887): The Manx Note Book III. Douglas. — (1889-92): "An historical sketch of the Manx language, with an account of the sources from which a knowledge of it can be acquired". Yn Lioar Manninagh I: 129-34. — (1896): Manx ballads and music. Douglas.

119 (1900): A history of the Isle of Man. London. 2 vols. Repr. 1977. Douglas: Manx Museum & National Trust. MOORE, Arthur W. and RHYS, John (eds.)(1895): The Book of Common Prayer in Manx Gaelic. London. 2 vols. 0 CUtV, Brian (1951): Irish dialects and Irish-speaking districts. Dublin. Ö CU1V, Brian (1957): "A poem in praise of Raghnall, King of Man", ßigse VIII/4: 283-301. 0 MURCHU, Mairtin (1989): "Some Irish phonological rules and their chronological order". Eriu XL 143-146. PRICE, Glanville (1984): The languages of Britain. London: Arnold. PRYCE, W.T.R. (1978): "Welsh and English in Wales 1750-1971: a spatial analysis based on the linguistic affiliation of parochial communities". Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XXVIII: 1-36. RAVENSTEIN, E.G. (1879): "On the Celtic languages in the British Isles: a statistical survey". Proc. of 45th Annual Meeting of the Statistical Soc. London. RHYS, John (1875): "The Outlines of the phonology of Manx Gaelic". In: MOORE and RHYS (eds.)(1875 II appended). ROSSER, James (1849): The history of Wesleyan Methodism in the Isle of Man. Douglas. SPEED, John (1611): Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine. London. STENNING, E.H. (1942-56): "The original lands of Bishop Barrow's trustees". Isle of Man Nat. Hist. & Antiqu. Soc. V: 122-45. STOCKMAN, Gearoid (1988): "Linguistic trends in the terminal stages of Q-Celtic dialects". In: Gordon W. MACLENNAN (edj (1988): 387-96. STRACHAN, John (1897): "A Manx folksong". Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie I: 54-58. TELFORD, John (1931): The letters of Rev. John Wesley. London. 8 vols. THOMSON, Robert L. (1969): "The study of Manx Gaelic". Rhys Memorial Lecture. London.

120

(1979): Bible Ghasherick yn Lught-thie. The Manx family Bible. Onchan: Shearwater. Introduction. THURNEYSEN, Rudolf (1946): A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (repr. 1970). ΉΜΜ, Leonora A. (1984): "Bilingualism, diglossia and language shift in Britanny". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 29-41. WAGNER, Heinrich (1958-69): Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. 4 Vols. WAKELIN, Martyn (1975): Language and history in Cornwall. Leicester: University Press. WILKS, (James) (1777): "The inhabitants of the Isle of Mann and their language": In: Arthur W. MOORE (ed.) (1887): 178-80. WITHERS, Charles W. J. (1984): Gaelic in Scotland 1698-1981. The geographical historyof a language. Edinburgh: John Donald.

Appendix A MANKS ADVERΉSER Thurs. 6 June 1822. To the Editor of the Manks Advertiser Sir, I have often heard it observed by Manksmen, that is, my own countrymen, that we should keep up the Manx. They argue that many old persons know no other language, and that, therefore, they ought to be spoken to in that language from the pulpit; that many of the country people do not understand English, and that the lawyers should speak for them and examine them as witnesses in the Manx. Now, Mr Editor, I contend for it that this is quite a wrong view of the subject. The plea, that old persons know nothing but Manx, is the very argument of all others which is most against encouraging that tongue, or dialect - for language it deserves not to be called. Mankind ought to improve, and not remain in their pristine barbarism. There was a time, no doubt, when our ancestors were savages, and could understand each other by nods, and signs, and inarticulate sounds. But those times are past and gone. Wherefore, then, should we recald] them? What

121

better is the gibberish called Manx than an uncouth mouthful of course Isid savage expressions, as distant from any degree of civilized sound as that of the Kamskatcadales [sic] is from the classic beauty of one of the orations which grace the first orators of the British senate? Such a jargon is Manx. Unless for the purpose of preaching to very old people indeed, it is quite useless; and in this view it is very right that our country clergy should know Manx; and in order the better to promote litigation, our young lawyers ought to study the lingo. But when we speak of civilization, of refinement, of the paramount excellence of cultivated society above savage nature and harsh barbarism, can it be endured? We know that civilization is promoted best by letters, by books, by reading; but what literature, what books, what reading does the Manx dialect afford? None, save an old translation of the Bible, which cost a great deal, and which cost had far better been expended on English Bibles and Testaments, and prayer books. Abolish the Manx; I would say then, as fast as ye can, ye learned of the country. Judges, Lawyers, Clergy, crush it. Allow no one, not even one of your servants or neighbours to speak one word of Manx; and thus, by degrees, annihilate it. Several years ago Bishop Hildesley ordered the schoolmaster of his diocese not to allow Manx to be spoken in his school; and, as a penalty on boys who ventured to express their thoughts in the language they best understood, they were marked with a brand of infamy, called the sign of Manx - and were punished, and justly, for having it upon them. Had this been continued, almost all the rising generations would have been regenerated, and we should have the pleasure of seeing a civilized nation arising in the place and stead of the old one - a nation able to converse and deal with men of other countries - a nation not wearing karanes [sandals of untanned hide], but shoes and boots. Indeed, in spite of the pains that I see on all sides taken to bring in the Manx again, I see some of my countrymen wear as decent boots and boot-tops as men of any other nation. And, Mr Editor, I do not know of a much better test of moral refinement and the good taste and fancy of a nation, than that individuals who a century ago would inevitably be condemned to karanes, are now wearing boots, well polished with Day and Martin's best, and tops of the genuine Dandy kind. - Your's Isid, &c. May 26, 1822. A NATIVE.

122 Appendix B Tab. 1: Population Distribution 1726-1891

« ·» 33 O< M

Ή

fHiH

i-i-

O» O* d « C*-H p* r-( rH

r*T*T*

C* pH

^

rt

Π (Ν

IN flCO

00 r·* C4

C^ rH CO

τ* m

P-I

ci-co .i-l CO C* O < • Ο Ο Ο ιΗ < l Φ 0 "~« 2

^* ?? ^t! ^^ ^Q ^P ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ *^ '

l W t^ -^t O t- Γ

ti οί i- i-To ι - ι - ι - 1- ι- o c i

«β«

o» o t»

l »H

I-l l

P^CIrH

l i-t i-l C» « rH i-( r-( cH r-l

^HrH

pH pH

IN i-l «

$*

5

_.,.,-^^i»OrHCTFH l^t l i ^rt r - t & O ^ O l

Ό •^ Ό 6 O

o\

f »O W O ·«· O < r^ pH φ Ο IQ C"4 t 00 O CQ 00 O> O


β 00 i-i S C - Ο» » 6\ V of CO

r^

sco i»s t-s ^s -Hs sco

rt

v»

cf

m

*f

*f

f~

CO

W

0»

O»

O_

rH_

to ·**

rH

l~

L>

CO ^

f IO_ t^

eo «ο »ft

>-i ι»-i

ΙΛ

cj Ο -^
co ^ eo »Λ eo ·««< o>

^H

00 rH

S ^

£ r-t

i"· o

55 Ol. o eo" -«ί

Ο» Ό O± βί

Ή ·* ·*_ ^

Ο * to to

co eo to ο 00^·^·

L—

Op (O

CO CO

t-H '(5

O i— c

l-


co

0»

CO C-

Q W

of

S

t~" PH

3^

a s

·*"

l-

Q

Ό

W

c5 «β

c5 ι«

^* ο

co ο eo ·*

to «ο

i-l

ι-ι

C» tci

·«>
ft σ» «ο*

US

σ» · t>

CD l (N Φ

00 »O

§

"2

1-1

ua of

o of

r-· eo"

to i-T

o o) οΓ «Γ

S

S L~

O) co ο»,

00 Φ οο

ΟΙ tο_

tO o« >ο^

·« ο» t^

I-H

Ι-ί

»Η

Of

1-1

1-1

O?

S3 g ift «S 5 § t>

to

-§ 2 S

"U. «^ ^ ^>" O

of

rH ·*

i 0 ·*«

co 1-1 σ>

o7

i•^< O)

·* 1-H

CD

§•^

i-T

. ι»

O

Ift

t-^

ce* 1-1

iP βP H

•^
/in/) As with those of ME u and (J, the reflexes of these diphthongs (which were separate at first, but later coalesced) have resulted in a monophthongal front vowel /Y:/ in central present-day South-Western English, whereas in the surrounding areas /ju:/ or /u:/ are registered, depending upon phonetic context (new with /ju:/ as cf. blue with /u:/; sometimes a diphthong with even stress is recorded, i.e. /iu/, rather than the rising diphthong /ju:/, especially in Western Cornwall, where it may be a relic of early modern Standard English. I regard the fronting process to /Y:/ as having taken place at the same time as the rest of the frontings (above; and see WAKELIN 1975: 135ff., especially 141-143), namely between, say, 1550 and 1650, and take /iu/ to be the traditional diphthong for the rest of the area (pace Palmer 1969: para. 5.31ff., who wants a front-rounded vowel at Ilminster). 1.3.14. ME au /au/ ME au /au/ normally develops to /au/ > /D:/ (c. 1600) > /o:/ in Standard English (law, cause, etc.), but /D:/ was the common pronunciation throughout the 17th century. This is also the case with words containing ME al + consonant (all, salt, talk, walk) though in some words (almond, calf, calm, half, palm) this has developed to /a:/ from a non-Standard English variant - and ME

213

/au/ < OFr. a + nasal (haunt, lawn, vaunt). For various reasons it has become /a:/ (or /a/ in some dialects) in aunt, branch, dance, /a/ in champion, standard, and /ei/ in ancient, chamber, change, danger, strange. We thus have several categories to deal with (on all of which see Barber 1976: 300-302). (i) ME au results in /o:/. The most familiar South-Western variant of this phoneme is an unrounded variety approaching /a:/ or /a:/, paralleling the unrounding of /D/ -> /a/ (above). Like the latter, it is not usually revealed in the dialect writings until very late (though cf. la 'law' in Hall.II) and rarely in early documents, though Matthews (1939: 199-200) records - Cornwall: Lanston 'Launceston' place name, 1574; Devon: draing 'drawing' 1657; Somerset: lafull 'lawful' U93, halyar 'haulier' 1527, Tanton 'Taunton' place name, 1628, which apparently show the unrounded sound, though whether in a long or (more likely) short form it is impossible to say. Unlike the un- rounding of /D/ -> /a/, the unrounding of /o:/is difficult to represent orthographically, but an unrounded variety almost certainly existed in our period as it does in present-day South-Western English (SWE: passim). (ii) ME au results in /a:/, /a/. I. The, alms, calf type. Half and calf in present-day South-Western English sometimes have /e:/, which evidently shows early alignment with the development of Middle English isolative a, and we can thus postulate /a:/-/ae·.//ε:/ in these words in early Modern English. II. The aunt, branch, dance and III. champion, standard types. There was a long tradition of spellings in ο to express this sound, whatever it was, which in present-day South-Western English appears as /a:/ (La:Mae:]) or /a/. The o-spellings occur in Middle English and Middle Cornish (Wakelin 1981: 282, para. 16), and Matthews (1939: 197) records - Devon: stonderd 1532, bronchis 1552; Somerset: Chompyon (presumably) proper name U93. I assume that this spelling was intended to represent some sort of nasalised sound in adopted French words. Its continued use in early modern

214

Cornish is shown by the following spellings in Meriasek: commondya (and derivatives) 'command' vb. (1065, etc.), commondment (3992), donsia 'dance' vb. (2512), grontye (and derivatives) 'grant' (1010, etc.), servons 'servants' (2329, etc.), somper 'sans pair' (3980), and by wront (with mutated initial consonant) in Jordan (940; beside grannt 937, which looks like a version with short /a/). There is, however, some evidence of another variant, namely (? = Cea], [ε 9], etc.) in words of the dance class: Gil cites ea for a in this word for the eastern dialect, but it appears to emerge in both this word and in 'prancers' in the 1762 Cornish dialogue (SWE: Text 2, line 28). There thus seem to be two early traditions evidenced in South-Western English: one in which the spelling ο apparently indicates an early /au/ + nasal, which would normally become /o:/; and one in which OFr. /au/ was early monophthongized to ME a /a:/, and then fell in with the latter 's normal development to /e:/. Both of these have, in present-day South-Western English, been replaced by either /a:/ or /a/ (the latter only in Cornwall, North-Western Devon, and in other sporadic instances - WAKELIN 1975: 86-88). (iii)ME au results in /ei/. These developed - in the South-West, as elsewhere - in accordance with ME (above) (see BARBER 1976: 301-302). ME ai /ai/. In present-day English RP this has fallen in with the reflexes of ME a, but in some areas it is kept distinct and has given /ai/, mainly, however, in the eastern part of the South-West (SWE: 1.3.1). This might assume, for our period, coalescence (? in /ei/) with the reflexes of ME /, and it is a matter of some interest whether the following sample of spellings (parallel to others in e, ee, ey and ay) from Meriasek are indicative of this (similar earlier ones occur in the Ordinalia): assy 'essay' vb. (3325), mentine 'maintain' (2685), wyght 'weight' (3550). Cf. also a spelling sty 'stay' in the 1762 Cornish dialogue (above; SWE: Text 2, line 8). On the other hand, /ai/ may simply be an archaic pronunciation surviving from Middle English times.

215 1.4. Consonants 1.4.1. Fricatives: ME /, s /f, s/ and v, z /v, z / As is well-known, the most notable characteristic is the voicing of initial /f, s/ (while /v/ is also not infrequently to be found unvoiced to /f/). This feature is amply attested in early documents and place-names for /f/ and /s/ and in present-day South-Western English for all four consonants, and is constantly and crudely exploited in the early dialect writings as the South-Western English feature par excellence. Gil (1619, 1621) notes the voicing of initial /f/ and /s/ as a feature of southern, eastern and western dialects, and also gives the opposite ('finegar pro vinegar') for the South, as does also Edmund Coote (cit. WAKELIN 1977: 38) in 1597. Ben Jonson's English Grammar (1640-41, but an earlier version was destroyed by fire in 1623) also mentions the voicing of /s/ by 'rustic people' (and his play A Tale of a Tub (1596/97?), set in 'Finnsbury Hundred', i.e. in North London, shows examples of voiced /f/ and /s/), but this is significantly changed to 'West Country people' in the 1692 edition, indicating that during the course of the 17th century the isogloss had moved westward (Wakelin 1982: 9-10). Educated South-Western writers like Whythorne (Somerset) and Richard Carew (Cornwall; 1602 and 1614) do not use the feature themselves, except for one inexplicable example (a slip?): vapers 'fathers' (Palmer 1969: 202-203), but the former uses it in a poem reputedly transmitted from a servant woman in Gloucestershire or Somerset dialect (ibid.: 28-30, 202-207). I have written at length on this subject on several occasions (see SWE: 1.4.2 and bibliographical references), so here I shall content myself with listing forms found in early documents and the dialect writings. 1.4.2. The voicing of /f/ Matthews records (1939: 202, 205) the following early forms for the voicing of /f/ /f/ -

Cornwall: none; Devon: vel 'fell' 1533, vawnte 'font' 1534, vyrepyke 'firepick' 1535, vyrepig 1542, vettyng 'fetching' 1553, vant 'font' 1685; Somerset: a number of 15th-century

216

forms, plus vremassyn 'freemason* 1507, varmynge 'forming' 1508, Vord(e) 'Ford' (? place name/proper name) 1511, 1513, vawnte 'font' 1557. (He also prints a number of examples of medial voicing, e.g., ever 'heifer' and Cristorer 'Christopher', but medial and final voicing are such ubiquitous South-Western phenomena, parallel to the voicing of /p, t, k/, both in earlier times and at the present day (SWB. 1.4.2) that I do not propose to deal with it here.) As examples of the reverse process he gives - Cornwall: felvett 'velvet' 1548; Devon: ffestrye 'vestry' 1533, farments 'vermin' 1648; Somerset: fessel 1530, festements 1554, fayle 'veil' 1555 (also some medial and final forms, e.g. cafe 'cave' velfette). This occasionally still occurs in present-day South-Western English (Wakelin 1975: 171), and its relationship to the voicing process is unclear, though it looks like hypercorrection (note that all the words in question are of French origin). 1.4.3. The voicing of /s/ /s/ -

Cornwall: none; Devon: zaers 'sawyers' and zaying 'sawing' 1526, zaylis 'sails' 1559, Zeton 'Seaton' place name 1568, zytation 1568, a zaw 1615, to zaw 1616; Somerset: zonysswyft 'son's wife' 1516.

I have found no examples of initial voicing in any of the Official' South-Western documents that I have examined, in the main from Cornwall, except in place-name forms (which I examined for Cornwall (WAKELIN 1975: 168-170), and on this basis argued that voicing takes place mainly in eastern and not so consistently in central and western Cornwall - see further below). This was predictable: official documents of the early Modern English period tend to expurgate dialect forms, especially such gross provincialisms as these (note Matthews' sparse collection above), while place-names, relying perhaps on traditional local pronunciations as much as on spelling tradition, are more likely to emerge in written form as they had been uttered for centuries. Borde's imitation of dialect speech from Cornwall gives vyshe (5, 13), volke (6), vare 'fare' (verb) (17), beside other words with initial /. There is no indication of the voicing of the other initial

217

fricatives. This is self-evidently minimal and crude exemplification. Tlie same applies to William Strode's poem on Plymouth, though there are at least several more examples, the following being a selection (there are no line numbers in the only modern edition of the poem): /f/: voole, vrom, vather, vlying, vull, vor, vowJe 'foul', vier 'fire, vlatt, varre. But not in faire (noun) or farre. /s/: zee(n), zutch, zea(s), zaw (past tense), zome, zweare, zoe, zalt, zwimm. 1.4.1. Two further questions remain to be dealt with in respect of initial voicing: did it ever take place in Western Cornwall, as I have claimed it does not at present, or only rarely (WAKELIN 1975: 154ff.)? And - is there South-Western initial voicing in words of French origin? With regard to the first of these, a glance at the tables in Wakelin (1975: 154ff.), provided that the basic data are accurate, as I have no cause to doubt, shows with abundant clarity that there is now virtually no initial voicing in Western Cornwall, and that even in central Cornwall it begins to tail off. I have ascribed this to the same reason as I have argued accounts for the existence of [«] rather than [a] in Western Cornwall, namely that the dialect of that area is, in origin, an early form of Standard English and retains some of its sounds, and never adopted those of Devon, Somerset, and the neighbouring South-West. A predictable problem here, of course, is an extreme dearth of early Western Cornwall material. I examined in detail all the Middle English Official' documents at my disposal in 1981 (listed in WAKELIN 1981: 238; see also WAKELIN 1975: 86-87). These included manuscripts from Mount St. Michael in the far West (before 1427) and St. Austell in South central Cornwall (U30). Not a trace of initial voicing was to be found in either; neither is it in loan-words in Meriasek from Western Cornwall, or those in Jordan (1611). Borde (1547) has one or two, but some of this may be conventional 'Mummerset', and anyway there is no evidence that he was writing about Western Cornwall in particular. Our only other evidence is place-names, which I have mentioned above. In view of that evidence, and of modern dialectal evidence, I see no reason to change my view that Western Cornwall has always been an area of initial non-voicing.

218 As to the second question, an older generation of philologists argued that the voicing process must have begun before the influx of French loans in the Middle English period, since these, as they have come through to later dialect, are apparently unaffected by the sound-change, and this suggests that it was dying or dead when they were assimilated into English (see WAKELIN 1975: 161, note 83; to which we may add Barnes 1886: 8, 12). Modern dialectal evidence would seem to indicate that this is not entirely true, as I have shown (WAKELIN 1975: 170; SWE: Texts, passim], although voicing in native words may have wider and more concentrated distributions, geographically speaking. It may well be, indeed, that the process started in late Old English times, and that foreign loans were affected as long as it was alive (which, however, was apparently for some considerable time, cf. the r-form in the Middlesex place-name VauxhaJl (< Faukeshale), which are evidenced from only 1719 onwards; WAKELIN-BARRY 1968: note 9). Common sense suggests that a compromise solution is necessary here. I suspect that initial voicing became a feature of South-Western English, from whatever sources, during the Old English period, that its initial impetus was being lost during the Middle English period, but that some early French loans got it and came down through the ensuing centuries in this traditional form, while others adopted it by analogy to a lesser extent even after the Middle English period. The dialect writers are ambiguous, since on some occasions they may be transcribing genuine traditional forms which had been passed down in the writer's place of origin or habitation for centuries, while on others they may be indicating voicing indiscriminately. We may now turn to some related problems. 1.4.5. The interchange of ME v /v/ and w /w/ This seems to have been a ubiquitous phenomenon in the Middle English and early Modern English periods; although /w/ for /v/ is nowadays associated with East Anglia and the south-west (WAKELIN 1977: 95-6), examples of it are recorded in early South-Western documents as well, as witness Matthews' examples (1939: 207) - Cornwall: wycare 'vicar' 1520, wisitacon 1526, hawyn 'haven' 1548; Devon: westment U86, delywyd 'delivered' 1530, delywryd 1535-, Somerset: wante 'font' and welwett 'velvet' 1507,

219 westments 1551, ower Over* and westment 1554. Contrariwise, he gives (Matthews 1939: 207) - Cornwall: Cornvell 1577; Devon: vine 'wine' 1623; Somerset vyre 'wire' 1511, vails 1518 (together with some from late Middle English). Strode's poem (c. 1620) has ehe vore-a (? Ί warrant you'; cf. Shakespeare's Oswald, got up as a peasant, King Lear, IV.6 (1608): ehe vor'ye (apparently) Ί warn you'), /v/ for /w/ still survives very rarely in present-day South-Western English: SED found /vaetJY watch in North Somerset (WAKELIN 1977: 96 - there is also an example of /v/ in 'wife' from Kent (ibid.)). Note also the loan-word vastya 'waste' in Meriasek (3613) (< OFr. waster, unless direct < late Lat. vastare, with initial /v/). The dialect writings - strangely, if this was a genuine feature of South-Western speech - reveal this interchange little, the most notable examples being found in Hall.II (and then only of /v/ for /w/): vot 'what', vol'ee 'will ye?' vod 'would'. In sum, this seems to have been a fairly widely-attested development in Middle English times, in the South-West as elsewhere, but to be dying there during the 16th century, and perhaps preserved (rarely) as a dialect oddity in some dialect writings. 1.4.6. The use of ME d /d/ for th /d/ This occurs in one or two words in initial position (I do not consider medial position, since there is almost ubiquitous /d/~/o7 interchange in Middle English, and some of Matthews' forms gaderyng, fader, moder, etc. - go back to Old English forms with /d/ anyway). There are three words in which initial /d/ occurs relatively frequently for SW /d/, namely 'thatch', 'thistle', and 'thunder'. Matthews' example (1939: 203) is the earliest: Devon dachers U93, but Strode has dunder, as has Hall.I. Initial /d/ is recorded in thatch and thistle by SED (II.7.6 and II.2.2, resp.) in areas of the south-west; this may, however, owe something to Low Dutch influence (MDu. decken vb., dac n., Du. distel), as may also /d/ in 'thunder' (cf. MDu., Du. donder); we may compare the place name Dunderhole Point in Tintagel, Cornwall (WAKELIN 1975: 169-170). As for other words, Borde has dycke 'thick* (3) and dyn 'thin' (3) and some dyng 'something' (7) (WAKELIN 1975: 206-207; SWE:

220 Text 1), and Matthews records an earlier Devon dey 'they1 (U47-U50). Presumably none of these changes are to be connected with the South-Eastern pronunciation of /d/ as /d/ in the, this, they, there, etc. (WAKELIN 1977: 95). 1.4.7. Associated with this phenomenon is SW / [i&] > [ja:]) rather than to the development of a [j] -glide. It is perhaps also worth noting that Meriasek has yarlijs (294) 'earls' < OE eorl, perhaps again with stress-shift like common SW yowe 'ewe' < OE eowu (Matthews (201) - Devon: yowe 1526, etc.; Somerset: yows 1521, etc.), a very widespread dialect form: see SED III.6.6. I have noted yerthe 1529 in the Morebath (Devon) records, and in the dialect writings Hall.II has yacres 'acres' (for later examples, see SWE: Texts, passim).

222

It is clear that this is a feature which again persisted in early Modern English and into the 20th century. I assume that Jordan's yest 'East' < OE gast (1742) is an indication of the same process. Footnotes 1

Examples of French loan-words: avodia 'avoid' (M), gedya 'guide (M), jes, jeys 'jest' (Tril.), abel 'able' (M), astrangie) 'strange' (Tril., M), blam (rh. scham) (Tril.), blamya, etc., v. (M), graas, grace, grath, gras, ras, etc., (Tril.), hast 'haste' (Tril.), plas, plath (Tril.), plaeth 'place' (M), spys 'space' (Tril.), spas, spath, speys 'space' (M).

2

More specific sources for this account are spellings in: i. Accounts, mostly U50-1550, though some later, from Cornwall (also Devon, Somerset and Dorset), cited in Matthews (1939). (Not all of these are reliable evidence, but many can be used with profit.) ii. Church-Warden's Accounts...from A.D. 1349 to 1560. Somerset Record Society i (1890). (Somerset; also seen by MATTHEWS (1939)). hi. R. and O.B. Peter, The histories of Launceston and Dunheved in the County of Cornwall (1885) (also seen by Matthews (above)). Cited as 'Pet'. To these we may add spellings of loan-words in the Cornish writings, namely: iv. The Life of Saint Meriasek 1504 (ed. STOKES 1872; refs. are to line numbers in this edition). v. William Jordan's play The Creation of the World 1611 but the copy of a producer's prompt-book, probably mid-loth century in date; ecf Neuss 1983 - refs. are to line and page-numbers in the edition. (Jordan may have come from the parish of Wendron, in the borough of Helston, in extreme South West Cornwall.) With English stage-directions.

3

/e/ deriving ultimately from OE 7 is a widespread ME and early Modern English feature, as disparaged by Edmund Coote (1597), probably mainly as an East Anglian pronuncation (he was headmaster of the grammar school at Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk): 'Some people speake thus: the mell standeth on the helL.so knet for knit, bredg for bridg..: (WAKELIN 1977: 37). Matthews, however, cites one or two from the South-West

223

(beside some in i and u) - Devon: besenys 1531 and besy 1536, gerdelle 1532; Somerset: gelt 'gilt' 1507, kechyng 'kitchen' 1555, creppell 'cripple* 1643. References BARBER, Charles (1976): Early Modern English. London: Deutsch. BARNES, William (1886): A Glossary of the Dorset Dialect, with Grammar of its Word Shapening and Wording. London: Trübner. BORDE, Andrew (1547): The Fyrst Boke of the Introduction of Knowledge made by Andrew Boorde, of Physycke Doctor, F.J. Furnivall (ed.): Early English Text Society, Extra Series 10, 1870. GAREW, Richard (1602): Richard Carew of Antony: The Survey of Cornwall, F.E. HALLIDAY (ed.), London: Melrose (1953). (Also includes: The Excellency of the English Tongue (1614)). DOBSON, Eric J. (1968): English Pronunciation 1500-1700. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. GIL, Alexander (1619, 1621): Logonomia Anglica, (1621 ed.) O.L. Jiriczek (ed.). Strasbourg 1903. HALLIWELL, Joseph O. (1843): A Collection of Pieces in the Dialect of Zummerzet. London: Trübner. (Hall.) JORDAN, William (1611): The Creation of the World. Ed. and transl. P. NEUSS: Garland Medieval Texts, 3. London and New York: 1983. LHUYD, Edward (1707): Archaeologia Britannica. Oxford. (Facsimile by Scolar Press, No. 136 (1969)). MATTHEWS, William (1939): "South Western Dialect in the Early Modern Period", Neophilologus 24: 193-209. MERIASEK (1504): The Life of Saint Meriasek. W. STOKES (ed.), London: Trübner (1872). NORDEN, J. (1610): Speculi Britanniae Pars: A Topographical and Historical Description of Cornwall. London.

224

ORIGO MUNDI (first play in the Cornish Ordinalia) (c. 1350-75), E. Morris (ed.): The Ancient Cornish Drama, 2 vols., London (1859). (Reprinted New York and London: Benjamin Blom, 1968). ORTON, Harold et. Leeds: E. J. PALMER, Rupert Copenhagen:

cd. (eds.) (1962-71): Survey of English Dialects. Arnold. (SED). E. (1969): Thomas Whythorne's Speech. Rosenkilde & Bagger.

PETER, Richard and O.B. (1885): The Histories of Launceston and Dunheved in the County of Cornwall. Plymouth: W. Brendon and Son. (Pet.) SED Survey of English Dialects (see ORTON et al (1926-71). SOMERSET RECORD SOCIETY (1890): Church-wardens' Accounts...from A.D. 1349 to 1560. Ed. the Rt. Revd. Bishop Hobhouse. STKODE, William (circa 1620): "The Wonders of Plymouth". Ed. J. SIMMONS (1971): A Devon Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1971, 139-UO. WAKELIN, Martyn F. (1975): Language and History in Cornwall. Leicester: Leicester University Press. — (1977): English Dialects: An Introduction, 2nd rev. ed. London: The Athlone Press. — (1981): "Mediaeval Written English in Bodmin", in: BENSKIN, M. and M.L. SAMUELS (eds.): So Meny Peple, Longages and Tonges. (Mclntosh Festschrift). Aberdeen. — (1986): South-West England. Amsterdam: Benjamin. (SWE). WAKELIN, Martyn F. and Michael V. BARRY (1968): "The Voicing of Initial Fricative Consonants in Present-Day Dialectal English", Leeds Studies in English, New Series 2: 47-64.

225

Appendix Map: TJie SED localities with St Cleer and St Day

Devon

Kilknampton Altarnun Egloshaylc StEwe Gwinear

A B

3 WeareGiffard 8 Petertavy 10 Cornwood

St Cleer St Day

county boundary 10

20 20

(From Wakelin (1975: 31))

30

30 40

50

THE COLOUR SYSTEMS OF THE MODERN CELTIC LANGUAGES: EFFECTS OF LANGUAGE CONTACT Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn Introduction Micheäl 0 Siadhail, well-known as both a linguist and a poet, stated in a recent lecture on the fate of the Irish language that his perception of the world was coloured by Irish, in that the Irish and English colour systems are not equivalent. He concluded that, despite efforts to promulgate the use of Irish, by the turn of the century it would be a dead language preserved only as a curiosity by the elite, elsewhere supplanted by English (0 SIADHAIL 1985). Unfortunately for the survival of the Irish colour system, and for those of Scots Gaelic and Welsh as well, English influence already has caused their remodelling within their own languages to the English colour system. It must be emphasized at the outset that the colour systems referred to in this paper are, except when otherwise specified, the set of basic colour terms of a given Celtic language. All languages afford their speakers the means to create colour terms as necessary, such as chartreuse, scarlet, or puce. No native speaker of English would classify these words as basic colour terms, however. Chartreuse, for example, can be redefined as 'a shade of green. Green, on the other hand, cannot be defined as 'a shade of any other colour, and hence is a basic colour term for English speakers. Berlin and Kay (1969) defined the criteria for evaluating whether a given colour term is basic as follows: 1) 2 3 4

it is monolexemic; its signification is not included in any other colour term; its application is not limited to a narrow class of objects; it is psychologically salient for informants, i.e., it tends to occur at the beginning of lists of solicited items, is stable across informants and occasions of use, and occurs in the idiolects of all informants.

In doubtful cases, the following additional criteria apply:

228 5) 6)

7

ί

8)

the doubtful term should have the same distributional criteria as the previously established basic terms; a term that is also the name of an object characteristically of that colour is suspect; recent foreign loan words are suspect; morphological complexity implies non-basic status.

1. The structure of the semantic field for colours Berlin and Kay postulated that basic colour terms entered a language in a set order. As modified by Kay (1975), their model handles the basic colour systems of every language so far investigated, including numerous Indo-European languages1. In fact, this model should be universally applicable, as the 'best* example of a basic colour term ordinarily is a focal colour, a physiologically salient point on the spectrum (KAY and McDANIEL 1978). Accordingly, it was assumed that Celtic language colour systems would fit one of the stages derivable through the model, which follows: Table 1: Structure of semantic field for colours white

grue

yellow

red black Stage I

Stage II

yellow

grue

Stage III

Stage IV

green/blue

brown

purple pink orange

Stage V

Stage VI

Stage VII

'Grue' includes the part of the spectrum which English speakers call 'green' and 'blue', but has its focus at either focal green or focal blue (MacLAURY, in preparation). 'Grey' may enter the system as early as Stage II, e.g., in Swahili. A Stage VII system may include any or all of the final three colours. Common Celtic had a Stage III colour system with only four reconstructible basic colour terms, represented in Goidelic and Brythonic respectively by O.Ir. dub, W. du 'black', O.Ir. find, W. gwyn 'white', O.Ir. ruad, W. rhudd 'red', and O.Ir. and W. glas

229

'grue'. By the historical period, this system had already undergone alteration to a Stage IV system, with Old Irish relegating find and ruad to secondary usage in favour of ban and derg respectively and adding a fifth basic term, buide 'yellow', and Middle Welsh adding coch as a synonym of rhudd and two new basic terms, melyn 'yellow' and llwyd grey' (LAZAR-MEYN 1979 and 1987). Both languages had non-basic colour terms as well, a set of saturated or unsaturated colours and a second set with semantically limited usage. The saturated set for Old Irish includes the aforementioned /inn, perhaps best glossed as 'bright' or 'fair1, gel 'dazzlingly white', gorm 'bright blue through black', uaine 'bright green', donn 'unsaturated brown through grey', odor 'bright brown', and corcair 'purple', an early borrowing derived from Latin purpura. The semantically limited set includes the aforementioned mad referring in early texts solely to dried blood and later to red hair or complexion, and hath 'grey, primarily of hair". O.Ir. Hath is the cognate of Mid.W. llwyd but, while it shows some extension of use outside of hair-colour, such examples are not sufficiently widespread even in the Middle Irish period to classify Hath as a basic colour term. The Middle Welsh sets are smaller. The saturated set includes porphor, again from Latin purpura, and gwyrdd 'verdant', as well as a very few examples of gwrm and dwnn, the cognates of gorm and rfonn. Gell the cognate of gel, is semantically limited to hair-colour usage. As speakers of the modern descendants of these stage IV languages came into contact with speakers of English, a Stage VII language, the disparities between their colour systems became significant. While the focal point for a given colour term would be shared, the area of the spectrum covered by that term could differ greatly. This is a characteristic of fuzzy categories, in which some areas may be left uncovered or vary between individuals or groups (MacLAURY, in preparation). English-speaking Celtic scholars were confounded by the difficulty of translating glas, apparently not comprehending that it did not mean 'green', 'blue', or 'grey' randomly, but could mean any one of those, depending on context. A rare exception is found in Whatmough (1956): Apparently Navaho and Welsh have the same linguistic pattern in distinguishing, or rather failing to distinguish, in certain circumstances, as is true of Latin also (in reference to the sea) between green and blue as English defines

230

these color names, not because the speakers cannot see any difference, but because the expression of this particular differentiation is not part of their habit. (WHATMOUGH 1956: 170) More typical, however, is the contemporary work of Pollak (1959), who, in attempting to categorize Old Irish colours, assumes that the more basic colour terms that a language has, the better it somehow is, and conversely that only undeveloped cultures have fewer colour terms than the Germanic languages. The bias towards Stage VII colour systems inevitably would have profound effects on modern Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Welsh speakers exposed to the English colour system. A school-child, shopkeeper, or customer who attempted to use the English word 'blue' when 'green' was required could expect to be patiently corrected at best and ridiculed at worst.2 Having been taught that such distinctions were necessary in the 'high' language, the logical next step would be to borrow English words to express them or to reinterpret secondary terms as basic to fill in the perceived gaps. 2. Irish informants In order to investigate these effects, I have obtained fairly complete data from Dr Donall 0 Baoill, a native Irish speaker and participant at the conference, and from two highly-motivated Irish learners, and somewhat less complete data from seventeen Welsh speakers, the latter courtesy of an unfortunately nameless student of Dr Robert Owen Jones at University College of Swansea (JONES undated). I also examined a number of children's books to learn what colour words were being promulgated as correct usage. To briefly describe the linguistic backgrounds of the Irish learners, Ellen, born in 1939, grew up in Cork city. Although her family is English-speaking, she and her siblings learned 'a lot' of Irish in primary school, and her secondary education was entirely in Irish, except for French, which was taught through English. After her intermediate examination, she took secretarial training. She emigrated to Trinidad and thence to the United States about twenty years ago and has not used Irish much since, but is proud that her nieces and nephews are attending Irish-language schools.

231 Ursula, born in 1958, grew up in Dublin. Her family also is English-speaking. She had twelve years of school Irish and obtained a leaving certificate with honours, including the highest mark in Irish in the school. She became a scientist and emigrated to the United States six years ago. She hopes that her one-year-old son will learn Irish in a few years after becoming fluent in English and his father's native language, Malayalam. Both learners stated that they were never specifically taught Irish colour terms or usage, rather learning them as they occurred in lessons or texts. 3. Basic terms for focal colours among Irish informants Each speaker was asked to list Irish colour terms which they used. Terms in brackets were suggested by the author when the speaker could not remember a term for a given focal colour, and which were then accepted by the speaker. A line indicates that the speaker had no basic term for that focal colour. Table 2: Distribution of focal colours among Irish informants Focal colour

Donall

Ellen

Ursula

white black red yellow green blue grey brown purple pink orange

ban dubh dearg bui glas gorm liath donn corcra pine —

ban dubh dearg Lbui] glas gorm — [donn] tcorcra] — —

ban dubh dearg Cbui] [glas] [gorml — donn Ccorcra] — —

232

The underlying basic colour terms of the Stage IV system remain, except that glas has been specified to focal green and the term gorm has been moved from the saturated system to provide a name for focal blue. This usage indicates that, for Irish speakers, focal glas historically was located at 'green' rather than 'blue', and that English contact therefore forced adoption of a new basic term for the latter but not the former. Donn 'brown* and corcra 'purple' also were pulled out of the saturated system and adopted as basic terms to meet the requirements of a Stage VII system. While uaine 'green' might have been expected to have moved into the focal green spot as the secondary term for 'bright green', neither of the learners recognized it, although Donall retains it in its secondary usage. Once glos became the basic term for 'green', uaines demise was inevitable, as it no longer served the purpose of defining a subset of glos. Odhor 'brown' never was much used even in the Old Irish period, and donn therefore had the advantage of being the familiar term closest to focal brown. Fionn and geol survived the looting of the saturated system by becoming a limited-usage term ('fair') and a colourless term ('bright' in general) respectively, both noted by Donall, fionn also by Ursula, and geal also by Ellen. Rua 's survival presumably provided an appropriate parallel niche for fionn 'white'. It is not surprising that Hath 'grey* became a basic term, despite its hair-colour origins, in light of the parallel development of Welsh llwyd 'grey'. What is unusual is that neither learner recognized it. This may be accidental or reflect the failure of schoolteachers and kindergarten crayon sets to include 'grey' as a standard colour. Pine is obviously an English loanword. When asked to describe the area on Berlin and Kay's colour map covered by their basic Irish terms, both Ellen and Ursula stated that their Irish usage was coextensive with English usage. Colours for which they had no basic Irish term hence would go unmapped. Neither would use corcra 'purple', however, although they recognized its meaning. Donall included much of what English speakers would describe as 'purple' and all of Orange' in donn, and his map of Hath included 'light blue' as well as 'grey'.

233

4. Basic terms for focal colours among Welsh informants The Welsh speakers questioned were Mrs Sweeney, a 94-year-old housewife, Mrs Davies, a 78-year-old housewife, Miss Jones, a 72-year-old teacher, Mr Edwards, a 71-year-old deacon and 'a little of everything', Mr Jenkins, a 59-year-old official at an old people's home, Mrs Jenkins, a 59-year-old housewife, Mr D.R. Evans, a 58-year-old farmer and pubkeeper, Mr. D.L. Evans, a 55-year-old farmer, Mrs Jones, a 41-year-old part-time school cook, Mr H. Evans, a 38-year-old teacher, Mrs Richards, a 38-year-old school cafeteria supervisor, John Lee, a 25-year-old photographer in a library, Geraint, a 22-year-old lounge employee, John, a 22-year-old teacher and farmer, Glenys, a 21-year-old teacher, Linda, a 15year-old student, and Steven, a 13-year-old student. Unfortunately, the fieldworker did not sort out clearly non-basic terms such as names of precious metals from the elicited lists of colour names. I have endeavoured to include only basic terms or the focal colour equivalents thereof. An asterisk indicates that the informant uses the English basic term as well as or instead of a Welsh equivalent. Table 3a: Distribution of focal Colours among Welsh informants Focal colour

Sweeney

Davies

Miss Jones

Edwards

Mr Jenkins

Mrs Jenkins

white black red yellow green blue grey brown purple pink orange

gwyn/» du coch »/melyn gwyrdd/* glas/* llwyd/« »/cochddu piws

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd glas llwyd/» » piws

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd glas llwyd * piws

gwyn du/« coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd » piws/»

gwyn du coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd/»

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd

* —

· piws

— —

— cochfelyn — —

— —

Table 3b: Distribution of focal colours among Welsh (cont.)

informants

Focal colour

D.R.Evans D.L.Evans

Mrsjones

H.Evans

Richards

white black red yellow green blue grey brown purple pink orange

gwyn du/« coch melyn gwyrdd glas llwyd * piws

gwyn du coch melyn »/gwyrdd glas llwyd «/cochddu piws

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas »/llwyd

gwyn du coch melyn

— —

— —

piws — *

piws — *

gwyn du/» coch melyn * glas »/llwyd * piws

*

*

glas llwyd

*

— *

Table 3c: Distribution of focal colours among Welsh informants (cont.) Focal colour

JohnLee

Geraint

John

white black red yellow green blue grey brown purple pink orange

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas »/llwyd » » — »

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd/»

gwyn gwyn du/* du/* coch coch melyn melyn gwyrdd/» gwyrdd glas glas llwyd llwyd/»

piws

piws

Glenys

piws

Linda

Steven

gwyn du/» coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd/» * piws

gwyn du coch melyn gwyrdd/» glas llwyd/* * piws

»

#

Based solely on the reported colour terms, the underlying Stage IV system again remains intact, albeit with the occasional parallel use of basic English terms and the disappearance of rhudd. Welsh speakers apparently historically located glas at focal 'blue' rather than 'green', which would explain the adoption of gwyrdd from the

235

saturated system as the basic term for the latter. Alternatively, the moribund status of gwrm even in the Middle Welsh period left no viable alternative for focal 'blue' and thereby could have forced the choice. The total absence of 'blue' as a loanword and the strong presence of 'green' as an alternative to gwyrdd argues for the former hypothesis, implying that the necessity for a distinction derives solely from the requirements of English. The historical compounds cochddu 'red-black' and cochfelyn 'red-yellow' for 'brown' and Orange' respectively, appear to barely survive among the older speakers, being replaced almost completely by the English terms. Piws is clearly the recent English loanword 'puce', and many of the speakers have 'mauve' as well, although none have a basic term for 'pink'.3 As 'pink' is not a basic colour term for all speakers of English (including the author, who considers it 'a shade of red), it would be of interest to know whether it is so considered by the English speakers in Wales. 5. Elicitation of colour terms as reponses to questions among Welsh speakers The fieldworker unfortunately did of the focal colours. However, gathered in response to questions thus examining the area covered changes as follows:

not ask questions concerning all when one examines the data on the colour of various objects, by the basic terms, the picture

white: Geraint's first choice for a sick person is gwyn, and it is Mrs Sweeney and Steven's second choice. black: Very strong tea is described as du by Miss Jones, and merely strong tea is so described by Mr D.R. Evans. Du is Geraint's third choice for a sick person. red: Rust is described as coch by Mr Edwards and the three Messrs Evans, as is strong tea by Miss Jones. yellow: A ten-pound note is described as melyn by Miss Jones and Messrs. D.R. and D.L. Evans, and it is Geraint's second choice for a sick person. green: Grass is described as 'green' by Mrs Sweeney and Linda and by Mrs Richards as a first choice, as glas by John

236

and Messrs D.E. and H. Evans and by Mmes Davies and Richards and Mr Edwards as a second choice, and as gwyrdd by the rest. grey: A grey horse is described as llwyd by Miss Jones as a first choice and by Mr Jenkins and the four youngest speakers, as 'grey' by John Lee and Mmes Sweeney, Jenkins, Jones, and Richards, as gwmau 'auburn' by John, and as glas by the others and as Miss Jones' second choice. Mr Jenkins describes a ten-pound note as llwyd. Mr H. Evans describes brown paper as llwyd, and Mmes Sweeney and Davies have it as a first choice. The three oldest speakers, Messrs D.R. and D.L. Evans, and John describe weak tea as llwyd. Geraint has llwyd as a fourth choice for a sick person, but it is the first choice of every other informant except Mr Jenkins. brown: Strong tea is described as cochddu by Mmes Sweeney and Davies and Mr D.E. Evans, 'brown' by John, and 'brown' tywyll by Steven, who describes weak tea as 'brown' golau. Rust is described as 'brown' by Mmes Sweeney and Richards and by the six youngest speakers. A ten-pound note is described as cochlyd [sic] by Mrs Davies and as 'brown' by Mr Edwards, Mrs Jenkins, and the nine youngest speakers. Everyone except Mr H. Evans describes brown paper as 'brown', although it is Mmes Sweeney and Davies' second choice. purple: A twenty-pound note is described as glas by Messrs Jenkins and H. Evans and glas tywyll by Mr D.R. Evans, as 'purple' by John Lee, and as piws by the others, excepting Mmes Sweeney and Davies and Glenys. orange: Mrs Jenkins and the nine youngest speakers have Orange', but Mrs Sweeney has coch, Mrs Davies cochfelyn, and Mr Jenkins melyn ac yn goch. The other older speakers have melyn, with Mr H. Evans noting it as a first choice. The underlying Stage IV system stands out clearly in these examples, especially for the older speakers and Mr H. Evans, whose usage of colour terms generally corresponds with theirs. The interaction between llwyd and glas and their extension into 'brown' and 'grey', 'green*, and 'purple* respectively, the use of coch and melyn for Orange', and the older compound terms appear with

237

greater frequency than the lists of elicited colour terms would indicate. 6. Comparison of responses between different generations Tlie common thread between the Irish and the Welsh data appears to be that older native speakers preserve the underlying Stage IV structure when defining the part of the spectrum covered by particular Stage IV basic colour terms, while accepting Stage VII terms into their vocabulary. Whether this will carry on to the next generation is suspect, however. The Irish learners and the younger Welsh speakers are more likely to use a more precise Stage VII term rather than the inclusive Stage IV term. The teaching of Celtic languages to school-children by people who are learners themselves doubtless will speed this process, as they will not have the historical underlying structure to pass on, only a table of equivalences. For example, the father of a five-year-old attending a Welsh-language school and speaking Welsh at home lamented that his son could not be convinced that glasrhudd 'grue-red* was the correct description of an object. The boy insisted that it was glasoren 'grue-orange'.4 Oren, textbook Welsh for Orange* as opposed to the English loanword used by the speakers described above, is a basic term for this child, who may not even recognize common Celtic but now archaic rhudd 7. Survey of use of colour terms in Insular Celtic based on responses to pictures Despite this example, colour terms fail to appear in most children's readers, or adult textbooks for that matter, except haphazardly as required for a particular description. Books for small children, the potentially best place to educate learners, tend to be translated from English. The best example of this is a picture dictionary (AMERY 1979) which has been translated into numerous languages, including Irish (0 DUBHTHAIGH 1981), Scots Gaelic (MacDHOMHNAILL 1987), Manx (THOMSON et aL 1986), and

238

Welsh (BORRE 1979). Page 52 demands names for all eleven of the Stage VII basic colour terms, and the various dictionaries provide the following: Table 4: Comparison of colour terms in Insular Celtic Colour (picture)

Irish

Scots Gaelic

Manx Gaelic Welsh

white(mouse) black (cat) red (cherries) yellow (banana) green (leaves) blue (jeans) grey (seal) brown (bear) purple(king's robe) pink (flower) orange (orange)

ban dubh dearg bul glas gorm liath donn corcra bändearg oräiste

geal dubh dearg buidhe uaine/gorm liath/gorm glas ruadh purpaidh ban-dhearg/pinc orains

bane doo jiarg bwee glass/geayney gorrym Iheeah dhone gorrym-jiarg jiarg-bane jiarg-bwee

gwyn du coch melyn gwyrdd glas llwyd brown porffor pine oren

The Irish and Welsh lists bear some resemblance to those elicited from speakers, but also have some surprises at the Stage VII level. Bandearg was not used by any of the Irish speakers, nor was oraiste, which, as the name of the fruit, may not represent a colour term but rather the need to put something under the picture.5 Middle Welsh porffor has been replaced in the spoken language by one or another English loanword, usually piws. None of the Welsh speakers reported any word for 'pink', although pine is in use (see n.3). Finally, the loanword Orange' is used by the inhabitants of Llannon who do not use the Stage IV terms coch or melyn or their compound cochfetyn, although oren may be the up-and-coming word. The Manx list is noteworthy for its attempt to promulgate Stage IV-based compound words for Stage VII focal colours, effectively arresting development at Stage VI. As Manx regains native speakers, it will remain to be seen whether these terms are accepted or English loanwords replace them. The Scots Gaelic list deviates somewhat from what would be expected from either a historical or contemporary standpoint. Ban, not geal is still the common term for 'white', and the use of geal to describe a mouse is unusual. Leaves as well as a seal may be

239

glas, but gorm is also acceptable for the 'green' of ripe grass.6 This implies confusion as to the proper spheres of coverage of the former basic and saturated terms, now jostled into the same system, especially as uaine also survives. The matter is further complicated by the encroachment of Hath into focal 'blue'. The use of ruadh rather than donn may have been inadvertantly suggested by the illustrator, who coloured the bear a rather reddish brown. The Stage VII terms again are English loanwords, except that ban-dhearg is suggested, presumably with as little success as in Irish in light of the alternative pine. Conclusion In light of these preliminary investigations, it is hoped to extend field work to native speakers and learners of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Welsh of a wide variety of ages, types of language learning, and use of a Celtic tongue as opposed to English in family, social, or formal situations. Although elicited lists of basic colour terms are of some importance, more useful data on the survival of the Stage IV colour system can be obtained by colour mapping. Because of the secondary systems historically present and still extant to some degree, the Berlin and Kay colour chart does not tell the whole story. Accordingly, identification of the colours in pictures of fields at different seasons of the year, animals, people, mountains, seas, and the like will be necessary to establish the full range of colour terms and their usage. In summary, contact with English has had profound effects on the colour systems of Modern Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Welsh. Colour terms previously part of secondary systems or in limited usage have been introduced into the Stage IV basic systems to fill them out into 'proper' Stage VII systems, such as English has. Where no useful term was available, English loanwords have been adopted. While native speakers preserve the underlying Stage IV distribution to some extent, learners are being taught the distribution appropriate to a Stage VII system, albeit by omission rather than commission. This phenomenon will be beneficial for the purpose of more exact translation, but it would be sad if Celtic- language speakers

240

no longer saw the world as coloured by their native or adopted speecn« Footnotes 1

A possible contrary example relevant to the topic of language contact in the British Isles is Shelta. When asked about colour terms, Duncan Williamson, a storyteller and native speaker of Shelta, stated that colour was not considered important. The only example which he could provide was that a well-marked' horse was one without any white hair, which is considered unlucky, while a horse having white hair was 'ill-marked'. Shelta speakers also use ruadh to describe a red-headed person, which is clearly a loanword from Irish or Scots Gaelic, ace. to R. D. Clement (personal communication). Here is a language with no basic terms, as all three words are loanwords and semantically limited to hair colour.

2

I provide as a bad example a recent conversation with a Goidelic linguist who would doubtless prefer to remain unidentified. This person was aware of the underlying Stage IV structure of the uoidelic colour system, particularly so as to the area covered by glas, yet ^ criticized a native speaker's English description or a rock as 'green', the usual modern Irish ana Scots Gaelic translation of glas.

3

In the Welsh song Cyfri'r Geifr 'Counting the Goats', in which (female) goats are listed by as many colours as the singers can remember or stand, the colour terms, being feminine adjectives, take lenition, e.g., gafr wen 'white goat', gafr goch 'red goat\ and even gafr gaci 'khaki goat* and gafr bine 'pink goat', except for M/> piws rather than the expected *biws (ace. to G. Awbery and B. Bird (personal communication)). This morphological constraint attests to the recent borrowing and lack of assimilation of piws as compared to other borrowed colour terms.

4

D. A. Jones (personal communication)

5

Use of these colour terms evidently is being promulgated. In another children's book translated from English, the child viewing a picture of liquorice allsorts is encouraged: Poach or na dathanna deasa ata or na milseäin-ban, bin, oräiste, glas,

241

donn, bandearg 'Look at the pretty colours of the sweets [...]' (WINGFIELD 1985). Of particular interest is the fact that the English text for the same picture asks the child to name the colours rather than supplying words. 6

K. MacKinnon and R. D. Clement (personal communication)

References AMERY, H. (1979): The First Thousand Words in English. Usborne Publishing Ltd, 52. BERLIN, B. and P. Kay (1969): Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press, 2-7. BORRE, R. (tr.) (1979): Υ Geriadur Lliwgar. Gwasg y Dref Wen, 52. JONES, R.O. (date unknown): Lliwiau yn Llannon. Essay by an unnamed student, University College of Swansea. KAY, P. (1975): "Synchronic Variability and Diachronie Change in Basic Color Terms". Language in Society 4:3: 257-270. KAY, P. and C. McDaniel (1978): "The Linguistic Significance of the Meaning of Basic Color Terms". Language 54:3: 610-646. LAZAR-MEYN, H.A. (1979): The Spectrum of Old Irish. Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania. — (forthc.): "The Historical Development of the Common Celtic Colour System". Lecture presented at the Eighth International Congress of Celtic Studies 1987, Swansea. MacDHOMHNAILL, I. (tr.) (1987): Dealbh is Facal. Acair, 52. MacLAURY, R. (forthcoming): Color Categories in Mesoamerica. A Cross-Linguistic Study. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, cited in Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, 30. 0 DUBHTHAIGH, F. (tr.) (1981): Buntus Foclora. Gill and Macmillan Ltd, 52.

242

Ö SIADHAIL, M. (1985), Irish Culture and the Irish Language. Lecture presented at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. POLLAK, J. (1959): "Beiträge zur Verwendung der Farben in der älteren irischen Literatur." Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 27:3: 161-205. THOMSON, R., A. Pilgrim, P. Burgess and A. Ainsworth (trs.) (1986): The First Thousand Words in Manx. Usborne Publishing Ltd, 52. WHATMOUGH, J. (1956): Language. A Modern Synthesis. Mentor, 170. WINGHELD, E. and H. (1970): A Ladybird First Picture Book. Ladybird Books Ltd, tr. as (1985) An Ch^ad Leabhar Pictiur. An Gum, 8.

THE STRAUBING HELIAND-FRAGMENT AND THE OLD ENGLISH DIALECTS Hans F. Nielsen Introduction The recent discovery of a fragment of the Old Saxon Heliand epic (lines 351 to 722) at Straubing, Bavaria (BISCHOFF 1979, TAEGER 1979-84) has triggered off renewed interest in a problem which scholars started discussing as early as in the 19th century: did the divergences between the Old English dialects originate in England or did they represent old dialectal differences brought over to England by the Anglo-Saxon invaders in the 5th and 6th centuries? (NIELSEN 1985: 65-70.) In his article from 1980 Korhammer attempts to find out whether the Straubing fragment (S) might shed light on this old controversy from a lexical point of view. Below, I shall go through in detail Korhammer's lexical items and some additional evidence concerning isoglosses in OS, originally advanced by Simon 1965 but taken up by Korhammer. From there I shall proceed to list and to discuss a number of morphological and phonological features that the S language has in common with OE or any one of its dialects. In my treatment of the various correspondences other Germanic languages will be taken into account, but I shall not deal with parallels between S and OE, where S falls completely in line with OS. To give an example: uniform plural endings in the present indicative are entirely normal in OS as well as in OE and OFris. Since S does not diverge in this respect, the shared feature will be left out of account here. My reasons for discussing S links to both the OE dialects and OE in general are that I do not wish to debar myself from dealing with interesting shared material and that the two kinds of evidence adduced might in fact throw light on each other. Since a treatment of the linguistic affiliations of S can obviously not be undertaken unless other links than those of S to OE are examined, it will be considered whether S can be shown to contain 'German' (non-Ingveonic) characteristics to any striking extent, and

244

subsequently whether it is possible to argue that the S language is Frisian as has recently been claimed. But let me now return to Korhammer's lexical investigation. 1.1. Korhammer's lexical material It is characteristic of the various Heliand-manuscripts that they show a remarkable degree of lexical identity, and S deviates from this pattern on only a few points. The first diverging S word discussed by Korhammer (1980: 87-8) is the adverb tulgo (353, 398, 542), the corresponding forms of which in the Cottianus (C) and Monacensis (M) manuscripts of the Heliand are, respectively, suitho and suido (suido), cf. OE swioe. Feist links tulgo to the Goth, adjective tulgus 'firm, fast', but the only other Gmc. language to reflect this word is OE, where tulge is an adverb of degree meaning 'very' just like tulgo. Korhammer agrees with Vleeskruyer (1953: 33) that the OE word is a Mercian archaism and that all six attestations of tulge are specifically of Anglian provenance. Korhammer mentions (but does not stress) that tulgo is well attested elsewhere in C and M (849, 1043, 1217, 1415, 2419 and C 4727, 5436) along with suitho/suido, so even if it is accepted that tulge is an Anglian word, S tulgo does not in itself suggest that the S dialect differs from that of G or M. The second lexical item where S diverges from C and M is the adverb tigene 'against' (395, 562), where C and M have a form with the suffix -s, viz. tegegnes, which is also used elsewhere in the two versions. Both forms are reflected in MLG, cf. tegen (Du. tegen) and tegens. In OE, -s forms are the normal ones (togeagnes, togenes), in fact there is just a single example in OE of the adverb without the suffix, cf. togeaegn attested in the Lindisfarne Gospels (Li.) - where -s forms predominate. Korhammer (1980: 88-9) draws attention to forms (prepositions) without -s in early ME texts such as La3amon, Robert of Gloucester, Ancrene Riwle and Seinte Marherete which all derive "aus dem Westen Englands, also aus ehemals hauptsächlich mercischem Gebiet". Therefore, in Korhammer's view, Li. togeaegn may be regarded as typically Anglian. It is true that most of the early ME texts mentioned here by Korhammer are of Western origin, although it would probably

245

be more correct to assign Robert of Gloucester to the South-West. I have found a specimen of the suffixless form (prep, tojain (876)) in Floris and Blancheflour (Auchinleck ms.), which is likely to be, not of Western but of East Midland provenance (BENNETT and SMITHERS 1968: 284). Korhammer notes that forms in -s also crop up in Lagamon (as in fact they do in several ME texts of both 'Anglian* and 'non-Anglian' origin, cf. e.g. OED). Our examination of the evidence substantiates, at least superficially, Korhammer's findings. But it must be admitted that the one suffixless adverb attested in Old Anglian is in itself a slender reason for assuming a special connection between this dialect and the S language. Also, there is the possibility that the ME material listed is less significant than assumed by Korhammer. The prepositional to-yen - to-jaenes variation in Lasamon and elsewhere may well have been modelled on the prepositional variation between aje/n and ajeines which, to judge from the OED (sub again and against), had come into being by the early ME period (earliest -s forms attested in the 12th century), cf. a Western ('Anglian') text like the Ancrene Riwle (ms. CCGC 402): A;jein alle temptatiuns, ant nomeliche a3ein fleschliche...(l) ... aijeines flesches fondunges...(58) ... aseines his unwines. (88) (The (line) numbers refer to BENNETT and SMITHERS 1968: 224-7.) As for Korhammer's third item (1980: 89-90), the interrogative adverb bihuon, we are on safer ground. The S fragment is the only OS manuscript to exhibit the interrogative adverb bihuon (561, 565) 'why, how1, cf. C bihui, M bihuui. The S word has an exact counterpart in Anglian be/hi hwon (attested twice) 'whence'. Korhammer thinks that it is especially the instrumental case form hwon that is of relevance for connecting S with Anglian, cf. OE expressions like for hwon 'why' and to hwon 'for what purpose' of which there are several attestations and which have been shown by Wenisch to be characteristic of Anglian (1979: 150-56, 235-9). Conversely, Korhammer links the C and M forms in -hu(u)i to the WS instrumental forms hwi, hwy (for-, to-). Like Taeger (1981: 405) he realizes, however, that hut is attested also in S ti hui (555), an

246

expression which corresponds exactly to C/M te hui. Similarly, S has the instr. dem. pron. in bethiu (575, cf. C/M bi thiu), and not a form in *thon, cf. OE be fvn (see DAL 1971: 102, 106). Finally Korhammer (1980: 90-92) discusses the S conjunction nebon (536, only instance) 'unless' which is comparable to C neuan1 but not M butan. The M manuscript is consistent in its use of b- forms (biutan, biuten) whereas C, besides its 15 n- forms (neuuan, neban, nouan), has 3 occurrences of botan. With reference to Simon (1965: 54-5), Korhammer links the diverging selection of conjunctions in the Heliand manuscripts to the dialectal distribution in OE of the conjunctions Angl. nemne/nefne/nymfre and WS buton (JORDAN 1906: 46-8, WENISCH 1979: 99-200). Simon interpreted the different choice of conjunctions in the C and M manuscripts as a dialect isogloss in OS of profound significance, which, since it is reflected in OE, must have been exported to England when the Anglo-Saxons invaded the island. Korhammer (1980: 93-4) does not agree with Kühn (1955: 38) that the use of butan as a conjunction was a central North Sea Germanic feature which was introduced into marginal NSG areas such as Northern England and Northern Germany only at a late stage and only to a limited extent - partly because M butan seems to reflect the archetypal form (TAEGER 1979: 209-10) and partly because a frequently used form word like the conjunction butan is unlikely to have spread from England across the North Sea to be borrowed by OS. The same applies, in Korhammer's view, to the instrumental hui: to assume that this form replaced another instrumental in consequence of WS influence is not plausible. Instead Korhammer presupposes the existence of old lexical isoglosses within OS like those discussed above which, after being brought to England by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, crop up in the OE dialects. 1.2. Additional material adduced by Simon Korhammer (1980: 92-3) examines three further parallels put forward by Simon (1965: 53-7). In the first place, the mutated weak preterite forms (gi)setta and legda in the M manuscript are linked to OE sette, legde, while the unmutated G forms satta and

247 lagda (which occur beside gisetta and legda (-ledda)) are put on a par by Simon with not only OLF satta (and OHG sazia, MHG Iahte), but also Angl. saette (Li.) and Isegde (Ru.1). Korhammer doubts that -3d- in the Anglian manuscripts in question represents the unmutated vowel: according to Brunner (1965: § 55 Anm.), ae is frequently used as an inverted spelling for e in certain Anglian texts such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Rusworth Gospels1.2 Secondly, the occurrence of as. 1/2 pers.pron. mik/thik in C (where there are 19 examples as against 1 in M) is parallelled with the Angl. relic forms mec/pec? Simon and Korhammer conclude that this reflects an old isogloss separating distinct C/Angl. ace. sg. forms in /-k/ from Ingveonic accusative/dative syncretism, an isogloss that was present on the Continent already prior to the Anglo-Saxon emigration. But perhaps Simon and Korhammer do not concentrate sufficiently on the fact that the /-k/ forms in OS and Angl. are just common retentions, cp. Goth./ON mik. OHG mih\ ON f)ik, OHG dih. Case syncretism (a/ds. 1/2 pers.pron.) in Ingveonic (NSG) does not automatically turn inherited case distinctions in OS and Angl. (and in Goth., ON and OHG as well) into evidence for pre-invasion proximity between the linguistic forbears of these tongues. Kühn (1955: 38), in fact, thinks that syncretism in WS/Kt. and OFris. (OS) developed after the Adventus Saxonum, leaving the southern half of Germany and the north of England unaffected. It would have been of much greater significance if the Heliand manuscripts had exhibited distinct forms of the a/dp. 1/2 pers.pron. similar to what we find in Angl. ap. usic, eowic, dp. us, eow. There can be no doubt that the ap. forms represent innovations modelled on the as. forms in /-k/ (NIELSEN 1985: 225-7). Galle (1910: §362 Anm.4) mentions only one OS text (Essen Gl.) with a comparable ap. form, unsik, which may owe its existence to southern influence, for OHG has innovatory forms parallel to those found in Angl., cp. OHG ap. unsih, iuwih (dp. uns, iu). Does this shared innovation between OHG and Angl. reflect contact between pre-OHG and pre-Angl. speakers on the Continent before Anglo-Saxons settled in Northern England or is it an innovation which has come about independently owing to a shared (inherited) model, i.e. distinct ace. and dat. case forms in the singular? The third of Simon's parallels dealt with by Korhammer is the penetration of forms of the verb »waljan 'choose' into the

248

anomalous verb 'will' in the C manuscript of Heliand and in Angl., cp. pres. pi. G uuelhat and Angl. wellad (both with /-mutated -e-). In contrast, Heliand M has only pres.pl. forms in -i- (cp. uuilliad, WS willad). Korhammer stresses that the selection of *waljan is not restricted to G and Angl. but is shared also by OHG, cp. pres.pl. wellemes, wellet, wellentA But Simon and Korhammer are right in saying that only C and Angl. show evidence of -a- in the preterite, C uualda (301, 7145), Angl. walde, even if uuelda and wolde are the normal pt. forms in respectively OS and OE. Simon (1965: 57) adds that MDu. woude can be derived from both *wolda and *walda. 1.3. Summary of the evidence discussed by Korhammer and Simon It appears that the parallels between S (G) and Angl. adduced by Korhammer (and Simon) are not without their weaknesses. We saw that the adverb tulgo was not restricted to S but found (retained) also repeatedly in C and M in variation with suitho/suido. In Angl. (Mercian) tulge was clearly a relic form on its way to being ousted by s wide. As for S tigene, its Angl. counterpart without -s is attested only once. It is doubtful that Korhammer's early ME forms (prepositions) without -s are of any real significance seeing that they may have been patterned on the contemporary ajein model. The correspondence between the interrogative adverbs S bihuon, Angl. be/hi hwon with their selection of the instrumental case form hwon is clearly of greater importance for demonstrating dialectal interrelations. Similarly, Korhammer may be right in seeing a dialectal split in OS between S nebon (G neuan, etc.) and M butan reflected in Angl. nemne/nefne/nympe and WS buton. We agree with Korhammer in his reservations about Simon's alignment of the unmutated pt. forms satta and lagda in C with Angl. seette and leegde. The second of Simon's parallels discussed, the presence of distinct as. forms in 1/2 pers.pron. in C and in Angl., need not have much bearing on our subject seeing that the /-k/ forms represent retentions of inherited forms as compared to the central Ingveonic syncretism of the ace. and dat. sg. Finally, reflexes of the verb *waljan are attested in the present paradigms

249

of the verb 'will' in C and in Angl. - as well as in OHG and in OFris. But G and Angl. exhibit an exclusive parallel in the pt., viz. G uualda, Angl. walde. 2.

Morphological and phonological parallels between the Straubing manuscript and Old English/the Old English dialects

It may well be questioned whether a few lexical parallels between S and Angl. are sufficient to prove the transference of important dialect patterns from the Continent to England. Simon does supply additional morphological material from the Heliand C manuscript but his treatment is by no means exhaustive. I have already intimated what I intend to do in my survey, viz. to identify and evaluate all the morphological and phonological items in S which are in specific agreement with features in OE and its dialects. We shall then see to what extent my findings will prove or disprove the views held by Korhammer and Simon. 2.1. The asm. of the dem. pron. occurs twice in the S fragment and in both cases with an -a- (thane 514, 554) like M (thana) but in contradistinction to C (ihena). To judge from the standard handbooks (GALLEE 1910: §366, HOLTHAUSEN 1921: §335, 3363) -e- forms outnumber -a- forms in OS. Very likely, -a- was the original asm. vowel in Gmc., cf. Goth, pana, ON pann, OE pone. On the analogy of gen. sg., -e- was extended into asm. in OHG (den) and from here it may have spread northwards, cp. OS thena, OPris. thene and MDu. dien. It is interesting that some Anglian texts (Ru.1·11, Li.) exhibit the asm. dem. pron. pene. Should the Angl. alternative form be seen as an extension of the -e- spread from the High German language area? Streitberg offers a different explanation (1974: 269b), according to which the -e- form reflects the suffix *-in-on (/-mutation), cp. OE eenne (< *aininon}. In any case, -e- forms are not attested in S. 2.2. The usual gsm/n. form of the dem.pron. in S and the other Heliand manuscripts (and elsewhere in OS) is thes (< IE *teso, cf. Goth, pis, ON pess, OHG des\ but in one instance (720) S has

250

got thas, which is attested only in a few cases in OS, e.g. in C 2156, 5427 (GALLEE 1910: § 366 Anm. 2, HOLTHAUSEN 1921: § 3364). OS thas is assumed to derive from the IE ablaut variant *toso, which would also be the origin of OE fxjes (cf. NIELSEN 1985: 195-7). It is not inconceivable that in some of the ihes occurrences in S (360, 525, 538, 560, 576) e reflects, not an old e but a fronted a (cf. below, sections 2.12 and 2.17). In OFris., incidentally, it is impossible to tell whether thes steins from IE *teso or *toso, because of the OFris. fronting of a to e. How about the pronominal gsm/n. a-stem ending? Does that shed additional light on the S gsm/n. form of the dem. pron. as we see it in other Gmc. languages? The S fragment consistently exhibits the suffix -es (TAEGER 1984: 374), which may derive from both IE *-eso and *-oso, cf. below, section 2.17. It is interesting that OS (including M and C) has many examples of -as in the gsm/n. of the a-stem nouns (and adjectives), cf. Galloe 1910: §297 Anm. 2 and Holthausen 1921: §265 Anm. 2. The only definite trace of the IE ablaut variant *toso in S, then, is thas, but it is a form that links S to OE (and early Runic, cp. such gsm. a-stem forms as asugisalas (Kragehul) and hnabdas (Saude)). 2.3. In the reinforced dem.pron. S diverges from the other Heliand manuscripts and in fact from OS in general by exhibiting (oblique) secondary stem forms in -ss- rather than -s-, cp. asm. thessan (495, 522, 565), gsn. thesses (559), dsn. thessun (561), dsf. thesseru (374, 524, 536, 566). Geminated stem forms are found also in OE (CAMPBELL 1959: §711, §457), OFris. (SJÖLIN 1969: 35-6) and ON (NOREEN 1970: §470), but not in OHG, in which the corresponding forms (BRAUNE and EGGERS 1975: §288) agree with the normal OS ones (GALLEE 1910: §367). It is interesting that MLG agrees with S in having geminated forms (LASCH 1974: §407, 2 Anm. 1). Taeger (1981: 416) regards *f>ess- as "eine sehr alte Nebenform, die dem Voras. schon zu Zeiten der angelsächsischen Abwanderung vom Kontinent eigen war". We conclude that the preference for the (alternative) secondary stem form thess- in the reinforced dem.pron. is, if not a strictly Ingveonic feature in S, certainly a northern one (cp. RÖSEL 1962: 24, esp. fn. 89). 2.4. In comparison with the strong (pronominal) asm. forms of

251

adjectives in C and M, which typically end in -an, S has suffixes similar to those found in OE and OFris.: gihuilikne (353, C/M gihuihcan), oderne (695, 718, C odran, M odran), cp. OE hwaetne, oferne, OFris. godne, otherne. Taeger (1981: 421) takes the -ne as evidence of "den ingwäonischen Charakter der Sprachform S". Presumably it is an innovation introduced into the S version of the Heliand in view of the agreement between the G and M manuscripts in their choice of strong adjectival asm. forms (1981: 420). 2.5. The S counterpart to M tho and G (mainly) thuo is tha 'then', which is used consistently throughout the fragment (e.g. in 492, 503, 510, 512, 532). TTie corresponding form in OHG is duo (do), while ON, OE and OFris. (like S) have a-forms: f)a, fra, tha. In my view the etymology of all these forms can best be accounted for if we presuppose the existence of two ablaut variants, Gmc. */>£ and */>o. The latter form would explain the OHG and OS (except S) forms, while */>£ would be the origin of not only Goth. f>e but also the remaining a-forms. If shortened, £ became a in Gmc., and a short vowel in a monosyllabic word like the adverb in question could undergo lengthening when appearing in an accented position (see HOLTHAUSEN 1963: 359, KRAHE I 1969: §123-4 and esp. BRUNNER 1965: §137). The S form therefore agrees with Goth., ON, OE and OFris. in their choice of a common Gmc. variant, and it agrees with the three last-mentioned languages in the shortening of e to a and subsequent lengthening to a. It should finally be noted that tha occurs only once in OS outside the S fragment (CORDES and HOLTHAUSEN 1973: 148). 2.6. The Straubing manuscript retains a more archaic form of '80* than is attested elsewhere in OS in that the prefix of hunahtude (513) is identical with that of OE hundeahtatig, etc. except that in S -nd has been assimilated to -n (TAEGER 1981: 423 and fn. 73). The M and C prefixes ant- and at- should be accounted for in terms either of prefix substitution or of weakening (TAEGER 1984: 382). But while no prefixed OS form signifying '70' or '80' ends in -tig, 'decade' is indicated twice in OE hundseofontig, hundeahtatig and hundnigontig - -tig having been added on the analogy of twentig, dritig, etc. -, OFris. tachtig, tniogentich and MDu. tseventich, tachtich, tnegentich reflect similar formations. It is

252

worth noting that OHG, which has no prefixed forms of '70'-'90', retains forms (sibunzo and ahtozo) which have not been influenced by the suffix of the decades '20' - '60' (zweinzug, etc.). The -d- of antahtoda (M) as well as the -d- of hunahtude may be due to influence from the ordinal numbers. We conclude that among the OS forms, which share the Ingveonic innovation of prefixing the designation for 'decade' in the cardinal numbers 70' and '80' although they do not exhibit the analogical -tig suffix, the S prefix hun- represents the closest parallel to OE hund- (< IE *komt). 2.7. The Straubing pt. forms of Glass II weak verbs end in -ade, -adun (thianade 516, fregade 552, folgadun 545) and not in suffixes with -o- as is usual in the OS conjugation (C thionoda, fragode, M/C folgodun). -a- is also found in the Class II preterites of the Angl. and Kt. dialects of OE (macade, cp. WS macode) as well as in OFris. (klagade) and in ON (kallafra). If we are to believe Campbell (1959: §3316), the variation in OE is due to the change of Gmc. ö to ö in medial unaccented syllables when followed by u in the next syllable. This brings about a differentiation of medial vowels in the pt. suffixes *-odo and *-Qdunt. In WS the medial vowel -o- (> -o-) was extended throughout the paradigm while in Angl./Kt. -ö- (> -a-) was generalized. Elsewhere I have assumed that the dialectal variation in OE stemmed from an internal OE rule (NIELSEN 1985: 230). According to Siebs (1901: 1241) and van Helten (1890: §78), unaccented ö before a consonant regularly develops into a in OFris.; and in ON medial syllables / > a except before m (NOREEN 1970: §137). In the case of the Straubing Class II preterites in -ade, adun the general tendency to prefer -a- to -o- in unaccented position should be borne in mind (see below, section 2.18). Taeger (1984: 378) suggests that morphological coalescence with Class III of the weak verbs and levelling on the pattern of the weak Class I forms as well as of the strong verbs may also have had some bearing on the development. On the surface the -a- in the weak Class II pt. suffixes in S seems to bear out the northern affiliation of the fragment, but as our examination has shown, it is a feature which is really of little significance for deciding the issue under discussion.

253

2.8. In the 3rd pres.sg.ind. of 'be' -t has been lost in S is (399, 521), cp. ON es, OE/OFris./MDu. is, whereas it has been retained in Goth., early Runic (Vetteland), OHG, OLF and OFris. ist. Like OFris., OS has both forms: ist is the majority form in C while is outnumbers ist in M. According to Holthausen (1921: §239), -t is lost in (OS) ist before a following consonant. I suggest elsewhere (NIELSEN 1985: 206) that the short form arose in consequence of its frequent occurrence in weakly accented position or on the analogy of the 3rd pt. sg. (ON vas, OE wees, etc.) or perhaps for the two reasons combined. The fact that S has is may not be of great significance, but at least it shows a loss that has counterparts in the Germanic north-west but not in OHG. 2.9. Fronted (unmutated) reflexes of Gmc. e1, which are of regular occurrence in OE and OFris. (and are reflected in Dutch coastal dialects), are very rare in OS (GALLEE 1910: §82, HOLTHAUSEN 1921: §29), and according to Rooth (1956: 47) they are found especially next to palatal sounds. In S the proportion of fronted reflexes is considerably higher, cp. spehe (375, C/M spaha), giseun (394, C/M gisahun), uuerun (540, G/M uuarun), fregade (552, C/M fragode), erundi (553, 564, C/M arundi), sprekana (572, M sprakono), forletan (578, C forlatan), even if there are numerous counterexamples, cp. bokspahe (352), uuarun (373, 566, 569), sprakun (562), spraku (700), arundi (719), etc. Quite clearly, the S reflexes of Gmc. e1 do not bear out Rooth's assumption that e is particularly common next to palatal sounds (cf. TAEGER 1982: 32-3). The only conclusion we can draw is that the S fragment is more Ingveonic than other OS manuscripts in having more instances of e < Gmc. e1. See also Nielsen 1985: 126-7, 232-5. 2.10. Whereas S has several examples of a + nasal + p/X developing into ö through compensatory lengthening (owing to the loss of n or m) and rounding, cf. below, section 2.11, the fragment has only one instance of Gmc. e"1 becoming 0 before a nasal, viz. son (517, 552, 676, 699, M/C san). In OE and OFris. ö is the regular development in such cases, cp. OE sona, OFris. son, but OS sano, sanfa), OHG san(o). In a few isolated cases OS exhibits -0 instead of -a-, cf. Merseburg Gl. son (GALLEE 1910: §81 Anm. 2). But as Taeger (1982: 33) is careful to point out, the only potentially relevant forms in S are camun (542, 565, cp. OE

254

c(w)omon, OFris. komon) and namun (695, cp. OE/OFris. nomon), both pt.pl. forms of strong Glass IV verbs. The pt. sg. forms cam (503, 516, 581) and nam (378) are of no relevance here because -ais etymologically short; the reason that OE has c(w)om, nom and OFris. kom, nom, with -o-, is probably that -o- was transferred from the pt. pi. to the pt. sg. forms on the pattern of the strong Class VI verbs (NIELSEN 1985:121-2). 2.11. The reflex of Gmc. a + nasal + /> is ö in the S fragment in oder (557, 559, 578, 695, 718) and sod- (494, 565, 581), forms which have more or less exact parallels in the C and M manuscripts, although a-forms are attested elsewhere in the C and M versions of the Heliand (GALLEE 1910: §51). No rounding of a to 0 appears to have taken place in S fadi (556), cp. C fathie, but M fodiu ('(on) foot'). But the S fragment is the only OS manuscript at all to exhibit rounded reflexes of Gmc. a + nasal + X, cf. gibrohti (553), ohtian (704) vs. C brahti, M gibrahti, M/C ahtean, S githahti (576). In this respect S thus comes closer to OE (brohte, ehtan (/-mutated o]} and OFris. (brochte) than does OS in general. MDu. has both brochte and brachte (FRANCK 1910: §56). Rounded forms are attested dialectally in Du., especially in the western dialects; the word achterdocht '-thought' has entered Standard Du. from dialectal speech (SCHÖNFELD/VAN LOEY 1970: §29, §31). The rounding of nasalized a may well go back to the period prior to the Anglo-Saxon departure from the Continent. Even the earliest OE written sources show consistent o-spelling. 2.12. Gmc. a, which is generally retained as a in Goth., ON, OS, OLF, MDu. and OHG, is fronted (except before nasals) in OE (feeder] and OFris. (feder). In OS there are sporadic (rare) occurrences of e < unmutated a, especially before r + consonant and before g, k as noted by Galtee 1910: §52. In S the following words show -e- < unmutated -a-, creht (382), middilgerd (524) and uureksid (554), cp. OE crseft, middangeard and wrsecsid. The fronting of a to e in creht and uureksid has taken place despite the absence of the consonantal surroundings that according to Gall e"e were favourable to the process. But even in S the fronting of a to e is the exception rather than the rule as craht (377, 399), middilgard (495), uuard (720) and numerous other counterexamples

255

show (see TAEGER 1982: 23, especially fn. 63). It might finally be mentioned that the fronting of a to a? and e in OE and OFris. respectively probably developed independently: if we are to believe Krupatkin's view (1970: 55) of the evolution of the OE and OFris. vowel systems, the subsystem of short vowels was restructured on the pattern of long vowels, i.e. the split of a into a fronted and a nasalized vowel (see below, section 2.13) took place subsequent to a similar split within the long subsystem (cf. above, sections 2.9 and 2.10). And as Campbell (1959: §131-2) points out, the change of OE a to a? was later than that of ai to a, and therefore also than that of Gmc. e* (> a) to 35 (see above, section 2.9) seeing that ai would have become sei and not 8. if a > ae had preceded (or been simultaneous with) the shift of ai, cp. au > aeu (> ea). In OFris. (see below) the development of au to a must have preceded the fronting process. 2.13. The rounding (nasalization) of Gmc. a before nasals, which is well attested in OE and OFris. (cp. OE/OFris. mon, man; torn, tarn] occurs infrequently in OS (bond, bivongen, gisomwardon, cp. HOLTHAUSEN 1921: §29) outside the S fragment. However, in S ospellings clearly outnumber spellings with a before nasals, cp. monn (in various case forms), strongost, gongan, hondun, gimong, thonan, nethuonan, nomana, etc. vs. land, manno, thane, an, cam, etc. (TAEGER 1982: 25). As was suggested above, in section 2.12, the split of Gmc. a into a rounded (nasalized) and a fronted vowel was a relatively late (independent) development in OFris. and OE (KRUPATKIN 1970: 55).6 Nevertheless scholars have (even quite recently, cf. RAMAT 1976: 72) pointed to the existence of an isogloss comprising OFris. and OE dialectal areas, cp. OWFris. man, WS/Kt. man vs. OEFris. mon, Angl. mon. But already Siebs (1901: 1180-81, 1369) assumed that OWFris. a + nasal constituted a back formation from ο + nasal, an assumption that has been substantiated by later investigations: o-forms occur sporadically in OWFris. texts, and conversely, some instances of a before nasals crop up in late OEFris. (SJ LIN 1966: 30-31, cf. also 1984: 59-61). As for the OE dialects, the change of a to ο before nasals probably began in Angl. The Epinal Glossary (c. 700) has aspellings while the early 8th-century Nhm. texts show variation between a and o. From the North the shift spread southwards, where it gained wide acceptance during the period of Mercian

256

supremacy, especially in the first half of the 9th century: ο is used consistently in the Vespasian Psalter (c. 825). The fact that a was reintroduced at the expense of ο should be seen as a consequence of West Saxon political domination from the end of the 9th century, leaving the Mercian homeland, the West Midlands, to be the only area in ME where o-spellings were retained, cp. the ME (and ModE) mon, man isogloss (TOON 1983: 97, KRISTENSSON 1987: 42-3). In his careful study of the origin and progress of the change of a to ο in early OE Toon (1983: 90-118) manages to show how the shift began "in a small subset of the lexicon on a word-by-word basis but sensitive to phonetic environment" (1983: 118). The distinction between a and ο before nasals in OE as well as in OFris. is at least as much chronological as it is dialectal. And perhaps more significantly, there is no evidence in OE of a becoming ο before nasals prior to 700. 2.14. When not exposed to /-mutation, Gmc. eu is frequently (but not exclusively) reflected as ia instead of io in the Straubing fragment, cp. thianade (516, G thionoda], Habe (497, G h be) and thiada (525, M thioda); S (M/G) liudi and niudlica have mutated stressed vowels. According to the standard OS grammars, spellings in ea and ia sometimes reflect Gmc. eu but are regarded as later spellings (HOLTHAUSEN 1921: §101, GALLEE 1910: §104). It is tempting to connect the S forms with similar developments in the Nhm. dialect of OE (peaf, liode, cp. WS peof, leode), especially because ea < eu crops up as early as in the Ruthwell inscription. The shift has also parallels in OFris. (thiaf, liude), where eu is supposed to have become ia in the 8th century (GYSSELING 1962: 20). But perhaps the S forms in ia should be seen merely as an extension of the tendency to represent (unaccented) ο by a, cf. below, section 2.18. 2.15. TTie occurrences in OS of me (ds.), the (ds.), uue and ge instead of the normal OS forms mi, thi, uui and gi are rare, and they are virtually restricted to the Μ manuscript of Heliand (HOLTHAUSEN 1921: §327*. GALLEE 1910: §362 Anm. 2 & 3). It is significant, therefore, that the S fragment exhibits -e forms only: me (560), the (501), uue (563, 565) and ge (554-7, 560-61), forms

257 that have vocalic counterparts in OE me, f>e, we, ge, and ON mor, per, vor, or. Scholars like Luick (1,1 1921: §107) and Brunner (I I960: 82) assume that a 'sinking' or lowering of i took place before tautosyllabic -z (< *miz, etc.). In contrast, OFris. and OHG retain -i- in such forms, cp. OFris. mi, thi, wi, i and OHG mir, dir, wir, ir. The lowering of -/- must have taken place prior to the loss of -z in WG (see LUICK I, 1 1921: §107 Anm. 2). Further, the change is attested in early Runic (mez Opedal) (KRAUSE 1971: 524, §352b). (But perhaps the ~e forms of S should just be seen in connection with the preference of ek (397, 510, 557, 559) in this manuscript to the secondary (weakly accented) form ik (for ek/ik, see NIELSEN 1985: 164). The vowel of ek may have been extended to the a/ds. form of the first person (*mek, *me) and from there to the corresponding forms in the second person (*pekt *pe}. In this explanation uue and ge would have acquired their vowel on subsequent analogy with me and the. This is a complex way of accounting for the S forms but not an entirely impossible one given the ns. ek. However, from a comparative point of view it is not a satisfactory explanation, cf. M and OE.) 2.16. The accented vowel in the weak fern, noun S krebbian 382 (asf., cp. M/C cribbiun) can be explained in two ways according to Taeger (1981: 423-4): either an earlier / has been lowered to e through the influence of prevocalic r (cf. OFris. kribbe, OE cribb, OHG chrippa) or e derives from an /-mutated u (Gmc. *krubjon-, cf. MLG krubbe, OE crybb). The latter explanation would link the S form with a similar unrounding in the Kentish dialect of OE and in OFris., cf. Kt. fellan, OFris. fella, but WS fyllan. Comparable developments are attested in Holland (MIEDEMA 1988: 24-5). However, the unrounding to e in Kt. is not thought to have taken place until 900 (LUICK I, 1 1921: §183, BRUNNER 1965: §31), and as far as the Frisian /-mutation (and unrounding) is concerned, it cannot have taken place until after the palatalization of k before front vowels, cp. OFris. kest (WS cyst). See below, section 2.19. Bischoff (1979: 174) dates the S manuscript to the mid-9th century, so if there is a connection between S and OFris. on the one hand and Kt. on the other, the change must have spread to Kent from the Continent long after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. See also Nielsen 1985: 238-9, 136-7.

258

2.17. It is characteristic of final unaccented syllables in S that they often have a vowel different from those of the other Heliand manuscripts or of OS in general, but similar to those of OE and OFris. Thus -e(-) often replaces -a(-) in S, e.g. in nsf. -si. nouns and adjectives (< IE *-on], cp. thiorne (502, 508), uuiduuue (512), mikiJe (511) vs. C 508/M 502 thiorna, M uuidouua, C/M mikila-, in asf. strong adjectives (< IE *-am), cp. ene (382), monige (524) vs. C/M ena, managa; asm. pers./dem. pron. (< IE *-ö/n), cp. ine (378, 551), thane (514, 554) vs. C/M ina, M thana·, gsf. pers. pron. (< Gmc. *-oz), cp. ire (505, 509) vs. M ira (C iro\ nsm., asn. poss. pron. (< IE *(ns)-os, see KRAHE II 1969: §36), cp. use (571, 564) vs. C usa (M use)-, cardinal number '80', cp. hunahtude (513) vs. C ahtoda, M antahtoda; and strong past participle (< IE *-onos), cp. giboren (370, 399), gihuorben (717) - both with a-mutation vs. C/M giboran, C gihuorban. OE and OFris. suffixes comparable to those of S may be seen in nsf. -si. OE/OFris. tunge·, asf. strong adj. OE/OFris. gode\ asm. pers./dem. pron. OE hine/pone, OFris. hine/thene; gsf. pers. pron. OE /were, OFris. hire; nsm., asn. poss. pron. OFris. use, MDu. onse, but OE (Nhm.) usa (NIELSEN 1985: 113-14, 227) and strong past participle OE geboren, OFris. (e)spreken. It is tempting to see the development of -e(-) suffixes in S as here described in context with the fronting process that to a greater or lesser extent affected accented WGmc. a and a in the S fragment, cf. above, sections 2.9 and 2.12 (see also KLEIN 1977: 525). In OE, e.g., there is no doubt that in many cases unaccented -e(-) derives from -a(-) by way of -ae(-), cp. the spelling of early OE strong past participles like gibaen and gibeataen. For a possible connection between the development of unaccented -e and -a in S, see below, section 2.18. 2.18. In several cases, -a in S corresponds to final unaccented -o in general OS including Heliand C and M. This holds true of nsm. n-sL nouns and adjectives (< IE *-o), cp. uuiUia (536), herra (573), helega (521) vs. C/M uuilleo, herro, helago·, gp. strong nouns (< IE *-om), cp. kuninga (371), gadulinga (577), monna (372) vs. C/M cuningo, gadulingo, manner, gpm/n. n-st. (< IE *-önöm), cp. gumona (555) vs. C gumono, M gumuno-, and gp. pronominal declension (< Gmc. *-o/n), cp. ira (359, 394) vs. C/M iro. In all these cases the S endings correspond to the OE and OFris. ones, whereas OHG

259

(and OLF) has -o, cp. (in the same order as above) OE hona, OFris. skelta, OLF namo, OHG hano-, OE daga, OFris. halsa, OHG tago·, OE honena, OFris. skeltena, OLF namono, OHG hanono: OE Aiera, OFris. hi(a)ra, OHG /ro. It should be noted that -a forms occur also in the western (and northern) districts of the Low Countries and, to a limited extent, in OS itself (NIELSEN 1985: 106-7, 104, 160). Note finally that S has unaccented -a- medially in pt. sg. fregade, etc. instead of -o- (cf. above, section 2.7) and that the second element of the reflex of Gmc. eu is frequently -a as in thianade (516), cf. above, section 2.14. The preference of S for -ato -o- spellings should perhaps be seen in close connection with its predilection for -e instead of -a (see above, section 2.17). To use a term borrowed from Klein 1977, the S fragment exhibits an unaccented -e, -a system, which is identical with that of the 'core' Ingveonic languages, OE and OFris. But the significance of these parallels (innovations) for determining the dialectal affiliation of the S text should not be overrated. Klein, who sees the development of -o to -a as a consequence (drag-chain process) of the fronting of -a to -e, regards it as a relatively late shift which may well have taken place independently in OE, OFris., OFlem. and the OS '-e, -a group (1977: 528). 2.19. It appears that k is more likely to show palatalization before front vowels in S than it is in the other Heliand manuscripts, cp. untkiende (517) and folkie (561), where / is inserted between k and e, vs. C ankenda, M antkende* and C folca, M folke. There are counterexamples in S, however, e.g. gihuilikes (693), and C and M both exhibit a few instances of inserted -/'- between k and e, cp. C gihuilikies (2284) and M antkiennien (3582). It is doubtful, though, whether the attestation of palatalized k in S (and the other Heliand versions) should be linked to palatalization of k in OE and OFris. because in these languages k was not affected before imutated front vowels, cp. Luick 1,2 1940: §637 Anm. 8 and van der Rhee 1977: 40. It will be immediately recognized that the vowel of e.g. S untkiende has indeed become fronted through i-mutation. The palatalization of k in OE and OFris. may go back to around the time of the Anglo-Saxon departure from the Continent (NIELSEN 1985: 140-41, 152).

260

2.20

Summary of the phonological and morphological evidence exhibited by the Straubing manuscript

It is obvious that few of the 19 items discussed above suggest a special relationship between the language of the Straubing fragment and any specific dialect of OE. If the -e- of S krebbian is an imutated reflex of -u- (see section 2.16), it parallels similar innovations in Kt. and OFris., which came into being a considerable period of time after the Anglo-Saxon emigration from the Continent. Similarly, the rounding of Gmc. a before nasals in S (see section 2.13) has dialectal counterparts in OE and OFris., which most probably arose independently after the invasion. The Straubing pt. forms of Class II weak verbs in -ade, -adun (see section 2.7) agree with the corresponding suffixes in Angl. and Kt. as well as with those in OFris. and ON, but as we saw, there were several reasons for assuming this parallel to be coincidental. Finally, the S development of Gmc. eu to ia parallels similar shifts in Angl. and OFris. In OFris. eu became ia only in the 8th century. It will be recalled that the Angl. features focused on by Simon were items with counterparts in Heliand C, while Korhammer was concerned with S parallels. Only on one point did Korhammer adduce an Angl. feature which had already been taken up by Simon, viz. the selection of nemne/nefne/nympe, the reason being, of course, that there were counterparts in both S and C (cf. above, section 1.1). In our survey we came across one similarity between Angl. and Heliand C (section 2.1)8: the penetration of -einto asm. Angl. pene as well as C thena, cp. also OFris. thene, MDu. dien, OHG den, may indicate pre-invasion contact on the Continent, even if the Angl. form may be accounted for in an alternative way. In ch. IH.ix of my Old English and the Continental Germanic Languages I examined the relationship of the OE dialects to the other Germanic languages on the basis of morphological and phonological parallels (NIELSEN 1985: 223-52). I found a number of pre-invasion correspondences, in nearly all of which there was Angl. participation. One of these parallels was discussed above (in section 1.2) and involved the suffixation of *-ik to ap. forms of 1/2 pers. prons. in OHG and Anglian. Some of the parallels have OS

261

participation, e.g. the formation of the 1st pers. poss. pron. Nhm./OS usa (S/M 564 use), OLF unsa without the addition of -er (cp. Goth, unsar, OHG unserer) and the shared Angl./OS/OHG selection of the same NG/WG alternative suffix (ap. *-onz, cp. NIELSEN 1985: 223-4) in the n/ap. o-stem nouns, to mention two of the more important items. But the Angl. dialectal features with Continental counterparts did not show any specific distributional pattern; on the contrary, the dialect exhibited parallels with all the North and West Gmc. languages, including two shared (exclusively) with ON. To me at least, it is therefore no surprise that the results of our investigation of the morphological and phonological links of S to Angl. and the other OE dialects have been so meagre and that they in no way corroborate Korhammer's and Simon's hypothesis of special links between dialect areas within OS and OE dialects such as Angl. The S , material has by no means changed my view of the origin of the OE dialects: there is nothing in the evidence to suggest a wholesale transfer of dialect patterns from the Continent to England (NIELSEN 1985: 258).9 As we shall now see, the correspondences of S to OE as a language are of far greater significance than any dialectal affiliation that the S fragment might have with Angl. The most striking pre-invasion parallels exhibited by S in comparison with C/M (and OS as a whole) are the (Ingveonic) innovations shared with OE and OFris. (and coastal Du.): (l) fronted reflexes of Gmc. e1 (section 2.9); (2) Gmc. & > 0 before nasals (section 2.10); (3) a + nasal + X > δ (section 2.11); (4) pronominal asm. forms of the adj. in -ne (section 2.4). In three innovations there is also ON participation: in the rise of the stem forms of the reinforced dem. pron. in -ss- (section 2.3), in the loss of -t in the 3rd pres.sg.ind. of 'be' (see section 2.8) and in the lowering of / to e before tautosyllabic -z (section 2.15). The M manuscript of Heliand participates in the loss of -t in the present tense (see also fn. 8) and in the lowering of / to e before z (see also fn.8), while OFris. takes no share in this lowering. The selection of the IE variant gsm/n. dem.pron. *toso (section 2.2) is an item that S (and a few other OS manuscripts) share with OE (OFris. thes can derive from the alternative variant as well), cp. also early Runic gsm. a-st. -as. In the adverb tha (section 2.5), S has chosen the same Gmc. variant (Gmc. *f>e) as Goth., ON, OFris. and OE, and the shortening of e to a and

262

subsequent lengthening to a is shared by the three last-mentioned languages. Like M, S has -a- forms in the asm. dem.pron. (section 2.1), a retention shared with Goth., ON, OE, but not with OFris. (OS/OHG). S prefixes the designation for 'decade' in '80' (section 2.6) as is usual in Ingveonic (and OS), but the S prefix is better retained than elsewhere with the exception of OE. Finally, there are five innovations in S which can be dated to the post-invasion period. Strictly speaking palatalization of k before front vowels (section 2.19) is not a genuine parallel between S and OE/OFris. because of differences in relative chronology. The remaining parallels, viz. fronting of Gmc. a (section 2.12), rounding of Gmc. a before nasals (section 2.13), unaccented a > e (section 2.17) and unaccented ο > a (section 2.18) are of much greater interest because they can all - despite their post-invasion origin be regarded as ultimate consequences of the innovations discussed in sections 2.9 and 2.10. Hie four parallels add to the Ingveonic character of the S fragment, the Ingveonic features proper being, of course, some of the important pre-invasion innovations and the common choice of the same IE (Gmc.) variant listed above. Although the focus of my paper is on the links of S to OE as I made clear at the beginning, it is interesting that OFris. participates in the large majority of the parallels just discussed (see sections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.4, 2.3, 2.8, 2.5, (2.6), 2.12, 2.13, 2.17, 2.18). The exceptions are described in 2.1, 2.15 (and 2.6). Some structures have been left out of consideration (cf. sections 2.2 and 2.19). 3.

Non-Ingveonic features in the Straubing manuscript

If the correspondences listed above are clear evidence of the Ingveonic character of S, it may well be asked to what extent the fragment exhibits non-Ingveonic features. Below, four such items are discussed. It should be noted that in most of these cases S is in accordance with phenomena characteristic of the other Heliand manuscripts.

263

a. S has -a in the nom. and ace. sg. of the 0-stem nouns: ns. sorga (510), helpa (521) and as. helpa (568), kara (499), cp. C/M sorga, helpa and helpa, C kara (TAEGER 1984: 367). In the light of the information and examples given above in section 2.17, we should have expected S to exhibit the suffix -e in both the ace. (cp. as. OE giefe, lare, OFris. ieve) and the nom.: the ace. suffix derives from Gmc. *-om (< IE *-a7n), and in OS (as well as in OHG) the ace. ending came to designate also the nom. The nominatives of OE giefu, lar, ON skqr, Goth, giba reflect the regular ns, suffix IE *-a, Gmc. *-0. b. The -u suffix in the ds. o-stem nouns in S (thiadu (543), geuu (555), erdu (566, 574) (TAEGER 1984: 380) also deviates from the 'Ingveonic' ending (OE giefe, OFris. ieve) but is in full accordance with OS in general (M thiodu, C gebu, erthu), OHG (gebu) and, surprisingly, ON (skqr, cp. also Runic Norw. solu), the OS/OHG/ON suffixes reflecting the IE instrumental -a, while OFris./OE -e and Goth, -a/ (cp. gibai) go back to the IE dative ending *-ai (NIELSEN 1985: 180). S and OS (OHG, ON) on the one hand, and OE/OFris. (Goth.) on the other, have thus made different selections of the alternative IE case suffixes. c. In accordance with the preference in S of -a to -o (see above, section 2.18), it is surprising that -o crops up in the adverbs tulgo (353, 398, 542) and kusco (551), cp. C/M tulgo (849, 1217, etc.) and C kusco, M cusco. The -o suffix goes back to IE *-od (ablative) as do the adverbial suffixes of OHG mahtigo, Goth, galeiko, ON varliga and OE fela. The (usual) adverbial suffix -e in OFris. (longe) and OE (swiOe) derives from the alternative IE ablative suffix *-ed. d. Perhaps the most strikingly non-Ingveonic feature of the S fragment is its predilection for the dsm/n. dem.pron. form themu (369, 397, 493, 504, 513, 519, 527, 529) at the expense of them which occurs only once in S (696) but which is preferred by the C and M manuscripts in the lines cited (except in 696 where M has themu). According to Dal (1971:184) "themu muß als Eindringling aus dem Süden betrachtet werden", and also Taeger (1979: 213) considers it a linguistic innovation. In Dai's view, there can be no doubt that the autochthonous form them has a long vowel and

264

corresponds with ON peim, OE f>ssm, OFris. tham which can all be derived from *f)aimi (1971: 18/1, cf. NIELSEN 1985: 197-8). It might finally be mentioned that S also exhibits the southern innovation dsm/n. pers. pron. imu (335, 721), cp. M im, C/M im which should be compared to OE/OFris. him. Tlie above items show that like Heliand C and M the S fragment exhibits features shared with OHG including such important innovations as dsm/n. forms of the dem. pron. with short e (and a reflex of the IE suffix *-o) and the introduction of the ace. sg. suffix into the nom. sg. of the o-stem nouns. In the dat. sg. of 0-stem nouns, S agrees with OS in general and with OHG (and ON) in having an ending (IE *-a) different from that selected in e.g. OE and OFris. (IE *-a7), and as far as the adverbial suffix in -o is concerned this represents another choice of IE variant (*-od] diverging from that normally exhibited by OE and OFris. (*-ed). In items a and c, S does not show the 'Ingveonic' changes of -a to -e and of -o to -a in accordance with the developments discussed above in sections 2.17 and 2.18. S goes further than C and M in only one respect, viz. in its predilection for the long dsm/n. dem. pron. themu. Otherwise, S is clearly more Ingveonic than the two other manuscripts as we saw above in sections 2.1 - 2.19. But it is only a question of degree. Even central Ingveonic items as in sections 2.9-2.13 showed significant non-Ingveonic counterexamples. The emergence of the S fragment does not necessitate a revision of our view of the position held by OS (and the Heliand language) within Gmc. Scholars like Rooth, Schönfeld, Dal, Simon and, most recently, Arhammar (1990) are probably (still) right in presupposing the existence of a former Ingveonic dialect continuum comprising pre-OE, pre-OFris., pre-OS and pre-OLF. This Ingveonic continuum was exposed to Franconian influence from the south, especially in the Garolingean era and beyond (NIELSEN 1985: 52-6). The de-ingveonicization process affected OS and OLF, but came to a halt at the Saxon-Frisian border, leaving Ingveonic free to develop further in Frisia and England (ARHAMMAR 1990, cf. also NIELSEN 1986: 173-4).

265

4.

The hypothesis of a Frisian origin of the Straubing manuscript

Let us now go on to examine briefly the claim that linguistically, the Straubing fragment is of Frisian provenance (fön WEARINGA 1984: 103-9). Above, a number of specifically Ingveonic features in this Heliand version were discussed but these items were of course not shared solely by S and OFris. but by OE (and sometimes other languages) as well. And as we have just seen, the S fragment contains several elements which are not even Ingveonic.10 Arhammar (1990) regards the substitution of ht for ft as one among other reasons why the language of S cannot be called Frisian, cp. S craht-/crehi (371, 382, etc.), ahter (507, 512, etc.), eht (562, 693, etc.) where the C and M versions (and OFris.) have ft (TAEGER 1981: 414, 1982: 12). One might also mention that the reflex of Gmc. ai in S is always e (which is actually the normal OS development), cp. hem (358), giuuet (356), tuem (380), ene (358), heten (504), etc. But in OFris., Gmc. ai is represented by both e and a, cp. hem/ham, wet, twam, etc. (NIELSEN 1983: 156-64). This leaves us with the development of Gmc. au in the S fragment: in the majority of attested cases the reflex is a as in OFris., viz. ak (516), thah (382, 537, 538), astan (566), bakna (373) vs. M/C oc, thoh, ostan M bogno/C bocno (cp. OFris. ak, thach, asta, baken). However, in two cases the reflex is ö (as it normally is in OS), viz. sconiost (379), drom (578), cp. OFris. skeni (i -umlaut), dram. Moreover, there are attestations of 5 (< au) in several OS manuscripts, and it is therefore doubtful that even this criterion can be regarded as evidence for the Frisian derivation of the S language (see GALLEE 1910: §96).« Footnotes 1

Taeger (1981: 403-4, cp. also 1979: 213) sees S nebon and C neuan as a case of "'zufallige' Übereinstimmung aufgrund paralleler sprachlicher Umsetzung". Taeger is especially bothered by S -on as compared with G -an. There are no parallels in S to this unaccented ending, there is not even evidence among the

266

unaccented syllables in S for a rounding of -an to -on. Taeger proceeds to give etymological reasons for presupposing the coexistence of alternative forms in OS, *nebo-n(-) and *neba-n(-). In other words, Taeger does not think that neuan was tranformed into S nebon or that the S and C forms stem from a common ancestor. On the contrary, the M and S manuscripts most commonly tally where C deviates, cp. below, fn. 8. 2

Campbell (1959: §7539) agrees with Simon's analysis of seette and Isegde as preterite forms without /-umlaut.

3

There are no occurences of ace. sg. forms of 1/2 pers. pron. in the S fragment.

4

-e- forms are attested in OFris. as well, cp. pres.pl. wellat (beside willat).

5

This line is missing in S. However, all attested pt. forms in S show -e-: uuelde (358, 377, 682, 703), uueldun (546, 696, 719).

6

The fact that rounding of a to ο before nasals seems to have taken place in Runic Frisian (Toornwerd ko(m)bu 8th century) and perhaps in the skanomodu inscription (early 6th century) (NIELSEN 1984: 13, 15) does not contradict this assumption.

7

Note in this connection that Gmc. / is spelt gi- in giu (566, cp. C iu and Goth, ju) and giungerun (547, cp. M iungerun dp.).

8

As stressed at the beginning of this paper, we are interested in specific S features that are shared also by OE and its dialects. On most points discussed S therefore diverges from both C and M. It should be borne in mind, however, that S exhibits a much greater degree of similarity to M than it does to C (cp. above fn. 1), and it is therefore no coincidence that S and M (but not C) forms tally (as discussed above) in sections 2.1, 2.8 and 2.15.

9

In his contribution "The Origin of the Old English Dialects" to the Fisiak Festschrift (Berlin, 1986), Kprtlandt (basing his view on the pre-invasion material compiled by me) sees two chronological layers in the early divergences between WS (Kt.) and Angl., which, to quote Kortlandt, reflect "two waves of migration from the same dialectal area in northern Germany". The 13 pre-invasion parallels shared by Angl. and Continental Gmc. languages, which comprise both retentions and innovations, and the 4 WS (Kt.) correspondences suggest, in

Angl.

267

Kortlandt's view, that the Anel. invasion was later than the "Saxon" one, seeing that Angl. has much more in common with Continental Gmc. The historical explanation offered by Kortlandt is that the Angl. migration took place only from the mid-6th century with the Angl. settlement in the north of England, while the WS (Kt.) or "Saxon" settlement in Kent and Sussex belonged to the 5th century. Kortlandt's hypothesis is an interesting one even if his interpretation of the various items differs from mine on some points. 10

Fon Wearinga (1984: 103-9) counters the argument that the Straubing nsf. (siu) and n/ap. (sie) of the 3rd pers. pron. indicate the non-Frisian character of the fragment (cp. OHG nsf. siu, n/ap. sie, sio, siu) by adducing modern dialectal (Westerlauwers Frisian) evidence of s- to render the assumption possible that there were s-forms also in early Frisian besides nsf. hiu, n/ap. hia (cp. OE heo, hie). Fon Wearinga seems to have overlooked that s-forms are in fact attested in OFris., cp. enclitic nsf., n/ap. -s(e).

11

The Heliand text editions used have been Bischoff 1979: 175-80 (S) and Sievers 1935:7-388 (C/M). In addition, Sehrt's Heliand dictionary (1966) has been of great help.

References ARHAMMAR, N. (1990): "Friesisch und Sächsisch. Zur Problematik ihrer gegenseitiger Abgrenzung im Frühund Hochmittelalter". In: R.H. Bremmer Jr. et a7.(eds.). Aspects of Old Frisian Philology. Groningen (n.y.p.). BENNETT, J. A. W. and G. V. SMITHERS (1968): Early Middle English Verse and Prose. Oxford. BISCHOFF, B. (1979): "Die Straubinger Fragmente einer HeliandHandschrift". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (T) 101: 171-80. BRAUNE, W. and H. EGGERS (1975): Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 12. Auflage. Tübingen. BRUNNER, K. (I960): Die englische Sprache, I. 2. Auflage. Tübingen. — (1965): Altenglische Grammatik. 3. Auflage. Tübingen.

268

CAMPBELL, A. (1959): Old English Grammar. Oxford. CORDES, G. and F. HOLTHAUSEN (1973): Altniederdeutsches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg. DAL, I. (1971): "Die germanischen Pronominalkasus mit /j-Formans". Untersuchungen zur germanischen und deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Oslo: 86-128. (An earlier version of this paper appeared in: Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps- Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Filos. Klasse. 1932. No. 2.) — (1971): "Entwicklungstendenzen im germanischen Kasussystem''. Untersuchungen zur germanischen und deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Oslo: 181-93. (An earlier version of this paper was published in: Studia Germanica Gandensia 2 (I960): 125-37.) FRANCK, J. (1910): Mittelniederländische Grammatik. 2. Auflage. Leipzig. GALLEE, J. H. (1910): Altsächsische Grammatik. 2. Auflage. HalleLeiden. GYSSELING, M. (1962): "Het oudste Fries". It Beaken 24: 1-26. HELTEN, W. L. van (1890): Altostfriesische Grammatik. Leeuwarden. HOLTHAUSEN, F. (1921): Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg. — (1963): Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg. JORDAN, R. (1906): Eigentümlichkeiten des anglischen Wortschatzes. Heidelberg. KLEIN, T. (1977): Studien zur Wechselbeziehung zwischen altsächsischem und althochdeutschem Schreibwesen und ihrer sprach- und kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung. Göppingen. KORHAMMER, M. (1980): "Altenglische Dialekte und der Heliand". Anglia 98: 85-94. KORTLANDT, F. (1986): "The Origin of the Old English Dialects". In: D. Kastovsky & A. Szwedek (eds.). Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, I. Berlin: 437-42

269 KRÄHE, H. (1969): Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, I-II. 7. Auflage bearb. von W. Meid. Berlin. KRAUSE, W. (1971): Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg. KRISTENSSON, G. (1987): "The English West Midland /non-area". NOWELE 10: 41-6. KRUPATKIN, Y. B. (1970): "From Germanic to English and Frisian". Us Wurk 19: 49-71. KÜHN, H. (1955): "Zur Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen". Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 86: 1-47. LASCH, A. (1974): Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. 2. Auflage. Tübingen. LUICiC K. (1921-40): Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache, 1,1-1,2. Leipzig. MIEDEMA, H. T. J. (1988): "Het ontstaan van Fries, Engels, Nederlands en de Noordzeegermaanse ontrondingen". Taal en Tongval 40: 20-34. NIELSEN, H. F. (1983): "Germanic ai in Old Frisian, Old English and Old Norse". Indogermanische Forschungen 88:156-64. — (1984): "Unaccented Vowels in the Frisian Runic Inscriptions". In: N.R. Arhammar et al. (eds.). Miscellanea Frisica. Assen: 11-19. — (1985): Old English and the Continental Germanic Languages. 2nd edition. Innsbruck. (1986): "Old English, Old Frisian and Germanic". Philologie Frisica anno 1984. Ljouwert: 168-80. NOREEN, A. (1970): Altnordische Grammatik. 5., unveränderte Auflage. Tübingen. RAMAT, P. (1976): Das Friesische. Innsbruck. RHEE, F. van der (1977): "Palatalisierung, Mouillierung und Assibilierung von urgerm. /k/ im Altenglischen und Altfriesischen". Us Wurk 26: 33-44.

270

ROOTH, E. (1956): "Über die Heliandsprache". Fragen und Forschungen im Bereich und Umkreis der germanischen Philologie. Festgabe für Theodor Frings zum 70. Geburtstag 23. Juli 1956. Berlin: 40-79. RÖSEL, L. (1962): Die Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Nürnberg. SCHÖNFELD'S Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands. 1970. 8e druk, verzorgd door A. van Loey. Zutphen. SEHRT, E. H. (1966): Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsischen Genesis. 2. Auflage. Göttingen. SIEBS, T. (1901): "Geschichte der friesischen Sprache". Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, I. 2. Auflage. Strassburg: 1152-1464. SIEVERS, E. (ed.) (1935): Heliand. 2. Auflage. Halle (Saale)-Berlin. SIMON, W. (1965): Zur Sprachmischung im Heliand. Berlin. SJÖLIN, B. (1966): "Zur Gliederung des Altfriesischen". Us Wurk 15: 25-38. (1969): Einführung in das Friesische. Stuttgart. — (1984): "Die Gliederung des Altfriesischen - ein Rückblick". In: N.R. Arhammar et al (eds.). Miscellanea Frisica. Assen: 55-66. STREITBERG, W. (1974): Urgermanische Grammatik. 4., unveränderte Auflage. Heidelberg. TAEGER, B. (1979-84): "Das Straubinger 'Heliand'-Fragment. Philologische Untersuchungen". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (T) 101 (1979): 181-228, 103 (1981): 402-24, 104 (1982): 10-43 and 106 (1984): 364-89. TOON, T. (1983): The Politics of Early Old English Sound Change. New York. VLEESKRUYER, R. (ed.) (1953): The Life of St. Chad. Amsterdam. WEARINGA, J. fon (1984): "The Frisian pronoun si". In: N.R. Arhammar et al. (eds). Miscellanea Frisica. Assen: 103-9. WENISCH, F. (1979): Spezifisch englisches Wortgut in den nordhumbrischen Interlinearglossierungen des Lukasevangeliums. Heidelberg.

271 Appendix A. Korhammer's lexical material: (1) (2) (3) U)

adv. S. tulgo·, C suitho, M suido (suido) Angl. tulge (attested 6 times); OE swide adv. S ügene-, C/M tegegnes Nhm. togeaegn (attested once); OE togeagnes, togenes prep. ME to-yen ~to-jeenes interr. adv. S bihuon; bihui, M bihuiu Angl. be/bi hwon (attested twice), WS hwi, hwy conj. S nebon, C neuan-, M butan Angl. nemne, nefne, nympe\ WS buton

Additional material adduced by Simon: (5) (6) (7)

weak pt. C satta, lagda\ M (gi)setta, legda Angl. seette, Isegde-, OE sette, legde pers. pron. as. 1/2 G mik/thik; M mi/thi Angl. mec/peo, OE me/pe reflexes of *wa]jan in the anomalous verb 'will1: pres. pi. C uuelliaU M uuilliad Angl. we//ad; WS willad pt.sg. C uualda, M uuelda (S uuelde) Angl. walde·, OE wolde

B. Morphological and phonological parallels between S and OE/OE dialects: (1) (2) (3) (i)

dem.pron. asm. S thane, M ihana·, C i//ena OE j&one, Angl. />e/ie dem.pron. gsm/n. S eo/ pers.pron. 1/2 S(M) me, the, uue, ge·, G mi, thi, uui, gi OE me, fte, we, ge, ON mor, por, vor, er Gmc. u + i/j (?) S krebbian-, G/M cribbiun Kt. *cre/)/) (OE

(17) nsf. -st. asf. str. adj. asm. pers.pron.

OE -e(-) tunge gode hine

S -e(-) thiorne ene ine

C/M -a(-) thiorna ena ina

asm. dem.pron.

pone

thane

thana

gsf. pers.pron.

hiere

ire

ira

273 nsm./asn. poss. pron. strong past part.

usa (Nhm.) use geboren giboren

usa giboran

nsm. η-si. gp. str. nouns gpm/n. n-st. gp. pron. decl.

OE -a(-) hona daga honena hiera

C/M -o(-) uuilleo cuningo gumono iro

(18)

(19)

S -a(-); uuillia kuninga gutnona ira

palatalization of A: S untkiende, folkie; gihuih'kes, C ankenda, folca, M antkende, folke

C. Non-Ingveonic features in the Straubing fragment: (1) (2) (3)

n/as. -st. S/C/M sorga, helpa (ns.), kara, helpa (as.) OHG geba (n/as.); OE giefu (ns.), gie/e (as.) ds. -st. S geift/, erdu, C gebu, erthu, OHG gebu\ OE adv. -o S/C/M iw/^o, λί/sco, (cusco), OHG -o; OE -e dsm/n. dem.pron. S themu, OHG demu-, G/M iAe/n, OE pars. pron. S Jtnu, OHG //πυ; C/M /m, OE Λ//Π

D. Is the Straubing language Frisian?: (1) (2) (3)

Gmc. -Λ(-) S crahtVcreht. ahter, ehti C/M/OFris. -/K-) Gmc. a/ S/C/M Ae/n, giuuet, tuem, ene, etc. OFris. hem/ham, wet, twam, etc. Gmc. au S a/c, i/iaA, astan; sconiost, drom, C/M oc, iAoA, ostan OFris. ak, thach, asta, etc.

TOWARDS A REASSESSMENT OF "ANGLO-NORMAN INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH PLACE-NAMES" Cecily Clark Introduction As the force responsible for many apparently "non-standard" phonological developments found in English place-names, R. E. Zachrisson eighty years ago proposed a pervasive and often permanent "AngloNorman influence" on their pronunciation (ZACHRISSON 1909 and also 1924). This hypothesis, reinforced by Johan Vising's views of socio-linguistic conditions in medieval England (VISING 1923: 8-27), has over the years so far hardened into dogma that, in the face of any difficult place-name form, some of the less critically minded workers have tended simply to invoke the name of Zachrisson. Those same eighty years have meanwhile witnessed changes in all the many disciplines that converge into English place-name studies or, rather, would in an ideal world so converge. Their documentary basis has been transformed by the foundation in the 1920s of the English Place-Name Society and the subsequent publication of (to date) over sixty volumes of its projected Survey. Their theoretical basis ought likewise to have been transformed by the vast changes taking place not only in phonetic observation and phonological analysis and, consequently, in our notions of the Middle English and the Anglo-French soundsystems, but also in social history and in the philosophy of language. The time might thus seem more than ripe for reassessing Zachrisson's hypothesis and the conventional wisdom therefrom derived. That this seems so far hardly to have been attempted may in part be attributed to the necessarily limited overlap between the intellectual world of the English toponymists and that of the Anglo-Norman socio-linguists. Even what is here essayed is no point-by-point refutation of Zachrisson's claims but simply a plea for an alternative approach, some suggestions for which are adumbrated.

276

1. The socio-linguistic background First, a word as to what is here of only marginal concern: medieval spelling. No-one denies that a great many place-name forms found in medieval English documents reflect non-English orthographical traditions; and, given that normally the contexts in which such forms are embedded are Latin ones, their alien aspect may seem explicable enough. For the present purpose, these seemingly "non-English" spellings will be deemed relevant only in so far as they might be taken to show permanent phonological developments. There is a paper waiting to be written on "The myth of the Anglo-Norman scribe" and indeed I myself hope before long to tackle the task elsewhere. Meanwhile, the contention is that no medieval spelling should ever be interpreted as in a vacuum but that the whole orthographical context should always be considered. There is, of course, a shared socio-linguistic assumption underlying both the Zachrissonian view of place-name development and the belief, still prevalent among some workers, in the widepread presence throughout medieval England of "Anglo-Norman scribes". That assumption may not unfairly be represented by Zachrisson's own formulation, as expressed in 1924, of "the part played by French in aLn English] town of importance ... in the late thirteenth century": All instruction in schools was given in French and as a rule by French teachers. The French element among the clergy was strong. Nearly all the highest dignitaries of Church and State - earls, bishops, abbots, judges and sheriffs, as well as a great many minor officials - were Frenchmen by birth or origin. In the town there resided many influential French burghers. There were also Frenchmen in humbler walks of life - soldiers, tradesmen and artisans (ZAGHRISSON 1924: 96). Thus, Zachrisson postulated a continuing presence in England, up to (it would seem) at least 1300 and perhaps beyond, of a substantial body of native French-speakers, not only nobles and prelates but also schoolmasters, scribes and craftsmen; and he assumed the speech-habits of these people to have been crucial for the development of many English place-names. Any reassessment of

277

his hypothesis must therefore start by reconsidering the number and the social distribution of native-level French-speakers in medieval England. Certainly, the England of the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries did contain multitudes of people who, either as a professional necessity or as a social accomplishment, spoke and wrote (Anglo-) French with varying degrees of accuracy and fluency; but for the present purpose that is neither here nor there. The question is one not of fluency nor of idiomatic and stylistic command but of native articulatory setting. Acquisition of a second language in no way impairs the ability to pronounce one's cradle-tongue (years of exile might perhaps do so, but that is precisely not the point). The reverse effect is the normal one, with the articulatory setting characteristic of the cradle-tongue warping the pronunciation of any acquired one. Can anything be suggested as to the types of articulatory setting dominant in medieval England? That Anglo-French pronunciation was sui generis is generally agreed, and at least some Romanists ascribe its peculiarities specifically to influences from the Middle-English substratum.Over sixty years ago Prior claimed the "phonetic evolution of Anglo-Norman", and its prosody in particular,to have been "strongly influenced by English" (PRIOR 1924: ix-xxvii). Pope subsequently made the same point in far greater detail, summarizing her findings thus: The strongest factor in the growing instability of Anglo-Norman pronunciation was undoubtedly the influence of English speech habits. Displacement, together with contact with a foreign tongue, shook tradition, and the acquirement of French by people with a different organic basis induced gradually many modifications. The most disturbing factor in the English speech-habits was the heavy tonic stress. ... Consonantal sounds that were unfamiliar to the English were early modified ... ; those that were moribund or rather ephemeral in French were sometimes retained longer than on the Continent if they had a place in the English sound-system (POPE 1952: 431-2, 432-50). The phonological processes there envisaged would have been the very converse of the ones that Zachrisson asserted to have at much the same time been distorting the development of many

278

English place-names. Both notions can hardly be right. Various attempts at weighing up the likely balance in medieval England between native-level speaking of the two languages have already from time to time been made.1 For the line of thought here to be pursued, the effective starting-points are two papers published in 1943, that is, Wilson's general survey and, more particularly, Woodbine's study of the language of medieval English law; but to some extent Shelly's thesis of 1921 had pointed the way. Over the last quarter-century various further studies on related lines have appeared, among them those by Berndt (1965, 1976, and 1982: 23-30)2, by the present writer (1976, 1978, 1980 and 1987), by Richter (1979 and 1985), by Short (1979-80), and above all by Rothwell (1968, 1975-6, 1978 and 1985). The upshot is that many scholars, mainstream historians included, are now of the belief that, even among the nobility of Anglo-Norman England, native (as distinct from acquired) use of French must not only be deemed extinct shortly after the loss of Normandy in 1204 but also be suspected of having been far in decline by the latter part of the twelfth century (e.g., GLANCHY 1979: 151-4,' 156-9, 162-74, and 1983: 59-60, and likewise LASS 1987: 54-61).3 On this score, interesting albeit inconclusive testimony is given in his Speculum Duorum (datable post 1208) by Gerald of Wales, of the very social class in which native use of French would α priori be expected longest to persist. In castigating a nephew for neglecting his studies, Gerald used terms seeming, on the face of it, to imply that, at that date and in those circles, French had to be learnt in much the same way as had Latin; for he coupled the two languages together, saying "nee linguam latinam, aut etiam gallicam, addidicistis" and condemning the young man's ignorance "linguarum omnium precipueque duarum, latine scilicet et gallice, que pre ceteris apud nos prestant" (LEFEVRE 1973 and 1974: 32, 132; SHORT 1979-80: 470-1; RICHTER 1979: 68, 159, and 1985: 478)4. As model, he instanced a certain magister lohannes Blundus, apparently of the same social class (a background with which the French-derived by-name would be consonant), who had for his part striven to perfect his command of French (Francorum lingua, ydioma gallicum) with the help of uncles who had, like Gerald himself, studied in France, indeed to such effect that he could speak it "tanquam materna sibique nativa" (LEFEVRE 1974: 56-7; RICHTER 1985: 53-4). There unfortunately remains here some

279 ambiguity, for Gerald nowhere makes it clear, concerning either young man, whether the "Anglo-French" stigmatized as "rough and corrupt" (rudique Artglorum...Gallico et feculento) were in fact the imperfect French of a native English-speaker or simply a dialectal mother-tongue (ROTHWELL 1978: 1082; SHORT 1979-80? 470-1). One thing clear, and accepted by even the stoutest proponents of Anglo-Norman as a living vernacular, is that not only Gerald's nephew and Master John Blund but also many other descendants of the post-Conquest settlers were, within only a few generations, needing to strive assiduously to acquire and maintain, through continental contacts, a "good" pronunciation of French (e.g.. LEGGE 1980). Implications remain uncertain: the unacceptability of "Anglo-French" might simply have lain in its being, by contrast with "French of Paris", a provincial dialect, one among many such (ROTHWELL 1985). If, however, Pope was right in concluding, from her intensive comparison of the two phonologies, that the idiosyncrasies of unreconstructed Anglo-French pronunciation arose principally from its having soon become tainted by English speech-habits (SHORT 1979-80: 469), then there would have been particular reason for the insular self-consciousness about it and also for the frequent continental ridicule. A second thing that is clear is that by the mid thirteenth century at the latest even the gentry were, as Walter of Bibbesworth's manual shows, thinking primarily in English terms; and it might not be unreasonable to suppose pronunciation likely to have become Anglicized earlier than semantic structures. Pope's conclusions, if accepted, undercut Zachrisson's assumption of an enduring inability among the descendants of the post-Conquest settlers to get their tongues round English place-names. And, as well as being founded on comparative phonology, Pope's is also the commonsense view. Whatever difficulties the first generation of settlers might have had with English pronunciation, for anything of the kind to have persisted widely among their English-born descendants is unlikely. Not only is it impolitic, even downright dangerous, to cultivate ignorance of the language spoken by a potentially hostile majority, but doing so would demand highly artificial insulation of the young from the world around them. For such insulation there seems to be no evidence: the settlers, the knightly class especially, intermarried with the English gentry (CLARK 1978: 223-30; CHIBNALL 1986:

280

208-9), sometimes coming to take pride in the insular side of their ancestry; they would also have employed English attendants, including nurses and maidservants (CLARK 1978: 230-1)5. Indeed, Zachrisson's insistence, as exemplified in the paragraph quoted, upon male settlers and functionaries, "Frenchmen", betrays an unrealistic indifference to the roles played by mothers and nurses in the transmission of language from generation to generation. If, as mainstream historians maintain, the settlers were for the most part quick to identify themselves in a socio-political sense with their new country, a concomitant willingness to acquire a working knowledge of its vernacular would hardly be surprising (e.g., CHIBNALL 1986: 208-14). The fewer the speakers to whom English speech-habits were alien, the less likely might seem extensive foreign influence upon English phonology. The crucial point may, however, be not so much numbers of speakers as modes of transmission; for influence can operate only through bilingual contact. Whatever a speaker's cradle-tongue, in actual French discourse the pronunciation of English names of all kinds would have had to be partly modified, if only because of the incompatible stress patterns; and this would seem to open the way for linguistic snobbery. Gallicized pronunciations required by French contexts would have been familiar to any English attendants or officials who used French in the course of their work; such people might have affectedly imported such pronunciations - or, rather, re-Anglicized versions of them - into their native discourse with family and friends, who might in their turn have cultivated and propagated the affectations to such effect as to oust the native forms. Such a scenario cannot be ruled out a priori, because, as will shortly be explained in fuller detail, the special semantic character of names partly emancipates them from the rules governing the rest of the language and makes them vul- nerable to unhistorical notions of "correctness" (in present-day English manifested chiefly through spelling- pronunciations). How often is snobbish affectation likely thus to have intervened in the medieval development of English place-names? No direct assessment is possible, but with the most distinctively French variants, such as Nicole) for ME Lincolne, there certainly seems little sign of their ever having been carried over into English contexts (CAMERON 1985: 1-3).

281

Would it, in any case, have been likely for such affectation to have been limited, as seems supposed, to place-name forms? 2. The lexical and phonological background A sidelight is thrown on this whole problem by the few English place-names actually created out of French elements (GELLING 1978: 236-40). That these are few is in itself significant. Of the names borne by the 140-odd new towns founded between the late eleventh century and the early thirteenth, no more than a dozen were formed from French elements (BERESFORD 1967: 386-99, 414-526); and those that were so formed were almost all commonplace compounds like Belveder > Belveir 'fair prospect' (EKWALL I960: 37), Beaurepair 'fair dwelling' (CAMERON 1959: 525-6), and Richmond 'splendid hill' (SMITH 1928: 287). A few manor-houses received French names, and so did a few newly-founded abbeys, such as Battle (MAWER et alii 1929-30: 495), Dieulacres or Delencres (GREENSLADE 1970: 230) and Haltemprice (SMITH 1937: 208). There were also occasional renamings of pre-Conquest settlements. All told, however, such cases are so rare as to imply that French, for all its snob value, seldom prevailed over native styles and traditions of place-naming. Even street-naming, largely of post-Conquest growth though it was, shows scant French, influence: medieval forms involve few French elements; such as do appear are mostly commonplace loanwords like drapery and poultry or current occupational terms like butcher and mercer. This is true of towns, like Southampton and York, for which Domesday Book records high numbers of French burgesses (PLATT 1973: 47-8; PALLISER 1978)6, of those, like Canterbury and Winchester, constantly frequented by foreigners (CLARK 1976: 22-3; BIDDLE 1976: 233-5), and of those, like Cambridge, Exeter, Gloucester, Nottingham and Worcester, the present forms of whose own names have often been ascribed to "Anglo-Norman influence" (REANEY 1943: 36-8, 44-50; COVER et alii 1931-2: 20-4; SMITH 1964-5: ii, 123-34; COVER et alii 1940: 13-22; MAWER et alii 1927: 19-23). Ekwall's verdict on what was hardly the least cosmopolitan of cities sums the situation up: "Practically all London street-names are purely English formations

282

which presuppose an English-speaking community" (Ekwall 1954: 19 - 23)7. So marked a paucity of lexical influence might in itself be thought to call into question any extensive phonological influence in the same sphere; for, whereas lexical borrowing is commonplace and easy in all sorts of socio-linguistic contexts, phonological influence might seem to require at least a local supremacy of the articulatory setting characteristic of native speakers of the donor language (on both counts, French interaction with English toponymy might be held to contrast strongly with the heavy Scandinavianization seen in the Northern Danelaw). At all events, the subsequent developments of the few Anglo-French coinages show little sign of any lastingly Gallicized pronunciation: normally, their modern forms are consonant with an early shift to initial stress, with Belveir giving /'bi:va/ (spelt Belvoir), Belrepair giving /'belpa/ and so on.8 Further clues as to what was happening at the interface between the two languages are afforded by general vocabulary. In the very terminology of social rank, lord, knight, and lady became - one might almost say, remained - the accepted designations for members of the gentry; and that despite the presence in knight of at least one phonetic feature, initial /kn/, allegedly unpronounceable by people of Anglo-Norman background (ZACHRISSON 1924: 96). Above all, English loans from French imply phonological patterns somewhat different from those that the Zachrissonians have postulated. Among the effects of "Anglo-Norman influence on English place-names" most often alleged is a sporadic substitution of /ts/ > /s/ for the /tJY expected as reflex of OE palatalized (ZACHRISSON 1924: 100-3). Cases in point include the modern forms of some, but by no means all, names formed with OE -ceaster, such as Exeter, Gloucester, Leicester (EKWALL 1960: 294), Towcester (COVER et alii 1933: 94-5) and Worcester, together with various miscellaneous ones like /S3:n/ Gerne < OE Cerne(i) of obscure origin, Diss supposedly < OE die 'ditch', and Lancing supposedly < OE *Wlencingas 'followers of Wlenc' (EKWALL I960: 93, 145; MAWER et alii 1929-30: 199-200, 24-5): the present forms of these and many other names have often been ascribed to "Anglo-Norman sound-substitution". Was inability to pronounce /tJV and a tendency to replace it by /ts/ > /s/ in fact rife in medieval England? (For what it is worth we may note in passing that

283

speakers of Modern French, who certainly do not possess /tJ7 in their native lexical material, seem to encompass the sound quite adequately when it occurs in foreign place-names like Tchad or Tchochoslovaquie) Twelfth-century spellings, far from affording help, merely multiply confusions, owing to the uncertain values of the graphemes and (for some French vernacular usages, see WATERS 1928: 171-3 and STOREY 1946: p. xiv)9. The Romance philologists, in their considered opinions based upon the full spectrum of available evidence, represent /tJV as current until the mid thirteenth century at least both in Anglo-Norman and also, but with a contrasting distribution, in Francien (e.g., POPE 1952: 93-4, 450); and it should, moreover, be observed that in both dialects the later reflex of /tJV was regularly /JV, not /ts/ or /s/. That a sound which speakers of Middle English identified with their own reflex of OE palatalized , that is, with the antecedent of Modern English /tJV, did occur in whatever dialects were represented in Anglo-French is borne out by the multitudinous loanwords that contain this sound both in initial and in (originally) medial positions. So numerous are these that space forbids offering here more than a small selection (cited in modern spelling and with the date of the earliest MED citation)10: catch 1225 and its doublet chase 1330, chain 1300, chair 1300, challenge 1230, chamber 1230 and chamberlain 1230, champion 1230, chance 1300, chancellor 1300 and chancery 1300, change 1230, (en)chantment 1300, chapel 1225, chapter 1230, charge 1300, charity 1225, charter 1250. chaste 1225, cheer 1225, chequer 1330 and exchequer 1300, chess 1312, chief 1300, chimney 1325, chine 1330, approach 1325, arch 1300, archer 1300, blanch 1398 (cf. blanchet cosmetic' 1225), brooch 1230, couch (vb) 1325, haunch 1230, launch 1330, merchandise 1300, perch 'rod' 1300, pinch 1325 (ipinchunge 1230), porch 1300, pouch 1325, preach 1230 and preacher 1230, and so on. The tally is at all events high enough to cast doubt on Zachrisson's attempted dismissal of this category of word (1924: 100-1). So, without venturing into any subtleties of pronunciation in either language, we seem justified in affirming the existence of similar sounds in both; and, if in lexical material, why not in names? If blanch and launch, why not Launching < *Wlencingas, especially as this form does occur in thirteenth-century documents? At very least, ascribing the modern pronunciations of Exeter, Gloucester, Worcester, Diss and so on to Middle English imitation of a

284

sporadic Anglo-French inability to pronounce the antecedent of Modern English /if/ begins to look over-simplified. 3. The possibility of "onomastic sound-change' Yet, no matter how justified scepticism may be as to any wholesale impact of "Anglo-Norman influence" on the pronunciation of English place-names, it cannot cancel out the need to explain the many instances of seemingly aberrant development. As a general basis for such explanation, what I propose is the already mentioned special semantic character of names. Names, that is to say, although ultimately derived from ordinary meaningful elements of language, have by definition ceased to carry any "sense" as normally understood. This obviates maintenance of formal links or analogies with the related lexical items and so, as others have already noted, allows free rein to tendencies, elsewhere curbed, towards assimilation or dissimilation, elision and syncope, procliticization, folk-etymology (or "analogical reformation", as some prefer to call it), and so on (cf. LASS 1973 and COATES 1987). Zachrisson (1924: 98) himself conceded the difficulty of distinguishing between what he saw as effects of "Anglo-Norman influence" and those of non-standard native sound-changes. The danger with invoking any principle as nebulous as "non-standard sound-change" is that it could make all too easy the explaining away of any and every apparent deviation from the supposed norm. If the aim is to couch explanations in terms of native, but unbridled native, tendencies, then some care must be put into defining these tendencies. To attempt to do so in Middle English terms might risk complete circularity of argument. To do so in present-day ones might lead to anachronistic assumptions of affinities between modern modes of articulation (especially, perhaps, the investigator's own) and Middle English ones. The latter course is nevertheless the one that I shall provisionally adopt: the general principles of sound-change will be those of Samuels's Linguistic Evolution (1972), and the sorts of detailed observation those exemplified in Brown's Listening to Spoken English (1977) and in Lass's account of what he calls "allegro speech", that is, "communication with maximal ease in the least time possible" (1987: 118-21).

285

Nothing at present put forward is meant as definitive, the aim being simply to try out one possible methodology alternative to the traditional Zachrissonian one and to see whether it is, in the long run, likely to yield any acceptable explanations of phenomena hitherto often attributed to "Anglo-Norman influence". Tlie name Cambridge, for instance, is one of those often taken to show the effects of "strong Norman influence" (ZACHRISSON 1909: 136-8 and 1924: 105, 108, 114; REANEY 1943: 36-8). The earliest forms, dating back to c. 900, are Grantanbrycg, Grantebrycg "bridge over the river Granta"; for the present purpose, the river-name, which is obscure (REANEY 1943: 2-3, 6), may be taken just as a given nameelement, and indeed its obscurity will not prove irrelevant. Although spellings with initial continued to be used until the late thirteenth century at least, ones with were from the late eleventh century onwards appearing alongside them. Compatible though this chronology might on its own seem to be with "Norman influence", on closer consideration such an explanation looks less convincing. There is nothing specifically French about the "distant dissimilation" or "regressive dissimilatory lightening" by which /r/ was elided from the first of two successive consonant-groups containing it so as to produce from Grantebricge a reflex Cambridge (SAMUELS 1972: 16); and in fact present-day colloquial English offers various parallels for it, as in the casual pronunciations /'febjuri/ February, /'sekitri/ secretary,/'vetinri/ veterinary, and so on. Nor, in this context, is there any call to see substitution of for , of /k/ for /g/, as necessarily French; for this can at least as acceptably be taken as generated by the spoken chain, that is, as an assimilation of the initial consonant of the name towards the final /-t/ of the frequently preceding at and, given the sporadic procliticization of such a /-t/ (SMITH 1956: i, 5-7), such an assimilation would in no way be extraordinary. Elision and assimilation would have been facilitated by the long-standing "meaninglessness" of the element affected, especially as not everyone referring to the town need have been aware of the original form of the river-name. As for the appearance of the first Cante- forms not long after the Conquest, this might reflect only the break in orthographic traditions and a consequent tendency to render colloquial pronunciations. There is, after all, little reason to suppose Cambridge, as a town, to have been more subject than most to French influences: among its

286

medieval street-names, for instance, there is only one that might conceivably be invoked as evidence of such a thing, and that is Petty Cury (REANEY 1943: 44-50). To return to the names in OE -ceaster. if the /k/ variants characteristic of the Danelaw are left aside, we find that, whereas forms of the generic range from /.tjista/ to /sta/ or /ita/, those of simplex names and of the specific are virtually always AJesta/ u ; and this might be thought to suggest the workings of some process associated with low stress, rather than any kind of outside influence. Geographically, the full and the reduced forms of the generic seem to show no significant distribution-pattern: Chichester, Colchester, the two Dorchesters, Ilchester, Manchester, Porchester, Rochester, Silchester and Winchester coexist with, for instance, /'bista / Bicester (GELLING 1953: 198), /'gbsta/ Gloucester, /'lesta / Leicester, /'taosta / Towcester (GOVER et alii 1933: 94), /'wusta / Worcester, also /'oksita / Exeter and /'ro ksita/ Wroxeter. Socially, it is hardly obvious why Bicester or Towcester should seem to have been more of a hotbed of "Anglo-Norman influence" than, of all places, Winchester. On the other hand, patterns of syllabification do seem to the point: loss of /tJV leads to a contracted /sta / or /ita /, not to **/,sista 712 This strengthens suspicions that we may have to do with development associated with reduced stress. Because any medial syllable of three may be liable to syncope, as in /'lemsta / < OE Leomynster (with a first element of uncertain origin: EKWALL 1960: 295), a generic ceaster might sometimes have been contracted to */,tfsta / and then, in rapid or casual speech especially, further simplification of the four successive dental or alveolar consonants would have been inevitable. The further simplification seen in Exeter < OE Exanceaster might have been due to a dissimilation provoked by the /ks/ in the initial syllable: no-one could pronounce »/'ekstfsta/, with its six successive consonants, otherwise than as a feat of phonetic athleticism. Again, the phonetic obscuration might have been facilitated by some loss of meaning from the element involved: the latest MED records of a reflex of the OE common noun ceaster date from c.1200 and in the Chronicle, despite the availability of suitable contexts, the last is in the annal for 1095. An instructive contrast to these place-name developments is afforded by the genuinely French-derived term exchequer, ME escheker - a ruling-class word

287

if ever there was one: /tJV had occurred in the French etymon and, unlike the similar sound in the reflex of OE -ceaster, in Middle English it escaped obscuration because the syllable to which it was initial had become stressed. As for the variation of the place-name generic between /.tjista/ and /sta/, some names show parallel currency of both forms until late in the Middle English period, and this would be compatible with the suggested origin of the variation in the differences between what Lass calls "allegro speech" and the more careful formal style. Survival of /tJV seems to have been favoured, but not governed, by the presence of a preceding /!/, /n/ or /r/, that is, a consonant whose point of articulation was related to that of the affricate. To sum up: what has been proposed is that a traditional explanation of certain phenomena in terms of the effects of "language contact" should be discarded in favour of one invoking an unchecked operation of general native tendencies. The argument for this rests on two premisses: first, that name-material may, of its very nature, develop more freely than common vocabulary; and, secondly, that the developments Zachrisson and others have sought to explain through "Anglo-Norman influence" seem to have been peculiar to place-names. And, on this basis, it is urged that, whenever any apparently aberrant development is observed solely in name-material, explanation ought first of all to be sought within the language to which that material belongs, sought, that is, in an unrestrained operation of regular processes and, specifically, in standardization of variants originally generated in rapid and casual speech. It was only after having formulated this hypothesis of what might be called "onomastic sound-change", involving developments related to the normal processes of the language in question but more drastic (and sometimes also more capricious) in their operation, that I discovered that a similar proposal had been made fifteen years ago, and in a different context, by Roger Lass. While not in the least wishing to shelter behind anyone else's phonological authority, I do venture to claim that the independent excogitation of this concept by two minds so differently stored and motivated may lend my hypothesis more weight than it might otherwise have carried.

288

Footnotes In his oral presentation Dr. H. Lüdtke also pointed this out. 2

Berndt's articles, condensed from his Rostock Habilitationsschrift of 1962, present commonsense conclusions which unfortunately are seldom, as published, adequately supported by documentation.

3

Barlow (1986: 17), for instance, took a similar point of view for granted when discussing Becket's likely command of languages.

4

Between 1976 (68-9) and 1979 (159) Richters views of Gerald's own linguistic background changed somewhat. The view that Gerald's "mother tongue was French" is maintained, but without the adducing of any evidence, by Bartlett (1982: 13).

5

In a partly analogous situation, the young Kipling, cared for by Indian servants, had to make an effort in order to speak English', haltingly translated out of the vernacular idiom that one thought and dreamed in" (KIPLING 1937: 3).

6

For privately informing me that French influence on the street-names of two other towns in this category, viz. Norwich and Shrewsbury, is likewise of limited extent, I am grateful to Dr. K. I. Sandred and Dr. M. Gelling respectively. I also wish to thank Dr. Gelling and Dr. G. Fellows-Jensen for discussing with me the general presentation of this paper; neither of them is, however, to be neld responsible for any unwise opinion expressed.

7

On the varying currency of French in twelfth-century English towns, cf. the admittedly dramatic and tendentious speech inserted into his Chronicle by Richard of Devizes (APPLEBY 1963: 66).

8

Sometimes, indeed, unstressed generics of French origin were during the Middle English period itself replaced by English ones more or less similar in sound: instances include Beadlow, derived from Fr beau lieu but reformed as if with a reflex of OE hJsw, and Rewley, derived from Fr real lieu but reformed as if with a reflex of OE -leak (MAWER and STENTON 1926: U7; GELLING 1953-4: 22-3).

289 9

The Digby text of the Chanson de Roland, for instance, shows both spellings sometimes interchanging in the same word so that 'hot' appears as calz or chald, and so on.

10

For reasons already given, twelfth-century spellings are too unreliable to be cited. In the list provided here, many of the citations dated 1225 and 1230 come from the Katherine-Group or the Ancrene Wisse, in the orthography of which does regularly indicate reflexes of OE palatalized .

11

I am unaware of any exceptions to this among simplex names. For the specific, there is at least one apparent exception involving the name Seighford (Staffs.), seemingly corresponding to a Domesday Book form Cesteforde·, but the whole development there is so aberrant as to constitute a special case.

12

The modern /'sairn sestQ/ Cirencester represents an artificially "restored" spelling-pronunciation (SMITH 1964-5: i, 60-2).

References APPLEBY, J. T. (ed.) (1963): TTie Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Ήπιε of King Richard the First. London: Nelson. BARLOW, F. (1986): Thomas Becket. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. BARTLETT, R. (1982): Gerald of Wales, 1U6-1223. Oxford: Clarendon Press. BERESFORD, M. W. (1967): New Towns of the Middle Ages. London: Lutter worth Press. BERNDT, R. (1965): "The linguistic situation in England from the Norman Conquest to the loss of Normandy (1066-1204)". Philologica Pragensia 8: 145-63. Reprinted in LASS (ed.) (1969): 369-91. — (1976): "French and English in thirteenth-century England". In: Aspekte der anglistischen Forschung in der DDR. Martin Lehnert zum 65. Geburtstag. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Gesellschaftswissenschaft pt.l: 129-50. — (1982): A History of the English Language. Leipzig.

290

BESTMANN, F. (1938): Die lautliche Gestaltung englischer Ortsnamen im Altfranzösischen und Anglo-Normannischen. Romanica Helvetica 9. Zürich. BIDDLE, M., et alii (1976): Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. Winchester Studies 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. BROWN, G. (1977): Listening to Spoken English. London. CAMERON, K. (1959): The Place-Names of Derbyshire, 3 pts. English Place-Name Society 27, 28, 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (1985): The Place-Names of Lincolnshire, pt. 1. English Place-Name Society 58. Nottingham: The Society. CHIBNALL, M. (1986): Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166. Oxford: Blackwell. CLANCHY, M. T. (1979): From Memory to Written Record. London: Edward Arnold. (1983): England and its Rulers, 1066-1272: Foreign Lordship and National Identity. London: Fontana. CLARK,

C. (1976): "People and languages in post-Conquest Canterbury". Journal of Medieval History 2: 1-33. — (1978): "Women's names in post-Conquest England: observations and speculations". Speculum 53: 223-51. (1980): "Certains aspects de l'hagiographie anglo-latine de l'Angleterre anglo-normande". In: D. Buschinger (ed.): Le Rocit bref au Moyen Age. Paris: 287-311. — (1987): "Spelling and grammatically in the Vespasian Homilies: a reassessment". Manuscripta 31, pt. 1: 7-10. COATES, R. (1987): "Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation". Journal of Linguistics 23: 319-40. EKWALL, E. (1954): Street-Names of the City of London. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1960): Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. 4th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. GELLING, M. (1953-4): Tlie Place-Names of Oxfordshire. 2 pts. English Place-Name Society 23, 24. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

291

(1978): Signposts to the Past. London: Dent. GOVER, J. E. B., et alii (1931-2): The Place-Names of Devon, 2 pts. English Place-Name Society 8, 9. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. — (1933): The Place-Names of Northamptonshire. English Place-Name Society 10. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. — (1940): The Place-Names of Nottinghamshire. English Place-Name Society 17. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. GREENSLADE, M. W. (ed.) (1970): A History of the County of Stafford, III. Victoria History of the Counties of England. Oxford, for the Institute of Historical Research. KIPLING, R. (1937): Something of Myself. London: Macmillan. LASS, R. (ed.) (1969): Approaches to English Historical Linguistics: An Anthology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (1973): Review-article based on P. H. Reaney (1967): The Origins of English Surnames. Foundations of Language 9: 392-402. — (1987): The Shape of English: Structure and History. London: Dent. LEFEVRE, Y. (1973): "De l'usage du francais en Grande Bretagne a la fin du Xlle siecle" Etudes de langue et de littorature du Moyen Äge offertes ä Fe"lix Lecoy. Paris: Champion: 301-5. — et alii (eds.) (1974): Giraldus Cambrensis: Speculum Duorum. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. LEGGE, M. D. (1980): "Anglo-Norman as a spoken language". In: Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 2: 109-17, 188-90. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. MAWER, A., et alii (1927): The Place-Names of Worcestershire. English Place-Name Society 4. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. MAWER, A. and F. M. STENTON (1926): The Place-Names of Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire. English Place-Name Society 3. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. (1929-30): The Place-Names of Sussex, 2 pts. English Place-Name Society 6, 7. Cambridge. Cambridge UP. PALLISER, D. M. (1978): "The medieval street-names of York". York Historian 2: 2-16.

292

PLATT, C. (1973): Medieval Southampton: the Port and Trading Community, A.D. 1000-1600. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. POPE, M. K. (1952): From Latin to Modern French, with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester UP. PRIOR, O. H. (ed.) (1924): Cambridge Anglo-Norman Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. REANEY, P. H. (1943): The Place-Names of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. English Place-Name Society 19. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. RICHTER, M. (1976): Giraldus Cambrensis: the Growth of the Welsh Nation. 2nd edn. Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales. (1978-9): "Giraldiana". Irish Historical Studies 21: 422-37. (1979): Sprache und Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur mündlichen Kommunikation in England von der Mitte des elften bis zum Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 18. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. (1985): "Towards a methodology of historical sociolinguistics". Folia Linguistica Historica 6, pt.l.: 41-61. ROTHWELL, W. (1968): "The teaching of French in medieval England". Modern Language Review 63: 37-46. — (1975-6): "The role of French in thirteenth-century England". Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58: 445-66. — (1978): "A quelle epoque a-t-on cessä de parier frangais en Angleterre?" In: Melanges de philologie romane offerts ä Charles Camproux. Montpellier: University Paul-Vale>y: 1075-89. (1985): "Stratford-atte-Bowe and Paris". Modern Language Review 80: 39-54. SHORT, L. (1979-80): On bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England". Romance Philology 33: 467-79. SHELLY, P. van D. (1921): English and French in England 1066-1100. Philadelphia.

293

SMITH, A. H. (1928): The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire. English Place-Name Society 5, Cambridge: Cambridge UP. (1937): The Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire. English Place-Name Society 14. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. — (1956): English Place-Name Elements, 2 pts. English Place-Name Society 25, 26. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. — (1964-5): The Place-Names of Gloucestershire, 4 pts. English Place-Name Society 38, 39, 40, 41. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. STOREY, C. (ed.) (1946): La Vie de saint Alexis. Oxford: Blackwell. VISING, J. (1923): Anglo-Norman Language and Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. WATERS, E. G. R. (ed.) (1928): Anglo-Norman Voyage of St. Brendan. Oxford: Clarendon Press. WILSON, R. M. (1943): "English and French in England, 1100 1300". History 23: 37-60. WOODBINE, G. E. (1943): "The Language of English Law". Speculum 18: 395-436. ZACHRISSON, R. E. (1909): A Contribution to the Study of AngloNorman Influence on English Place-Names. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, NF I, iv, 3. Lund. (1924): "The French element". In: MAWER, A., and F. M. STENTON (eds.): Introduction to the Survey of English Place-Names. English Place-Name Society 1, i. Cambridge: Cambridge UP: 93-114. (1925): "Some English place-names in a French garb". In: Melanges de philologie offerts ä M. Johan Vising. Gothenburg: 179-201.

ORIGINS OF THE NON-STANDARD RELATIVIZERS WHAT AND AS IN ENGLISH Patricia Poussa Introduction The purpose of this paper is to try to account for the fact that the English dialects have evolved two opposed strategies for relativization: (a) a pronoun strategy, represented most clearly by WHO. WHOSE, (b) an invariant particle (marker) strategy, represented most clearly by AS. WHAT, THAT and AT seem to lie somewhere between these extremes. My conclusion will be that the geographical distribution of the two types (a) and (b) in modern English dialects suggests that they reflect the continuing influence of very early Germanic and Celtic settlement patterns. Because I am using material published in the Survey of English Dialects, I must confine my remarks to relative clauses with •••Human antecedent, and therefore I shall omit WHICH, which was rare in SED for •••Human. I have chosen to concentrate on WHAT and AS, because they have never been accepted in the standard language. Some dialectologists suspect that the SED questionnaire accidentally provoked too much WHO, from informants whose usage was variable. It is argued that in many dialects, WHO is the latest incomer (e.g. by IHALAINEN 1985: 68). On this basis, the WHAT and AS data in the SED would appear rather more reliable than the WHO data as indicators of past states of the language. 1. What Map 1 in the Appendix shows the SED distribution of WHAT, which is eastern and southern in the main. The information is based on three frame questions, given below:

296

IX.9.5. The woman next door says: the work in this garden is getting me down. You say: Well, get some help in. I know a .... man WHO will do it for you. III.3.7. If I didn't know what a cowman is, you would tell me: He is the man ....THAT looks after the cows. IX.9.6. That man's uncle was drowned last week. In other words, you might say,that's the chap .... WHOSE UNCLE WAS DROWNED. All of these questions had a + Human antecedent, two in the subject slot of the relative clause, one in genitival relation. For those unfamiliar with the SED it should be noted that the speakers were typically rural, from small villages, and they had mostly been born around the end of the 19th century. The interview situation was rather formal, a gap-filling task, and unfortunately no frame with non-human antecedent was included. Considering these circumstances, it is remarkable how many WHAT relativizers were noted as first responses. WHAT as relativizer is definitely Germanic in etymology, but not much met with in the texts that philologists study. However, we do have all what since the llth century, and with some other "antecedents of less definite character". According to Mustanoja (I960: 194-5) it is not very common in ME: "The strictly relative use of what is rare in many writers (Chaucer, Capgrave, etc.) but less rare in the Paston Letters and quite common in Pecock, in whose writings, to some extent at least, it reflects Latin influence". I do not propose to argue that this distribution in rural dialects reflects Latin influence. On the contrary, my thesis is that, in the case of the relativizers WHAT and AS, the dialects have developed independently of the written language. WHO, however, has entered the standard language, and the history of its appearance in written texts adds the temporal dimension which is so remarkably lacking for WHAT and AS. 2. Who

MAP 2, adapted from Orton et. al. (1978), shows the geographical distribution of WHO and alternatives in the frame "I know a man WHO will do it for you".

297

WHAT and WHO are intuitively connected,1 and derive from the same OE paradigm. It is apparent that WHO and WHAT are concentrated in the eastern and southern parts of England. The variation with WHO, WHAT and ZERO is complex, and insufficiently studied: for example, part of Sussex and west Kent appears as a ZERO area in Map 2, but would be a WHAT area in the frame "the man THAT looks after the cows". The SED was not designed to deal with this kind of variation. It therefore seems justifiable to designate the whole of the east and south as a WH-relative area, contrasting with a West Midland AS area. The WH-area is characterized by a great deal of variation in the SED subject relativizers, the AS area less so.2 The Paston Letters (from north-east Norfolk) are notable in the recorded development of the English relativizers as the source of the first appearances of strictly relative who in the nominative, in the 15th century (at first in stereotyped closing formulae, then in other contexts). According to Mustanoja, "The nominative who is hardly found in 15th-century literary texts, and even in Caxton it is very rare" (I960: 200). This who alternated with which. The oblique cases, whom (no longer attested in the modern dialects) and whose have been used as relativizers since earliest ME.3 (Note they could correspond to either nom. WHO or WHAT: in OE hwB. and hwaet had identical forms in genitive and dative, differentiated in nom. and ace.). The question has been: why the lag in the nominative? I have pointed \out elsewhere (POUSSA 1988) that in early Middle English texts from East Anglia there is a relative system whose exponents are:

Nom: Pe - Obi: wham/what - Gen: wos.* Prokosch (1939: 277) suggests that relative t>e is in origin a West Germanic masculine singular pronominal form. In East Anglian dialects, I have argued, the loss of te was repaired by analogy, from the WH- paradigm. This would account for the rise of WHO and WHAT in the nominative in East Anglian and similar dialects. Nominative WHO made the literary language, nominative WHAT did not, and is heavily stigmatized today. As for the date of this development in the spoken language, I would suggest eME at the latest. The eME East Anglian texts are liable to be

298

conservative, and we do not have any OE East Anglian texts at all. Thus the WHO/WHAT/ZERO system in the modern dialects would seem to have its roots in a very early period. Since, furthermore, its geographical distribution corresponds rather accurately with the area of the earliest and densest Germanic settlements, it is likely to be a peculiarly Germanic development, though not attested in written OE. There are several continental parallels for mixed demonstrative/interrogative-pronoun relative systems in Germanic dialects. As well as standard languages, such as Dutch, Swedish, W-relatives are attested (often linked with demonstrative pronouns) in some modern dialects of German. The examples below have been drawn from Keller (1961: 183, 320, 361). Darmstadt: Westphalian: North Saxon:

The rel. pron. wo is usually linked with the dem. prons. Mönsterlänsk Platt: Like NHG, Westphalian uses the dem. pron. in this function, replacing, however, the dem. dat by wat. Lower Elbe: The dem. pron. de is used as the rel. pron. With prepositions wo is used.

Furthermore, in Island North Frisian (Fohr), according to Schmidt-Peterson und Graigie (1928: 14), the following relative pronoun system for 'who' was to be found earlier this century: di = masc. sing. nom. & ace. wat = fern. & neut. nom. & ace., both sing. & plur. The genitive was said to be periphrastic: fan di or fan wat, according to gender, (though KEENAN and COMRIE (1977: 74) state that relativization is not possible on the genitive in the modern Fering dialect). In North Germanic, it should be noted that Old Norse also had a defective hvat relativizer (PROKOSCH 1939: 278), repaired in Old Icelandic by the addition of the derivatives hverr, Aver, for masc. and fern. Though these may be independent later developments on both sides of the North Sea, yet it is not impossible that some groups of WHAT and WHO speakers came over to Britain with the first Germanic settlers, during the Roman and immediate post-Roman

299

period (and if you believe the legends about Hengest the Frisian, probably in the first three boatloads of the Adventus Saxonum proper). There is no doubt that in the Roman period the defenders of the Saxon Shore were mainly recruited from Germania, and a continuity of settlement is to be presumed. The pottery evidence for Germanic immigration in the 4th century is particularly strong for Essex, the major WHAT area (MYRES 1986: 88-96, 204).

3.1. As The geographical distribution of AS in Map 2 is in complementary distribution to the WH-types. It is found in the western and central Midlands and Lancashire, where it is without question the dominant traditional form.5 Map 3, given me by courtesy of David Parry, includes the as yet unpublished information on AS from the Survey of Anglo-Welsh Dialects (SAWD) in the frame "He is the man THAT looks after the cows". It confirms the main distribution shown in Map 2, and adds outliers in North Yorkshire, most of north Devon, and a patch in South Wales directly opposite. AS is definitely not the form found in the recently Welsh-speaking areas of Wales. SAWD found WHO or THAT, with few exceptions.6 AS is unusual among Germanic relativizers, in that it is neither a demonstrative nor an interrogative pronoun in origin. It is an invariable particle, also used as a subordinating conjunction (like THAT and AT). AS is supposed to be a development of OE alswa, and to have become a relativizer via the "such as" construction. It appears as a strict relative first c. 1350, and this use remains very rare in written texts. Yet in the SED subject frames it covers the biggest single area, with the largest number of tokens, of any of the English relativizers. How is this to be explained? I suggest that AS was naturally selected because of its simplicity, in a language contact situation. Language contact in general might be expected to discourage the use of case-coding pronouns, and to encourage the invariable particle relativizing strategy. The Alemanic dialects of German are a case in point.7

300 Simplification and convergence of syntax and semantics has repeatedly been observed in societies with a history of multilingualism, such as the classic case of the Indian village of Kupwar (GUMPERZ and WILSON 1971). More recently, separate studies of the creolizing language Tok Pisin have observed new relative particles, derived from English morphemes, taking wing (SANKOFF and BROWN 1976: 632, AITCHISON 1981: 204-5). And Schmidt in her study of dying Dyirbal, testifies to the creative side of language death: Dying language systems are able to develop new affixes with specific grammatical functions, just as emerging Creoles do. Such change is parallel to, not the reverse of, creolization. (SCHMIDT 1985: 215) These processes seem highly relevant to the questions of the origins of English dialectal AS. If my argumentation for an early Germanic origin for the WHarea as we have it in English dialects today is accepted, then, on the grounds of geographical distribution it follows that it was the contact of Germanic with Brittonic which most probably accounts for the present extent of the AS area. The two dialect maps should be compared with Jackson's map of Celtic river and stream names (Map 4), which Jackson advanced as evidence of the survival of a continuum of Celtic-English bilingualism sufficient to have passed the Celtic names to English speakers. Jackson's extreme areas I and IV reflect the naming habits of virtually monolingual populations of Germanic and Brittonic speakers respectively. His areas II and III must be regarded as the conquered regions where Brittonic enclaves survived longest, or where Brittonic speakers were proportionally more numerous, or both. His Area I, where the river names are almost exclusively Germanic, corresponds with the eastern WH-area shown in Maps 1 and 2, while his Area II and the fragmented Area III correspond with the AS-area shown in Maps 2 and 3. In view of the dominance of subject AS in the Welsh Marches, it is surprising that AS is not also dominant in the modern English dialects of Jackson's Area IV, the most recent Welsh-speaking areas. But, as Map 3 shows, AS in Wales is clearly confined to the immediate border region. On historical grounds we can assume this to have been an area of sustained

301

Brittonic-Germanic contact from the 6th century onwards, i.e. from the Primitive Welsh period (6th-8th centuries), while in Area II the contact would have begun about a century earlier. 3.2. A tentative source If AS is in fact a Brittonic-Germanic contact form, as seems likely from these geographical distributions, then in order to explain its strength in central and western England, compared with its absence in Wales, we ought to find a possible source in Brittonic which ceased to operate in Welsh at an early period. For Primitive Welsh, naturally, we have no records. However, a candidate can be found in Common Celtic *idhe, an adverbial form cognate with the Sanskrit ih& 'here', not originally a relative, but ancestor of Middle Welsh yd, Cornish yth, Breton ez (and Irish infixed -d-}. (M1W yd gives ModW 7, pronounced as schwa.} Breton is historically an extra-territorial Brittonic, the result of the Dunmonian exodus, which Gildas both described and participated in during the 6th century. These events lie in the period (c. 450-600 AD) in which Brittonic split up into its three branches, Welsh, Cornish and Breton, as a result of the Anglo-Saxon conquests, and all three branches lost their case endings (GREGOR 1980: 31). TTiis would be a propitious period for creolization. I suggest that in Jackson's areas II and III the selection of invariant AS would be a natural development in the language contact situation such as obtained between Brittonic and Germanic. At the time of first contact, the relativizing strategies of the two languages would have been most incompatible. Old Welsh retains traces of a verbal infix system, which was superseded in M1W by a system in which the affirmative particle yd, yt, was used to introduce several types of subordinate clauses, including noun clause object and "improper relatives": relative clauses governed by a preposition, and relative clauses in a genitival relation (EVANS 1976: 64-65, 171), while a was used for "proper relatives", i.e. subject and direct object in the relative clause.8 Evans states that in early M1W poetry as and ys are sometimes found in the same uses as later yd, yt (p. 173).

302

In time the introductory particles "came to be felt as relative conjunctions, denoting subordination" (p. 64). I suggest that these developments in M1W could be the result of earlier syntactic convergence with the contiguous dialects of English, but that subsequent sound changes in Welsh obscured the relationship of the Welsh yd > 7 to English dialectal AS.9 4.1. Whose vs. as his Map 5 (adapted from Orton et, aL, 1987) shows the SED distribution of WHOSE, vs. the periphrastic genitive construction with AS/AT, in the frame "That's the chap .... WHOSE uncle was drowned". The analytical AS HIS, AT HIS, type of construction should be the easier type from the point of view of the language learner, and thus is likely to result from language contact with any language, and to persist, as the retained pronoun aids comprehension in positions further down the Accessibility Hierarchy for relativization, which Keenan and Comrie (1977: 88) suggest "directly reflects the psychological ease of comprehen sion".10 The geographical distribution shown by the SED supports this language-contact-origin hypothesis most clearly in the case of the Great Scandinavian Belt area across Yorkshire and Cumbria, where AS HIS and AT HIS/ATS appear to alternate. The periphrastic form looks vestigial in this accepted language contact area, with WHOSE (which has been standard since OE) encroaching. If we turn to the Midland area of AS HIS, we have apparently a far more eroded area. The western boundary is sharp (and surprisingly far east, which requires explanation), whereas the eastern edge fades into WHOSE via plain AS in Leicestershire and Rutland. This seems consistent with the early Brittonic contact explanation for AS advanced above. Thus, I would argue that contact universale have given a similar result in each case. Possibly we could argue a double substratum effect in the Scandinavian Belt, with Brittonic influence underlying Scandinavian. AS and AT are of course phonetically gradient forms, and syntactically they operate in the same way, as both subordinating relative and conjunctive particles.11

303

4.2. Role of the accessibility hierarchy A comparison of the different areal distributions of AS in Maps 2, 3 and 5 suggests that they have been affected by the processes of syntactic diffusion along the Accessibility Hierarchy for Relativization (AH), first proposed by Keenan and Comrie (1977). Its application to the historical development of Germanic, including Standard English and Scottish English, is discussed by Romaine (1984). The positions in the AH are ordered: SUBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > OBLIQUE > GENITIVE >. Romaine observes that in natural change the direction of syntactic diffusion is from right to left up the AH, i.e. genitive before subject, and that this is exemplified by the progress of WHpronouns in Middle Scots, and Standard English. Ihalainen (1985: 66-67) sees the same direction of change in the advance of WHO in the (synchronic) SED materials. At first sight, this "natural" direction of change might be assumed to account for the present smallness of the Midland AS HIS area (Map 5) in comparison with Subject AS (Maps 2 and 3). This explanation works quite well for the eastern side of the Midland AS HIS area, but not so well for the western. We need a special explanation for the unusual fact of a restricted central relic area of AS HIS, with a very clear WHOSE area to the west of it. However, if AS originally entered the relative system in a Brittonic-Germanic creolization process, then the direction of syntactic diffusion would be "unnnatural", as in Creole languages, where relativization starts from scratch, and moves down the AH from left to right, filling the subject position first (see discussion in ROMAINE 1984: 453-4). Thus in Jackson's Area II, the central area, AS could have entered the system at S and had time to work down the AH to G, but in the later-settled parts of the West Midlands AS could have established itself at the top of the hierarchy, but not have had enough time to work down to G before the factors introducing AS had vanished, and decreolization set in towards the eastern WHdialects. "Natural" diffusion would then fill the vacuum, giving

304

WHOSE in these western dialects earlier than in the central area, where AS HIS was firmly established. AS is found in the West Midlands as far down the AH as direct object and object of preposition positions only, according to the SED Incidental Materials. Thus in sum the picture we get from the distribution of AS in Maps 2, 3 and 5 is a reflection of Dark Age history, with the contact zone between Germanic and Brittonic moving slowly westwards with the Anglo-Saxon settlements. The apparent "hopping" of WH- across the central relic area of AS HIS is accounted for by the universal rules of change in relative systems.12

4.3. That his Like AS in the subject slot, AS HIS was not found in Wales by SAWD, where the dominant form was the standard WHOSE. Some cases of THAT HIS occurred, however. Parry reports THAT HIS in SAWD at the localities Powys 1, 8; Dyfed 1, 2, 9; and THATS at Mid Glamorgan 3.13 The Welsh examples can fairly certainly be explained by contact between modern standard English and the modern Welsh relative construction, e.g., Dyma'r dyn y canodd ei fab yn y cor 'This is the man that his son sang in the choir'.14 THATS is found in a small area in south Wales, as also in some varieties of modern Scottish English (ROMAINE 1984: 440). This is possibly a further development of THAT HIS. Otherwise in the English dialects spoken in Wales, WHOSE is the rule. I conclude that THAT HIS in Wales is produced by the same general Celtic substratum that earlier gave AS HIS in English dialects, but that, as argued in Section 3, the environment which produced AS had ceased to apply in early Welsh.

305

4.4. What his, What's Map 5 also shows two small patches of WHAT HIS on the northern and eastern edge of the Midlands AS HIS area. This could be interpreted as an analogical form: at some time in the history of these dialects, WHAT has ceased to function as a pronoun, and become an invariant marker, possibly under the influence of the AS HIS structure. Atlas-makers, probably rightly, have taken WHAT'S to be a development of WHAT HIS.15 Two other SED findspots for these constructions were in S. Lines 14, WHAT HIS, and S. Somerset 13, WHAT'S (see Map 1). Conclusion I must conclude from the SED material (supplemented by the work of later dialectologists) that Brittonic-Germanic contact is the key to the the existence of the two types of relativizing strategies in the English dialects. Celtic substratum arguments were largely rejected by Anglicists in the first half of this century, for lack of hard evidence. The Scandinavian evidence has been clearer, and the Scandinavian lobby was always better served. Re-evaluation begins with Jackson (1953), with settlement studies such as that of Jones (1976), which emphasise the continuities of estate management from the Romano-British period, and a new approach to place-name studies exemplified by Gelling 1984 (see pp. 79-80, 99, 190, 127-8, 138 and 182 for Brittonic morphemes used in topographical place-names). Arguments for an abiding Celtic substratum influence in the syntax of Standard English have been advanced by Braaten (1977) for the progressive aspect, and Poussa (forthcoming) for periphrastic DO. The dialect evidence on AS and WHAT should be considered against the background of these re-evaluations, coining independently from different disciplines. Throughout the discussion of WHAT and AS it has been apparent that the non-standard relative usage has developed in entire independence of the standard written language, and has been very little recorded in written texts. I put the relative invisibility

306

of dialect syntax down to the possibilities that syntax offers for choice and variation: speakers who use WHAT or AS in informal contexts will normally write the standard form. Syntax is particularly sensitive to what Milroy and Milroy (1985) term the ideology of standardization, which requires repression of variation in the interests of the written formal norm. In spoken styles there is sociolinguistic as well as regional variation, and local stigmatized forms can be insulated, as it were, by bidialectal code-switching. Variation in a dialect can be a steady state, not just a passing phase on the way from A to B. Studies in the history of a single dialect, such as Romaine's work on Middle and Modern Scots relativizers, demonstrate that patterns of sociolinguistic and stylistic variation can remain remarkably stable over centuries in a particular dialect. I am inclining more and more to the view that the patterns of syntactic diffusion which can be traced in synchronic cross-section in the SED may be the fossilized remains of a remote period of rapid linguistic change. Tlie SED syntactic data has to be used with great care, and with the awareness that the Questionnaire method was unable to detect or express the complexity of variation found by later research based on tape-recorded interviews. But however simplistic the method of the SED - and its omissions are infuriating - the raw data remains a primary source for the history of English speech. It supplies otherwise unobtainable data on the non-standard relativizers of English. This data is by no means marginal. The fact that these relativizers have remained vulgar and unwritten, and thus have failed to attract serious scholarly attention, probably reflects their unrecorded origins in the contact vernaculars of the Dark Ages.

Footnotes 1

Cheshire (1982: 72) suggested that the variable selection of WHO and WHAT in the speech of Reading adolescents was affected by an animacy scale as well as grammatical role.

2

From a reading of the unpublished Additional Materials in the fieldworker books of the SED at the School of English, Leeds, in 1986, I gained the impression that the use of AS was very

307

consistent, especially in the West Midland areas bordering Wales, with few examples of ZERO or competing relativizers, apart from the genitive, which was regularly WHOSE. AS was also noted as subordinating conjunction in these areas. From the Basic Materials, the frequency and relative invariability of AS-usage in the two subject slots is confirmed statistically by Ihalainen (1985: 68). He found the relativizer WHO to be most sensitive to the specificity of the antecedent noun, AS the least sensitive. AS was the most frequent subject relativizer, with 236 tokens, followed by WHO (113), AT (76), THAT (71), WHAT (62), ZERO (54). 3

According to Mitchell (1985: 142-3) there are no unambiguous uses of hwä, hwaet and hwelc as relatives in OE, though Karlberg makes out a case for eall h west in late MSS.

4

The spellings of eME East Anglian texts are various. Genesis and Exodus has t>e, quam and quat, no genitive. Bestiary has genitive wos. Ormulum (S. Lines.) has l>att, whamm, whatt, whas.

5

Shorrocks (1980: 556-61) finds AS "the chief relative pronoun" in the dialect of Farnworth, Manchester County. He also finds ZERO, and WHAT, which is "used somewhat less frequently that AS in the dialect, but is very common in modified speech, with the meaning 'who, which, that'." THAT and WHO were only occasional in the base dialect, but commoner in modified speech.

6

For the information on Anglo-Welsh dialects used in this paper, I am indebted to David Parry, personal communication, 7.10.88.

7

For example Zurich German uses an invariable particle wo which functions also as an adverb of time, equivalent in meaning to NHG als (KELLER 1961: 63).

8

This is essentially the same system used as Primary Strategy for S and positions on the Relative Accessibility plus personal pronoun (KEENAN and

9

Such reconstructed etymologies are dangerous ground, especially for a non-Celticist. tne general argument for Brittonic contact influence does not stand or fall on this particular reconstruction, however. The lexifying language could well be English, as in the traditional etymology. I have previously

as in ModW, where a is DO in NPrel, while lower Hierarchy have particle y COMRIE 1977: 70).

308

(POUSSA 1988) considered the possibility of influence from the early ON es relative particle, which is possible as minor input, perhaps in the 5th (HINES 1984: 108-9), and also the 10th centuries, but cannot alone explain the phenomenal spread of this construction. 10

Interestingly, both modern Welsh and Zurich German share the same pattern of pronoun retention in relative clauses, i.e.: S-, DO-, K>, OBL+, GEN+, OCOMP+ (KEENAN and COMRIE 1977: 92). The AS-dialects of English shown in Map 5 certainly have S-, DO-, GEN+. Standard English does not have pronoun retention in any position.

11

The Scandinavian languages do not use the same particle for both these functions. All the Celtic languages share the analytic genitive construction with the invariable relativizer plus a possessive. Manx uses the prepositional pronoun from ec 'at' in its emphatic form (GREGOR 1980: 144-5).

12

This agrees with the theoretical framework of Romaine (1984: 445-458). The differences between the distribution of AS in Maps 2 and 3 are accounted for by Ihalainen's (1985: 67) specificity criterion. I differ with Romaine only on the origin of WH, which I believe to be Germanic. If this is correct, then Latin-French influence has to be post hoc.

13

In SED as first response to IX.9.6., only at Devon 9 (THAT HIS) and Essex 2 (THAT'S).

14

David Parry gives me an anecdotal example from his experience, from "some notes dictated by a teacher of Welsh to her English-speaking pupils that ran something like this: 'How to form plurals: Look at the noun that you want to form its plural, and decide whether ...'."

15

Alternatively, the AS HIS construction may have had a preserving influence on an earlier Gmc form. OFris does have nwetes/hwes as neuter genitive of the interrogative pronoun, distinguishing it from masculine genitive hwams. This distinction is not preserved in standard OE, but could possibly have existed as a dialect form.

309

References AITCHISON, J. (1981): Language change: progress or decay? Bungay. BRAATEN, B. (1967): "Notes on continuous tenses in English." Norsk TCdskrift for Sprogvidenskap 21: 167-80. CHESHIRE, J. (1982): Variation in an English dialect. Cambridge. EVANS, D. S. (1964, repr. 1976): A grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin. GELLING, M. (1984): Place names in the landscape. London. GREGOR, D. B. (1980): Celtic: A comparative study. Cambridge/ New York. GUMPERZ, J. and R. WILSQN (1971): "Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border." In: HYMES, D. (ed.) Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: 151-167. HINES, J. (1984): The Scandinavian Character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period. BAR British Series 124. Oxford. IHALAINEN, O. (1985): "Synchronic Variation and Linguistic Change: Evidence from British English Dialects." In: EATON, R., FISCHER, O. KOOPMAN, W. and F. VAN DER LEEK (eds.): Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: 61-72. JACKSON, K. (1953): Language and history in early Britain. Edinburgh. JONES, G. (1976): "Multiple estates and early settlement." In SAWYER, P. (ed.): Medieval Settlement: continuity and change. Reprinted in SAWYER, P. (ed.) (1979): English medieval settlement. London: 9-34. KEENAN, E. and B. COMRIE (1977): "Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar." Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63-99. KELLER, R.E. (1961): German dialects: phonology and morphology. Manchester. LEWIS, H. and H. PEDERSEN (1937): A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Göttingen.

310

MILROY, J. and L. MILROY, (1985): Authority in language: investigating language prescription and standardisation. London. MITCHELL, B. (1985): Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford. MUSTANOJA, T.F. (I960): A Middle English syntax, Part I. Helsinki. MYRES, J.N.L. (1986): The English settlements. Oxford. ORTON, H., et al (1968-71): Survey of English dialects. Basic Materials (4 vols.). Leeds. ORTON, H., S. SANDERSON and J. WIDDOWSON (eds.) (1978): The linguistic atlas of England. London. POUSSA, P. (1988): "Tlie relative WHAT: two kinds of evidence." In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical dialectology. Berlin: 293-312. — (fprthc.): "A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of OE-Celtic contact." In: LAW, V. and S. WRIGHT (eds.): Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam. PROKOSCH, E. (1939): A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia. ROMAINE, S. (1982): Socio-historical linguistics: its status and methodology. Cambridge. — (1984): "Towards a typology of relative clause formation strategies in Germanic." In: FISIAK, J. (ed.): Historical syntax. Trends in linguistics 23. Berlin: 437-470. SANKOFF, G. and P. BROWN, (1976): "TTie origins of syntax in discourse. A case study of Tok Pisin relatives." Language 52: 631-666. SCHMIDT, A. (1985): Young people's Dyirbal: an example of language death from Australia. Cambridge. SCHMIDT-PETERSEN, J. and J. CRAIGIE (1928): The North Frisian dialect of Föhr and Amrum. Edinburgh. SHORROCKS, G. (1980): A grammar of the dialect of Farnworth and district (Greater Manchester County, formerly Lancashire). Unpublished PhD thesis. Sheffield.

311

Appendix Map 1: Distribution of Subject and Genitive WHAT in SED

=

Subject in I I I . 3 . 7

=

Subject

in I X . 9 . 5

=

Both the above

=

Genitive in I X . 9 . 6

312

Map 2: WHO and variants in SED IX.9.5

313

Map 3: AS in SED 111.3,7

= as

50

314

Map 4: Areas of Celtic River Names (adapted from Jackson, 1953)

315

Map 5: AS HIS in SED IX.9.6 =

AS HIS

=

AT HIS

=

WHAT HIS

=

WHOSE

SO It»,

THE STUDY OF SCANDINAVIAN IN ENGLAND: A SURVEY OF SWEDISH CONTRIBUTIONS INCLUDING ONGOING RESEARCH IN EAST ANGLIA Karl Inge Sandred 1. Previous Work A survey of research into the Scandinavian element in English should begin with Erik Björkman. He published the first part of his work Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle English as a dissertation in English at Uppsala under his teachers Adolf Noreen and Axel Erdmann in 1900. It was followed by a second volume in 1902. Adolf Noreen was professor of Scandinavian languages and Axel Erdmann professor of Germanic languages. There was no chair in English yet at any Swedish university. Axel Erdmann later became the first professor of English at Uppsala and, when he retired, Björkman became his successor in 1911. Björkman's two volumes on Scandinavian loan-words are still the standard work on the subject. It is worthy of note that they were both printed in Studien zur englischen Philologie, edited by Lorenz Morsbach, who had been Björkman's teacher when he was a student at Göttingen. Björkman actually had a Swedish predecessor. I am thinking of Erik Brate, whose work Nordische Lehnwörter im Orrmulum was printed in Paul and Bräune's Beiträge 10 (1885) after having been submitted as a doctoral dissertation at Uppsala University in 1884. It should be noted that Björkman called his work Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle English, and he gives several reasons for not basing his study on Modern English, or on Old English: (1) Old English is too early, because the Old English which has been preserved is largely West Saxon, and does not reflect Danelaw speech. (2) The few early Scandinavian loans we have in Old English are of a different character. The important stratum of Scandinavian loan-words had not found its way into the English language before the transition period, i.e. early Middle English. (3) An investigation of the Scandinavian element based on Modern English (i.e. post-1500) would be far less valuable, and useful information much more difficult to obtain than from an investiga-

318

tion based on Middle English. The Modern English material cannot be properly dealt with without a thorough knowledge of the Middle English situation. Modern Standard English is composed of elements from different dialects, not only East Midland. Moreover, many items of Modern English have been introduced from Low German and Dutch in later periods, and they are often difficult to distinguish from Scandinavian. According to Björkman, a successful survey of Modern English on this point is not possible until many questions concerning the history of the English dialects have been solved. Ideas similar to Björkman's were expressed by Angus Mclntosh in a paper read at a conference on the subject The Vikings at Uppsala in 1977, when he advocated a joint Anglo-Scandinavian project in Middle English word-geography for the study of the long-term impact of Scandinavian upon English (McINTOSH 1978). Although, in Björkman's opinion, an investigation of the Scandinavian influence is best based on Middle English, even so there are difficulties. He mentions three: (1) The differences in vocabulary between Old English and Old Scandinavian was not all that great. Like Jespersen (1952: 45), Björkman belongs to the scholars who think that the Old English and the Old Scandinavians could understand each other without much difficulty. In support of this he quotes Gunnlaug's Saga: ein var tunga i Englandi ok Noregi, adr VilhiaJmr bastardr vann England. But evenso, there were words, common to both languages, which differed in sense and in the process adopted the sense of the other language. (2) Our knowledge of the dialect differences both in Anglo-Saxon England and in Scandinavia in this early period is very limited. (3) The fact that the English anglicised Scandinavian words may have concealed many items which were actually introduced from Scandinavia. Among the examples he ranges in this category are OE swan 'man, warrior' from OScand sveinn, OE dream, ME drew 'dream' from OScand draumr. Björkman emphasises that this language contact also resulted in the transfer of whole phrases, proverbs, etc. as well as prefixes and suffixes. In describing the special situation of the language contact, Biorkman refers to Progress in Language (JESPERSEN 1894: 173 f.). In the contact between the two languages, many nuances of grammar were sacrificed. The intelligibility of either language came to depend on mere vocabulary. The wearing away and levelling of

319

grammatical forms was a couple of centuries in advance in the regions of England in which the Scandinavians settled. Björkman introduced several tests for deciding if a word is a Scandinavian loan-word or not. The first is the phonetic test. He says, If a word in English has a form which cannot be explained by means of internal English sound-laws, but which is easily accounted for by assuming a Scandinavian origin, we are, for the most part, entitled to consider the word in question a Scandinavian loan-word (BJÖRKMAN 1900: 30). All other tests he considers "more or less unreliable". In this way he is able to establish that words such as big 'barley', bigging 'building' and egg must be Scandinavian because original uu changed to ggu in Scandinavian and Gothic and // to ggl in Scandinavian (in Gothic to ddj). In West Germanic such changes never took place (1900: 32 ff.). These are examples of phonetic distinctions with their roots in Proto-Germanic but, of course, Björkman also takes into account a great number of later changes where North and West Germanic languages differ. In his obituary of Erik Björkman in Beiblatt zur Anglia 30 (1919), E. Ekwall emphasised especially the importance of Björkman's investigation of the dialectal origin of the Scandinavian loan-words in English, the results of which he actually published before his main work in the Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of Uppsala (Spräkvetenskapliga sällskapets i Upsala förhandlingar Sept. 1897 - Maj 1900, Uppsala universitets ärsskrift 1900). In Part One Björkman went through items which he considered to have proved to be of Scandinavian origin by means of phonetic criteria. In Part Two, which he brought out in 1902, he passed on to consider other tests, and the next most important test was, in his opinion, the distribution of the items in Middle English dialects. As number three came the question whether a word is found in other Germanic languages than Scandinavian or English. Words which are only found in Scandinavian and Middle English he takes to be of Scandinavian origin, provided the dialectal distribution in English or other circumstances do not contradict such an assumption. At the same time Björkman emphasises that we cannot reach absolute certainty in such cases. The only thing we are able to say

320

about the material sorted out on the basis of criteria two and three, i.e. the dialectal distribution and the appearance in other Germanic languages, is, in his opinion, that a very large percentage of the items in question must undoubtedly be of Scandinavian origin. The results are thus only valid in the aggregate. Bjorkman estimates the percentage of errors in the list of items sorted out on the basis of test two at 10 % and in the case of the items sorted out on the basis of test three at 25 % It is worthy of note that, when Per Thorson wrote his dissertation An Inquiry into the Scandinavian Elements in the Modern English Dialects in 1936, he divided his material into three categories: (a) "provable loans", (b) "probable loans" and (c) "uncertain loans", which correspond to Bjorkman's three types, and Thorson says about Bjorkman, "The fact that even today so few of his statements are disputable or require amendment, bears strong testimony to his standards and procedure" (1936: 1). Shortly after he had brought out Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle English, Bjorkman passed on to English onomastic research, where he was a pioneer in Sweden (he was in fact a predecessor of Ekwall), and in 1910 he published his work Nordische Personennamen in England, followed in 1912 by Zur englischen Namenkunde, both published in the same series as his earlier works, Studien zur englischen Philologie edited by Lorenz Morsbach. Ekwall wrote an article in Namn och Bygd 7 (1919) called "Erik Björkamn som namnforskare" (Erik Bjorkman as a Name Scholar), in fact an obituary in which he emphasises that the great importance of Bjorkman's Nordische Personennamen and Zur englischen Namenkunde lies not in the first place in the material but in the principles he discusses for attributing personal names to different Scandinavian and English origins. And the most important criteria are not the phonetic differences but the differences between Scandinavian and English principles of name-giving. Certain nameelements are typical of one language but rare or totally missing in the other. Ekwall draws special attention to the fact that Bjorkman stresses the enormous importance of nicknames in the formation of Old Scandinavian personal names, a type which, like Bjorkman, he had found to be only of minor importance in Old English. This view later had to be modified somewhat, especially after the publication of Gösta Tengvik, Old English Bynames (1938).

321

According to Tengvik (1938: 278), the number of OE nicknames is not negligible, and even if they do not occur very often in official documents, it does not follow that nicknames were not common in every-day life. Still, Tengvik says, his investigation on the whole corroborates the opinion that "in the 10th and llth centuries by- and nicknames did not play the same important part in England as in Scandinavia". In the same year as Björkman published his Zur englischen Namenkunde, i.e. 1912, Björkman's colleague Harald Lindkvist submitted his work Middle English Place-Names of Scandinavian Origin as a doctoral thesis at Uppsala. This excellent study is often overlooked by scholars today. I myself have called attention to Lindkvist's classification of his material, which is very clear and has not received the attention it deserves. The overall term he uses for toponymical material is, of course, place-names. When reference to a particular category is needed, he makes use of four categories: (1) habitative names, (2) cultivation names or fieldnames, (3) communication names and (4) nature names. Such a classification is considerably clearer than the one traditionally used in the publications of the EPNS, major names and field- and minor names. Lindkvist was also a pioneer in the study of urban toponymy. The city he investigated was York, once the centre of a Scandinavian kingdom. He published his results as a longish article "A Study of Early Medieval York" (Anglia 50, 1926: 345-394), which demonstrates the strong Scandinavian element here. His results were practically taken over wholesale by Smith in The Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire and York (EPNS 14, 1937: 280-300) in dealing with the street-names of the city. The idea of bringing out special volumes on urban toponymy has been taken up recently by the EPNS. Kenneth Cameron's first volume of The Place-Names of Lincolnshire is devoted to the City of Lincoln. Similary John McN Dodgson devoted one part of vol. V of The Place-Names of Cheshire to the City of Chester, and I am myself responsible for a forthcoming volume on the City of Norwich, in which the toponymical evidence for the development of the city can be studied. Cities like York, Lincoln and Norwich are obviously important in the study of the Scandinavian element in view of the role they played as centres of trade and power in the Viking period. This onomastic study of more important towns in

322

the Danelaw should be seen in connection with the recent lively interest among archaeologists and historians in the centres for the medieval North Sea trade. Norwich, for instance, seems to owe its transformation from a small group of villages into a North Sea port to the Vikings. This conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the combined toponymical and archaeological evidence. After Lindkvist the study of Scandinavian place-names in England was continued chiefly by Eilert Ekwall. In 1922 he had completed The Place-Names of Lancashire, an area in which the Scandinavian element is strong, and this work came to serve as a model for the county volumes of the English Place-Name Society, which was founded in 1923 and whose first county volume appeared in 1925. Of Ekwall's numerous articles, I have chosen to mention only two of survey character. One is "The Scandinavian Element" in the introductory volume of the EPNS series of publications (Introduction to the Survey of English Place-Names, 1924: 55-92), and the other is called ttrHie Scandinavian Settlement" and was printed in Darby's Historical Geography of England (1936: 133-164). Both these articles have served as standard works of reference on this subject for a couple of generations of place-name scholars and local historians. I could also mention contributions by Zachrisson here and there, but in his work on language contact he was more concerned with Anglo-Norman influence on English place-names (ZACHRISSON 1909). Among the numerous surveys of single Scandinavian place-name elements published by Joran Sahlgren's school of place-name studies at Uppsala, there is one which is worthy of note in the present context, Bengt Holmberg, Tomt och toft som appellativ och ortnamnselement (1946). It covers Scandinavia, the British Isles and Normandy. Although it reflects the fact that there was not so much material available in 1946 as there is now, and some of his conclusions are not generally accepted any longer, it is an impressive monograph, and anybody who wants to undertake a study of these elements today has to start from Holmberg. Lars Hellberg is another representative of Jöran Sahlgren's school (although he later dissociated himself from it) who ventured outside Scandinavia into the colonisation areas. He is the author of part three of the great work Kumlabygden, in which he (1967: 281 ff.) discusses the Orkney names in -ston, which are commonly derived from OScand -stadir, in the dat. plur. -stodum (cf.

323

NIGOLAISEN 1976: 87). He dates them to the eighth century and makes comparisons with the stadir-names on the Isle of Man. The next study to be mentioned is from outside the field of onomastics, Alarik Rynell, The Rivalry of Scandinavian and Native Synonyms in Middle English (1948). Rynell investigated the variation between such pairs as bark - rind, dream - swefn, dwell - wunien, clippen - shear, cross - crouch or rood, serk - shirt, slik - such, take - nimen, torn - empty. Unfortunately, Rynell's pionering work has had no following, neither in Sweden nor in Britain. As Angus Mclntosh (1978: 127) has pointed out, the geographical range of use of individual words of Scandinavian origin is still one of the least explored of all matters of English word geography. Some information about Scandinavian vocabulary can be obtained from B. Hedevind's thorough dialect monograph The Dialect of Dentdale in the West Riding of Yorkshire (1967), and English sea terms of Scandinavian origin can be studied in B. Sandahl's three comprehensive volumes Middle English Sea Terms (1951, 1958, 1982). But apart from such studies, which were not undertaken with a view to examining the Scandinavian element specially, there are no recent Swedish contributions of book size to the study of the Scandinavian impact on English vocabulary. At the conference in 1977 at Uppsala on the Vikings Angus Mclntosh said that we have done no great service to what Rynell began in his work thirty years ago by having advanced the subject so comparatively little. Mclntosh suggested certain routes through the word-geographical jungle, where the answers to our questions lie buried in the enormous mass of still extant but unpublished Middle English manuscripts. He advocated a joint project for the study of what he called "the long-term impact of the Scandinavian settlements upon English" and he concluded his plea, "if the concept of an age-old North-Sea cultural area is to retain and emphasise its profound significance within the present European scene, I can think of few academic projects which would be more worthy of joint Anglo-Scandinavian support" (McINTOSH 1978: 130). The final result, Mclntosh suggests, would be "a dictionary of all Scandinavian words recorded in English from the date of their first appearance until about 1500", for Scots English up to 1700, i.e. the period covered by the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (McINTOSH 1978: 126 f.). Today, ten years later.

324

our hopes for such a project have not yet been fulfilled, not even on a modest scale, although we have seen the publication of A. Mclntosh, M.L. Samuels and M. Benskin, A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English in 1985, one of the truly great achievements in English historical linguistics in our time, which should be an inspiration to further research in this field. 2. The Norfolk Project By way of conclusion I shall now pass on to a brief report from a project to study the Scandinavian element in Norfolk in East Anglia in which I have been engaged for a number of years. Unfortunately there has not been much time for this research until last year, when the necessary funds were granted by the Swedish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences. East Anglia is a rather neglected part of the Danelaw from the point of view of research into the Scandinavian impact. Admittedly the Scandinavian rule there, supposed to have been mainly under King Guthrum (who in his baptism took the name Mhelstan) and his follower, whose name is said to have been Eohric, was short. The Anglo-Saxon re-conquest of East Anglia started early and Scandinavian domination there is only considered to have been from 870 to 917 (CAMPBELL 1975: 5). Still the Danes left substantial linguistic evidence of their presence in Norfolk. We find the usual Scandinavian place-name elements -by, -thorp, -toft, -thweit, etc. and the so-called Grimston hybrids, i.e. place-names in OE -ton, in which the first element is a Scandinavian personal name. Early studies of Scandinavian place-names in England sometimes assumed Scandinavian settlement wherever Scandinavian place-name elements were found. This would seem a bit naive today. In the sixties Kenneth Cameron developed a more plausible model for this study. It is based on a thorough investigation of one large area, the Territory of the Five Boroughs, where there are a great number of Scandinavian names. By a comparative study of such factors as availability of arable and grazing land, supply of water, nearness to communication lines such as rivers, roads and trackways, etc., he was able to sort the most important Scandinavian or scandinavianised names into three

325

different strata: (1) Hybrids consisting of a Scandinavian personal name plus OE tan are the oldest and represent English villages taken over by the Scandinavians. (2) The names in -by represent colonisation in the strict sense, i.e. new settlements resulting from migration from Scandinavia under the protection of the armies established in fortified places such as the Five Boroughs (Cameron refers to a suggestion by LOYN 1962: 54). This has been called Cameron's "secondary migration theory". (3) The names in -thorp, finally, should be seen as the result of secondary colonisation and expansion. The Scandinavian element thorp was adopted into English and probably remained in use as a name-forming element for a long time (Camerong's arguments are now best studied in the reprint Place-Name Evidence for the Anglo-Saxon Invasion and Scandinavian Settlements (2nd ed.: 1977). Cameron's results have been confirmed by Gillian Fellows Jensen of the Place-Name Institute in Copenhagen in studies of other Danelaw areas but, at the same time, she has modified Cameron's "secondary migration theory" somewhat. She prefers to see the names in -by as the result of the splitting up of old estates into individual units, what she calls fragmentation of the old estates. But she admits that, in marginal areas, these Scandinavian villages may have been founded on hitherto vacant land, or at least be due to the reclamation of land once occupied by the English and subsequently deserted (FELLOWS JENSEN 1983: 45). If we look at the situation in Norfolk against this background, it is first of all the place-names in -by which offer an interesting illustration (SANDRED 1987: 309 ff.). Most of them appear in a cluster in a really marginal area in the Norfolk Broadland (Figure 1). This was the island of Flegg, once situated in a district of fens. According to the archaeologists, this area was largely uninhabited until the Viking period because of its marshy character.

326

Figure 1: Distribution of the place-names in -by in the county of Norfolk O Kirby • Other names in -by.

In a more recent article Gillian Fellows Jensen notes that, in her opinion, the element -by is the best indication of Danish influence on the place-names of England (1986: 635). There she also says something that fits nicely into the picture obtained by the distribution of these names in Norfolk: "There is no certain evidence for the use of the generic by to coin completely new place-names in England after the Norman Conquest. The vast majority of the by-n&mes had been coined by the middle of the tenth century" (ib. 638). The distribution of the large majority of the place-names in -by in the Norfolk Broadland in a cluster which practically covers the old island of Flegg seems to be fairly clear evidence that Flegg was a Scandinavian settlement centre in the Viking period. There is no mention of it in the written records, perhaps because it was the result of a comparatively peaceful settlement, and perhaps because what happened in this marginal fenland area did not attract much notice in centres where documents were produced.

327

Like other Danelaw counties, Norfolk and Suffolk have a great number of place-names ending in -thorp. Of these only the names in -thorp in Norfolk have been made the subject of study within our project, by David Minugh of the University of Stockholm. The distribution of the element thorp in the Danelaw is to be seen as a result of Scandinavian influence, but unlike -by, it is no certain indication of actual Scandinavian settlement. As Cameron says, Scandinavian thorp became part of the local vocabulary and was used as a term for a secondary or dependent settlement for a long time over the whole area. This is also what the distribution map of the names in -thorp in Norfolk suggests. The names in -thorp give no such clear picture as the names in -by . They are spread all over the county, and the first elements are often of English origin, which is unusual with the names in -by (Figure 2). Figure 2: Distribution of the place-names in -thorp in the county of Norfolk

328

The Norfolk names in -by and -thorp have a common characteristic which distinguishes them from the corresponding names in other Danelaw counties, for instance Yorkshire and the East Midlands. The personal names which enter as first elements in Norfolk tend to be of the uncompounded type. In studies of Yorkshire and the East Midlands Fellows Jensen has shown that well over 30% of the names in -by have compound Scandinavian personal names as their first elements (FELLOWS JENSEN 1972: 9 and 1978: 15). In the Norfolk place-names in -by uncompounded personal names, sometimes of a characterising nature, and hypocorisms dominate totally (see SANDRED 1987: 321). Minugh, who has studied the Norfolk names in -thorp, notes that, among those whose first elements are personal names of Scandinavian origin, there is a strong trend towards uncompounded Scandinavian personal names (19 out of 24 names; MINUGH 1982: 39). There is a socio-onomastic conclusion to be drawn from this. Scholars engaged in research into Scandinavian anthroponymy assert that uncompounded (monothematic) personal names and characterising bynames were characteristic of the Old Scandinavian farming class. Wesson writes, "the Scandinavian farmers in the Migration period probably had largely names of the same type as later, mostly uncompounded names or names of directly characterising nature. The compound names were always considered to be of a higher rank and therefore there was a tendency to form new names on the old patterns" (WESSEN 1927: 87). Janzon drew the same conclusion much later. He says that compound names were used especially in the aristocratic families, but alongside these there were uncompounded names, which were most common among the lower classes and consequently not so often mentioned in the written sources (JANZEN 1947: 36). Assuming Wesson and Janz^n are right, these observations put the settlers in Flegg on the coast of Norfolk in an interesting social context. They suggest that they came from the class of ordinary Scandinavian peasants, whose interests were perhaps more agricultural than warlike. If their settlement was of a peaceful character, it may represent what Cameron has called the "secondary migration" under the shelter of the Viking armies that had established themselves in more central places such as the Five Boroughs (CAMERON 1965: 10-11, reprinted 1977: 120 f.). We know from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that in 880 "the (Danish) army

329

went from Girencester into East Anglia, and occupied that land, and shared it out". East Anglia became a Danish kingdom under Guthrum, who took the name Mhelstan at his baptism. It has been suggested that Norwich played a part as a Viking base in East Anglia similar to that of the Five Boroughs in the Midlands (CAMPBELL 1975: 5). There is plenty of evidence that, for at least two generations, Norwich was the centre of Danish power in East Anglia which made immigration from Denmark into more marginal areas possible. In the project to study the Scandinavian element in Norfolk, we have paid special attention to Norwich for reasons mentioned earlier. In his Economic History of England, Lipson says that the Danish settlement in England in the Viking period gave an impetus to English foreign trade which contributed to the progress of towns. The rise of Norwich can be traced to Danish influence working in this way. Lipson says that "Norwich lay in the path of commercial intercourse with Northern Europe, and this combined with the settlement of Scandinavian traders to acquire for it wealth and importance" (LIPSON 1937: 194). This opinion can be compared with similar interesting observations in a more recent work by the Oxford historian James Campbell, who writes, "The crucial period for the emergence of Norwich from being something more than a merely rural settlement or settlements was c, 850 to c. 925. If so, then this took place under the Danes who started to invade East Anglia by 865, and from c. 870 to 917 ruled it" (CAMPBELL 1975: 5). The importance \of Viking colonists for the development of the Danelaw towns of York, Lincoln and Norwich has since also been emphasised by Sawyer (1978: 230). Medieval Norwich was divided into leets (from AN lete 'a district under the jurisdiction of a local court'). An area of the City to the south of the castle with the river Wensum as its eastern boundary was called the leet of Conesford, a name for which there are a great many old spellings. They clearly indicate that the first element is the gen. of the ODan word kunung 'king' followed by OE ford. Either the OE word cyning has been replaced by the ODan counterpart or the name is a hybrid formation from the start. The leet was obviously named from a ford across the river Wensum. The king after whom this ford was named cannot of course be identified. If he was Danish, the most likely candidate is the above-mentioned Guthrum.

330

Another noteworthy feature in Norwich from a Scandinavian point of view is the use of the word staithe for wharfs and landing-stages along the river. Most of these wharfs are no longer in use or are known by other names today. An examination of old Norwich documents has produced no less than eleven examples. Eight of the names are lost today: Frankestathe, New Common Staithe, Old Common Staithe, Rush worth Staithe, St Edmund's Quay (earlier St Edmund's stath), St James's Staithe, St Margaret's Staithe, St Olave's Staithe. Most of them are recorded in documents from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Three of the names have survived into our times: Quay Side (formerly Fybrigge Stathe), St Ann's Staithe and St Julian's Wharf (formerly Tepeystathe). ModE staithe (classed as local today) is recorded in OED in three senses: (1) 'a bank, shore', (2) 'landing-stage, wharf and (3) 'an embankment'. Sense (1) clearly represents OE steed. Senses (2) and (3), which are not evidenced in OED until 1338 and 1698 respectively and current only in districts where Scandinavian influence is strong, would seem to represent the cognate Scandinavian word, OWScand stod 'landing-stage, harbour', as OED points out. There is no doubt about it that, in Norwich, the term staithe means 'landing-place, wharf and not simply 'river bank'. Four of the staithes under notice here are actually recorded as cayum in the earliest sources (which are in Latin): Quay Side is cayum de fibrighe 1259, St Edmund's Quay caium Sancti Edmundi 1313, 1338, St James's Staithe Kayum Sancti Jacobi 1313, St Olave's Staithe Cayum Sancti Olavi n.d. It is only to be expected that such a word should figure prominently in Norwich, for the City of Norwich developed out of an important market place combined with a landing-place for merchant ships early in the Middle Ages. There is archaeological evidence that merchant ships came up the river Wensum as far as the present St Martin at Palace Church, where they were run onto the sandy banks of the river on brushwood (GREEN and YOUNG 1981: 11). They were unloaded onto a gravel terrace recorded as Bichil, which is the natural feature behind the medieval name of St Martin at Palace parish, i.e. parochia Sancti Martini del Hill 1288. The market place at which the goods unloaded were sold is assumed to have been situated on Tombland (GREEN and YOUNG

331

ib.). Even if the market place itself probably goes back to Anglo-Saxon time, the name under which it is preserved appears to be Scandinavian. ME torn, ModE (dial.) toom 'empty' is considered to be of Scandinavian origin, to be compared with OWScand tomr, ModSw torn (BJÖRKMAN 1902: 256). Semantic influence from corresponding Scandinavian lexical items certainly occurred many times in the English of the Danelaw. Björkman (1900: 10 ff.) is well aware of it and gives several plausible examples. In discussing OE steed, Smith 1956 (EPNE II 142) explains the meaning 'landing-place* as due to semantic influence from the cognate Scandinavian word, which he quotes as ON stQO. But in East Anglia we have to reckon with the ODan counterpart stath, unaffected by u-mutation in the development from PrGerm *slal>uö- (HESSELMAN 1945: 16, WESSEN 1969: 4). Gelling (1984: 80) has recently argued that OE steed originally also had the meaning 'landing-place, wharf. As evidence she gives the early English name Stafford, from OE »Steed-ford, because 'ford by a landing-place' makes more sense than 'ford by a river-bank'. She suggests that the earlier meaning became obsolete but was revived by the influence of Scandinavian, which she interprets as an indication of new and increased trading activity after the Viking settlement (ib. 62). Ceiling's conclusion seems to be nicely illustrated by the onomastic pattern provided by the old names of the landing-stages along the river in the City of Norwich. It seems reasonable to assume that their existence in such number is ultimately due to such Scandinavian trading activity in the period preceding the Norman Conquest as has been suggested on the basis of non-linguistic evidence. In talking about Norwich as a centre for Scandinavian North Sea trade, one should not forget to mention something that every visitor to Norwich will notice even today. A great number of the streets in the city within the walls have names ending in -gate. Earlier there were even more such street-names. These names can be traced back to a period long before there was a city wall with openings which the English word gate might refer to. As in York, these names were not formed from the English word, but from OScand gata 'street'. Studies of old Norfolk maps and surveys show that the Scand word gata is also very common for roads and paths running along fields in many parts of the county, often in variation with stig 'path', which could be Scandinavian, or Eng

332

way or lane (SANDRED 1979: 98 ff.). In concluding this brief survey of ongoing research in East Anglia with some observations on the toponymy of the city of Norwich, it may be said that, to those who can read it, the toponymical evidence gives the picture of Norwich in the Viking period as a port which was a lively centre of Scandinavian trade, with landing-places for ships along the river, and from these landing-places narrow streets, called gates, led up to the market place on Tombland. References BJÖRKMAN, E. (1900): "Zur dialektischen Provenienz der nordischen Lehnwörter im Englischen". Sprakvetenskapliga sällskapets i Upsala förhandlingar Sept. 1897 - Maj 1900. Uppsala: Uppsala universitets arsskrift: 1-28. (1900, 1902): Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle English. Parts I and II. StEPh 7, 11. Halle. — (1910): Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und frühmittelenglischer Zeit. StEPh 37. Halle. (1912): Zur englischen Namenkunde. StEPh 47. Halle. BRATE, E. (1884): Nordische Lehnwörter im Orrmulum. Diss. Uppsala University. Reprinted in PBB 10 (1885). CAMERON, K. (1965): Scandinavian Settlement in the Territory of the Five Boroughs. Inaugural Lecture. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. — (1970): "Scandinavian Settlement in the Territory of the Five Boroughs: The Place-Name Evidence, Part II, Place-Names in -thorp". Mediaeval Scandinavia 3: 35-49. — (1971): "Scandinavian Settlement in the Territory of the Five Boroughs: The Place-Name Evidence, Part HI, The Grimston-Hybrids". England before the Conquest: Studies... presented to Dorothy Whitelock. Cambridge University Press: 147-163. — (1977): Place-Name Evidence for the Anglo-Saxon Invasion and Scandinavian Settlements. 2nd ed. English Place-Name Society (contains reprints of Cameron 1965, 1970 and 1971).

333 (1985): The Place-Names of Lincolnshire. Part One. The Place-Names of the County of the City of Lincoln. EPNS Publ. 58. Cambridge. CAMPBELL, J. (1975): Norwich. Historic Towns 2. London: The Scolar Press. DODGSON, J. McN, (1981): The Place-Names of Cheshire. Part Five, Section 1: i. The Place-Names of the City of Chester. EPNS Publ. 48. Cambridge. EKWALL, E. (1919): "Erik Björkman" Beiblatt zur Anglia 30: 313-318. — (1919): "Erik Björkman som namnforskare". Namn och Bygd 7:182-185. — (1922): The Place-Names of Lancashire. Publications of the University of Manchester. English Series 11. Manchester University Press. — (1924): "The Scandinavian Element". Introduction to the Survey of English Place-Names. EPNS Publ. 1: 1. Cambridge: 55-92. — (1936): "The Scandinavian Settlement". In: An Historical Geography of England before A.D. 1800. Ed. by H.C. Darby. Cambridge: University Press: 133-164. EPNS = English Place-Name Society. FELLOWS JENSEN, Gillian (1972): Scandinavian Settlement Names in Yorkshire. Navnestudier udgivet af Institut for Navne-forskning 11. Copenhagen. — (1978): Scandinavian Settlement Names in the East Midlands. Navnestudier udgivet af Institut for Navneforskning 16. Copenhagen. — (1983): "Anthroponymical Specifics in Place-Names in -by in the British Isles". Studia Anthroponymica Scandinavica 1: 45-60. — (1986): "Anglo-Saxons and Vikings in the British Isles: The Place-Name Evidence". Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di la del mare. Spoleto: 617-639. GELLING, Margaret (1984): Place-Names in the Landscape. London: Dent & Sons.

334 GREEN, Barbara and Rachel M. R. YOUNG (1981): Norwich: The Growth of a City. (Revised ed.) Norfolk: Norfolk Museums Service. HEDEVIND, B. (1967): The Dialect of Dentdale in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 5. Uppsala. HELLBERG, L. (1967): Kumlabygdens ortnamn och äldre bebyggelse. Kumlabygden 3. Kumla. HESSELMAN, B. (1945): Omljud och brytning i de nordiska spraken. Nordiska texter och undersökningar 15. Stockholm: Hugo Gebers förlag. HOLMBERG, B. (1946): Tomt och toft som appellativ och ortnamnselement. Skrifter utgivna a v Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien 17. Uppsala. JANZEN, A., 1947, "De fornvästnordiska personnamnen". Personnamn Nordisk kultur 7. Stockholm: Bonniers förlag: 22-186. JESPERSEN, O. (1894): Progress in Language with Special Reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. — (1952): Growth and Structure of the English Language. 9th edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. LINDKVIST, H. (1912): Middle English Place-Names of Scandinavian Origin 1. Uppsala universitets arsskrift 1911: 3. Uppsala. (1926): "A Study of Early Medieval York". Anglia 50: 345-394. LIPSON, E. (1937): The Economic History of England 1. London: Adam & Charles Black. LOYN, H.R. (1962): Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. London: Longman. McINTOSH, A. (1978): "Middle English Word-Geography: its Potential Role in the Study of the Long-Term Impact of the Scandinavian Settlements upon English". In: Thorsten ANDERSSON and Karl Inge SANDRED (eds.): The Vikings (Symposia Universitatis Upsaliensis Annum Quingentesimum Celebrantis 8). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International: 124-130. McINTOSH, A., M. L. SAMUELS and M. BENSKIN (1985): A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English. Four vols. Aberdeen University Press.

335

MINUGH, D. (1982): Nordiska personnamn i Norfolk-ortnamn med vissa efterleder. Diss. submitted to the Department of Scandinavian Languages at the University of Stockholm. NIGOLAISEN, W. F. H. (1976): Scottish Place-Names. London: Batsford. OED = A New English Dictionary. Ed. J.A.H. Murray et al 1884-1928. Re-issued with a Supplement as The Oxford English Dictionary in 1933. PBB = Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Hrsg.von H. Paul und W. Braune. RYNELL, A. (1948): The Rivalry of Scandinavian and Native Synonyms in Middle English, Especially Taken and Nimen. Lund Studies in English 13. Lund. SANDAHL, B. (1951, 1958, 1982): Middle English Sea Terms I - III. Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature 8, 20 and Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 42. Uppsala. SANDRED, K.I. (1979): "Scandinavian Place-Names and Appellatives in Norfolk". Namn och Bygd 67: 98-122. — (1987): "The Vikings in Norfolk: Some Observations on the Place-Names in -by ". J. Knirk (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress, Larkollen, Norway.1985: 309-324. Oslo. SANDRED, K.I. and B. LINDSTRÖM (1989): The Place-Names of Norfolk. Part One: The Place-Names of the City of Norwich. EPNS Publ. 61. Nottingham. SAWYER, P.M. (1978): From Roman Britain to Norman England. London: Methuen & Co. SMITH, A.H. (1956): English Place-Name Elements HI. EPNS Publ. 25-26. Cambridge (EPNE). StEPh = Studien zur englischen Philologie. Hrsg. von L. Morsbach. TENGVIJC G. (1938): Old English Bynames. Nomina Germanica 4. Uppsala. TOORSON, P. (1936): Anglo-Norse Studies. An Inquiry into the Scandinavian Elements in the Modern English Dialects. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger. WESSEN, E. (1927): Nordiska namnstudier. Uppsala universitets arsskrift 1927: 3. Uppsala.

336

—

(1969): Svensk sprakhistoria 1. 8 uppl. Nordiskt kursbibliotek. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ZACHRISSON, R.E. (1909): A Contribution to the Study of Anglo-Norman Influence on English Place-Names. Lunds universitets arsskrift N.F., Avd. 1:4. Lund.

SCANDINAVIAN INFLUENCE ON THE PLACE-NAMES OF ENGLAND Gillian Fellows-Jensen Introduction The best evidence for settlement by Scandinavian-speaking people in England in the Viking period is undoubtedly that provided by place-names. To assess this evidence correctly, however, it is necessary to look at the Scandinavian names against the background of pre-existing names of British and English origin and in the knowledge that many words of Scandinavian origin were adopted into the English language and may have been used by English-speaking people to coin place-names. 1. Scandinavian place-names in England It is now generally accepted that the map showing the distribution of parish-names of Scandinavian origin, which was published by A.H. Smith in 1956, provides a good general indication of the areas in which there was Scandinavian settlement in the Viking period (SMITH 1956, map 10) and Smith's map has been reprinted, plagiarised or cited in practically every subsequent treatment of the subject. For the student of Viking settlement there are three immediate reactions to this map. Firstly, there is delighted acknowledgment of the efficacy of the boundary between Danish and English territory marked on the map by the bold black line. This boundary was laid down in a treaty concluded between King Alfred and the Danish leader Guthrum in about 886. Very few Scandinavian place-names occur to the south and west of it. Secondly, there is regret that the distribution map is cut off abruptly at the modern English-Scottish border, a frontier which was without significance in the Viking period. Thirdly, there is some surprise at the way in which the density of Scandinavian names varies from county to county. Particularly striking is

338

the comparative absence of Scandinavian names from Cambridge, Essex and Hertfordshire in the southern Danelaw and from Northumberland and Durham in the north, in spite of the fact that there is documentary evidence for Scandinavian settlement in these areas. A map showing the distribution of place-names in -by, the most commonly occurring Scandinavian generic in England, was originally compiled by me in response to my reactions to Smith's map. On the one hand its extension into southern Scotland reveals that Scandinavian names spread from Cumbria into Dumfriesshire and Galloway and that they are also to be found quite frequently in the other border counties. On the other hand, the indication of land over 250 metres above sea-level and of areas of marsh and alluvium helps to account for the relative absence of Scandinavian names from north-western Derbyshire and much of south-eastern Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. These areas must all have been unattractive for settlement in the Viking period. The topographical conditions do not, however, provide the complete solution to the problem of the uneven distribution of Scandinavian settlement names on the Danish side of the border. It would therefore seem reasonable to try and assess the opportunities for naming that were offered to, or seized by, the Scandinavians who settled in the various areas.

2. Interpretation of the evidence If we could assume that the Scandinavian parish-names indicated areas that were first exploited for settlement by the Vikings, then it would be possible to argue that opportunities for founding new settlements on virgin land were not equally distributed. While it does seem likely that the Vikings were the first to exploit intensively the valleys of the Cumbrian dome and some of the marshy areas along the Lincolnshire coast, however, it is quite obvious that most of the areas where there are many Scandinavian parish names could not possibly have remained unexploited until the arrival of Viking settlers. That the Vikings often took over pre-existing English settlements and re-named them is indicated partly by archaeological evidence and partly by the way in which

339

many place-names of English origin were adapted by the Vikings, consciously or unconsciously, by the substitution of Scandinavian sounds or elements for English ones (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1980). Opportunities for the take-over of well established settlements by the Vikings must have been more or less evenly distributed over the Danelaw. To explain the very uneven distribution pattern of the Scandinavian and scandinavianised names, it will therefore be necessary to find out when and why the Scandinavians in England began to create new names and interfere with old ones. The nature of the evidence is something of a handicap. There are hardly any written records from the Scandinavian homelands which can throw light on the spread of Scandinavian place-names over the Danelaw. The only direct information about names in England to be derived from Scandinavian sources is that found in runic inscriptions recording the deeds or death of Scandinavians in England, Icelandic scaldic poetry commemorating the exploits of Scandinavian kings in the British Isles, and the much younger Icelandic historical sagas. In addition, a little indirect information about names in England can be derived from the employment of names of English localities as commemorative names in Iceland. 3. English place-names in Scandinavian runic inscriptions There are more than twenty-five runic inscriptions from Sweden which commemorate men who fought or died in England and a few from Norway and Denmark (JANSSON 1966). It is unfortunately, however, very rare for a closer location within England to be recorded on the rune-stones. A stone at Navelsjö in Södermanland, Sweden, was raised to the memory of Gunnar, who is said to have been buried in a stone coffin in England in Bath (a : haklati : i baPum - a finglandi i Badum) (JANSSON 1966: 9-10; SRSm No. 101). A stone at Valleberga in Skane was raised in memory of Manni and Svenni "and they lie in London" (l>eR : likia : i : luntunum = Peir liggia i Lundunum) (PR No. 337), while a fragmentary inscription on a badly damaged rune-stone from Slesvig reveals that the stone was raised in memory of a man who rests in England in Skia (aenklanti : iskiu = a Ainglandi i Skiu) (DR No. 6). Of the three English localities named on Scandinavian

340 rune-stones, Bath in Somerset occurs in a form identical with that which it takes in Old English sources (e.g. set Baduin 906 ASC; DEPN), while London has been given a secondary dative-plural ending, for in English sources this name regularly takes the form on Lundene (e.g. 962 ASC; DEPN). This conversion of the singular name into a Scandinavian plural name is also evidenced in the Icelandic sources, where both singular and plural forms occur, but the plural form would not seem to have left any trace in English records. The place-name Skia cannot be identified with any certainty. It has been suggested that Skia might represent Skidby in the East Riding of Yorkshire (Scyteby [972x9921 mid llth century; SAWYER 1968, No. 1453) or Shoebury in Essex (to Sceobyrig 894 ASC; PNEss 198) but, although the Slesvig inscription has suffered damage immediately after the u in iskiu, the damaged portion of the inscription is not large enough to accommodate a generic and it seems wisest not to attempt to locate Skia. It is worth noting, however, that the initial Sk- Lsk] shows that the name must have begun with either a Scandinavian element or a scandinavianised version of an English element beginning with So- [J*L In summary, it should be noted that of the three English names to be recorded in Scandinavian runic inscriptions, two would seem to have undergone partial scandinavianisation, while the third has probably retained its Old English morphological form simply because the Old English dative-plural ending is identical with the Scandinavian one and the name could therefore melt unobtrusively into its Scandinavian context. 4. English place-names in Icelandic literary sources In the Icelandic literary sources, foreign place-names always appear in more or less scandinavianised form because the demands of a highly inflected language and the elaborate strophe forms of scaldic verse necessitated this. A good example of the fate of English place-names in the Icelandic sources is provided by a group of names occurring in the sequence of strophes known as Knutsdrapa, which was composed by Ottarr svarti in the first half of the eleventh century in honour of King Knut. Among the places named are Lindisey, Skorsteinn, Brandfurda, Assatim and

341

Danaskogar (PETERSENS and OLSON 1919-25: 38-43). The first four of these names occur in the annals for 1014-16 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (to Lindesige, set Sceorstane, to Brent forda, Assandun). These four places can be identified as Lindsey, Sherston in Wiltshire, Brentford in Middlesex and Ashingdon in Essex. The fifth place, Danaskogar, which is said to lie south of Assatun has not been identified. The same five places are named in Knytlinga saga, which was compiled in the thirteenth century with the scaldic verse of ottarr svarti and other court poets as important sources. In the following century the very same five names, one in corrupt form, reappear in the romantic tale of adventure known as Gongu-Hrolfs saga (til Lindiseyjar, Skorsteini, til Brandfurdaborgar, Asatun nordr fro Kanaskogum \ JÖNSSON 1950: 269-70, 275). It is clear that neither Gongu-Hrolfs saga nor Knytlinga saga can have any independent value as a source of information about the English place-names. Öttarr svarti's strophes deserve more attention but his information about the events in England is vague and inaccurate (CAMPBELL 1971: 13) and it seems more likely that the scandinavianisations to which the names have been subjected in his strophes are to be ascribed to the poet rather than that they reflect name-forms current among the Vikings in England. The only one of the names to show any trace of a scandinavianised form in the surviving English records is, rather surprisingly, Sherston in Wiltshire. This name is recorded twice in Domesday Book of 1086, once as Sorestone GDB 71a and once in the form Sorstain GDB 65b. The initial S- for Scbetrays Anglo-Norman influence, while the spelling -stain on folio 65b would seem to indicate that Scandinavian steinn has replaced Old English stan (cf. PNWi 109; FEILITZEN 1937, § 125). All subsequent recorded forms of Sherston, however, reflect its original generic -stan.

5. Commemorative names The practice commemorative names recalling common in the

familiar to us from America of bestowing names on settlements in new colonies, that is settlements in other countries, was not at all Viking period but some few commemorative names

342

were given to settlements in Iceland in the tenth and eleventh centuries and these include four instances of Jorvik, named after York (recorded as to Eofor wie ceastre 867 ASC), and one Sandvfk, perhaps named after Sandwich in Kent (set Sondwic 851 ASC) (KÜHN 1949: 55). The earliest record of the scandinavianised form of the name of York is as the Icelandic exonym lorvik in Egill Skallagrimsson's Arinbjarnarkvida, composed in the year 962 but only surviving in manuscripts from the fourteenth century and later (JONSSON 1912-15, AI. 44). It has been assumed that it is this Scandinavian form *J6rvik which lies behind the modern contracted form of the name York but the development of the diphthong [jo] from eo and the subsequent contraction of the name to a single syllable might well have taken place on English soil independently of Scandinavian influence. That this is in fact perhaps likely to be the case is suggested by the survival of the English form of the name on English coins until well after the Norman Conquest and in documents written in English, Latin and French as late as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The earliest recorded occurrences of contracted forms in both English and Icelandic sources are from the thirteenth century (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1987b: 145-50). 6. The English records Since the number of English place-names recorded in Scandinavian runic inscriptions and early literary sources is so limited and the reliability of this evidence for the forms taken by the names in England most uncertain, it will be necessary to concentrate on the name-forms recorded in English sources. It is therefore my intention to look at the names borne by four categories of locality which might be expected to have been affected by the Scandinavian invasions and settlement. These categories are: 1. the sites of winter—quarters and other camps occupied by the Danish armies at various times from the ninth century to the twelfth, 2. major fortified settlements which served the Vikings as local head- quarters, 3. old established parishes and townships taken over by the

343

Scandinavians as going concerns and 4. settlements which have been assumed to have been established by Viking settlers on virgin or deserted land. 7. Names of the sites of Viking camps The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an invaluable source of information about the movements of the Danish army for about three centuries. From 850, when the Danes for the first time remained in England for the winter, the Chronicle sometimes notes the location of their winter-quarters. The army overwintered in Thanet (on Tenet) in 850, in Sheppey (on Sceap ege) in 854, at an unspecified locality in East Anglia in 865, at Nottingham (ot> Snotingaham) in 867, at Thetford (set Deodforda) in 869, in London (to Lunden byrig) in 871, at Torksey (eet Threes ige) in 872, at Repton (to Hreope dune) in 873, and, having split into two sections in 874, both on the river Tyne (Pe TJnan Peere ea) and in Cambridge (to Grantan brycge). There is nothing in the recorded forms of the names of any of these places to suggest that a temporary influx of Danish raiders had any lasting effect on the pre-existing names of places of such status (cf. KPN 10-11, 24; PNNt 13; DEPN; PNDb 653; PNCa 36-38). For confirmation of the presence of Viking soldiers in these places it seems that we must look to the archaeologist. N.P. Brooks and J.A. Graham-Campbell have recently suggested that the locations of some of the closely datable ninth-century Viking silver-hoards can be related to the winter-bases occupied by the Danish army (BROOKS and GRAHAM-CAMPBELL 1986: 98-110). Hoards from Croydon, Gravesend, Waterloo Bridge and possibly also Westminster Bridge and Barking, for example, seem likely to have been deposited by members of the army wintering in London 871-872, while hoards from Repton and Beeston Tor are probably to be associated with the exploitation of Repton as a winter-base 873-874. The location and composition of the silver-hoards suggest that the Danes were simply still exploiting the English estates as a way of raising money to pay the army. They were not yet contemplating taking-over these thriving estates or giving them new names.

344

The Danes partitioned land in Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia between themselves in 876, 877 and 880 and the boundary between the territory of the Danes and that of the English was laid down in about 886 but this did not bring Viking raids to an end. In the second decade of the tenth century a great pirate band, referred to in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a sciphere, sailed into the Severn estuary from Brittany, where it had been on a raiding expedition. These Vikings harried all along the Welsh coast but they were eventually driven off by the men of Hereford and Gloucester and they encamped on an island in the estuary, where they almost died of starvation. According to the A manuscript of the Chronicle, this island was eet Bradan Relice, while the B, C and D manuscripts agree that it was set Sieapan Relice. A century and a half later, after the death of Harold Godwine's son at the Battle of Hastings, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in its annal for 1067 records that Harold's mother, Gyda, went into Bradan Reolice on her way to take refuge at St Omer. The two island-names share the same generic: the Latin loan-word in Irish reihe f. 'burial-place' (< reliquiae 'relics'). This element occurs in a number of place-names in Ireland (DIL s.v.) and it seems likely that the islands had originally been named by Irish missionaries. At some later date, the English must have found it convenient to distinguish between them by referring to one as the "broad" burial-place (brsda) and the other as the "steep" one (steap). The islands are now known as Flat Holm (Hotholm 1375; DEPN) and Steep Holme (Stepholm late 12th century; DEPN) respectively. The present names both reflect Scandinavian influence. The shared generic is the Scandinavian topographical appellative holmr m. 'island', while the specific of Flat Holm has been explained as the appellative, Scandinavian floti or OE flota 'fleet', referring to the fact that the Viking fleets used it as a base, with the later development to Rat- presumably reflecting erroneous association by English-speaking people with flat, a supposed antonym of steap. The English specific of Steep Holme survived from its older hybrid Anglo-Irish name. The question arises as to whether the names in -holmr were coined by Scandinavians or by Englishmen who had adopted this word into their topographical vocabulary. The fact that the older hybrid name of Flat Holm was still in use in 1067 shows that the pirate band of the early tenth century was not responsible for the new name. There are many

345

other island-names of Scandinavian origin around the South Wales coast (RICHARDS 1962: 55-57) and it seems likely that all the Scandinavian island-names here reflect the existence of a Scandinavian trade-route between Dublin and the Severn estuary (Loyn 1976: 9-10, 20). It is not known whether these other island-names have replaced earlier Welsh or English names but it should be noted that in the medieval period Flat Holm had a Welsh name, Ynys Echni (RICHARDS 1962: 59). From Normandy there is evidence which suggests that the Viking settlers may have renamed one of the islands in the Seine on which they encamped. Two Rouen charters dating from 1030 and 1080 respectively refer to an island called Oscellum, also known as Torhulmus or Turhulmus (ADIGARD DES GAUTOIES 1954: 422-23), and it seems likely that this is the island called Oscellum on which, according to the annals of St Bertin, the encamped Danes were besieged by Charles the Bald in 858 (ALBRECT3EN 1981: 39 n.56). A Marmoutier charter from 1082 only records the name Oscellum for the island and this suggests that the Scandinavian name may not have been known outside the immediate vicinity of the island. The Scandinavian name would seem to have been coined by the Vikings but there is no way of determining whether it dates from the time of the siege in the tenth century. To find a Scandinavian island-name in England that might actually have been coined by Vikings who encamped there, it is necessary to move on in time to the last recorded Viking raid. This is the expedition led by the Norwegian king, Eysteinn Haraldsson, in about 1151. Information about this expedition is derived partly from Icelandic sources, a series of strophes by the contemporary scaldic poet Einarr Skulason and a prose narrative compiled about 1170 by Eirikr Oddsson, and partly from a Latin work on the miracles of St Cuthbert, which was composed in about 1172 by Reginald, a monk of Durham (TAYLOR 1965). Einarr Skulason mentions six place-names. Three of these, Apardionar, vid Hiartar poll and vid Hvitaby, can be identified with Aberdeen, Hartlepool and Whitby, two remain unidentified, while the sixth name, vid Scorposcer, has been explained by A.B. Taylor as a vid Skörpusker 'sharp skerries' and identified provisionally with the Farne Islands off the coast of Northumberland (TAYLOR 1965: 132-33). Taylor has noted that two of the smaller of these islands

346

are now called Little Scarcar and Big Scarcar and that earlier recorded forms of these names are Skarfcarres fifteenth century and Scarphcarrs 1422-42. Reginald's narrative relates how Eysteinn and his men remained on the islands for some time, devouring the sheep, pulling out timbers from the walls of the hermitage to repair their ships, and drawing so much water from St Cuthbert's well that it ran dry. It is not, of course, certain that it was Eysteinn and his men who coined the name Skörpusker but since it is two of the smaller islets that bear this name and not one of the larger islands such as Inner Farne, Staple Island or Longstone, the name is perhaps more likely to have been coined by men who encamped there than by passing sailors. As to the means by which a name coined by a pirate host came to attach itself permanently to the two small islands, Taylor notes that a hermit called Bartholomew, who had witnessed the events at Skörpusker and who gave an account of them to Reginald of Durham, had spent some time in Norway in his youth and thus probably had sufficient knowledge of the Scandinavian language to be able to communicate with the invaders (TAYLOR 1965: 134). 8. Names of fortified centres occupied by the Vikings The second category of English names which might be expected to have been subjected to Scandinavian influence is that consisting of the names of the fortified centres occupied by the army at various periods in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries. In the southern Danelaw, the Danes are known to have occupied Northampton, Cambridge, Tempsford, Thetford and Huntingdon. In addition, there are the five boroughs of Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln and Stamford, and finally, of course, York, which was the seat of a Viking kingdom until 954. In spite of the fact that the Danes spent considerable periods of time in some of these centres, they do not generally seem to have made any attempt to give them new Scandinavian names or to scandinavianise their English names. There are, at least, no recorded forms which show trace of such activity, except in the case of York and Derby. The ambiguous nature of the evidence about the development of the name York has already been discussed. There is no such ambiguity about the

347

history of the name Derby. In an entry for the year 871 in the Latin chronicle compiled by Mhelweard in about the year 1000, there is a reference to a "place known as Northuuorthige which was called Deoraby in the Danish tongue" (CAMPBELL 1962: 37). By the time of the compilation of Domesday Book in 1086, Derby is the only name to survive for this place (Derby GDB 280rb). I have suggested earlier that the reason why Derby alone of the boroughs should have received a Scandinavian name in replacement of its English name might be that Derby lies on the outskirts of the Danelaw in an area where, to judge from the place-names, Scandinavian settlement was not very dense so that the Danes may have kept together for protection in or near to the borough. Here they may have formed a majority of the population and therefore been in a position to bring about a change of name (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1981: 141). The name Derby (*djura-by) I take to be a quasi-appellatival name referring to a deer-park but the possibility should perhaps be borne in mind that the Danish settlers may originally have used the name Derby to refer to the fortified Roman site of Littlechester, which is now in Derby, on which they had probably established their military headquarters. The Danish name may in that case have been modelled on the Romano-British name of this fort, Derventio, and the Danish name of the fort might later have displaced the English name for the civil settlement.

9. Names of English settlements taken over by the Vikings The name *djura-by was also given by the Vikings to several other settlements in the British Isles, namely West Derby in Lancashire, Jurby in the Isle of Man and Darby and possibly Dalderby and Swinderby in Lincolnshire. These other settlements were not, however, thriving boroughs but mere parishes or townships and thus members of the third category of localities to be investigated. It seems likely that the names were bestowed upon English settlements that had been taken over by the Vikings probably specialised production units that had earlier formed parts of old multiple estates. A similar explanation will probably account

348

for the 46 Kirbys and Kirkbys (*kirkja-by), names that must have been given by the Vikings to settlements in which they found pre-existing churches - perhaps churches with some special status. The distribution map reveals that this particular name occurs in all the counties where Scandinavian settlement has left its trace, with the exception of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire in the south and Derbyshire in the west (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1987: 298-99). In all areas of the Danelaw many of the place-names in -by have personal names as their specifics (42% of 257 bfs in Yorkshire, 41% of 354 bys in the East Midlands, 34% of 151 bys in the North West and, at a conservative estimate, 33% of the only 27 bys in East Anglia). Of the personal names involved, 83% of those in Yorkshire and the East Midlands and all of those in East Anglia are of Scandinavian origin, while only 27% of the personal names in the bys in the North-West are Scandinavian. I have argued elsewhere that the place-name-type personal name + by reflects the fragmentation of old estates, as minor landowners began to assert their independence by detaching small units of settlement from the estate centres (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1983). The absence from Westmorland, Lancashire and Cheshire of this type of name is probably a reflection of the fact that the English recovered control of these areas fairly early in the tenth century, while the fragmentation of estates would first seem to have become common after the major defeats suffered by the Danes at the hands of the English king had weakened the authority of the Danish aristocracy (SAWYER 1982: 103-07). In East Anglia, the only names of this type are found in Norfolk, most of them in the district of Flegg. The absence of such names from Suffolk, Cambridge, Hertfordshire and Essex, combined with the general rarity of names reflecting Scandinavian influence in these counties, suggests that the Danes probably lost control of these areas at the latest in 903, when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that the English ravaged all the land of the Danes between the great Cambridgeshire dykes and the river Ouse, as far north as the fens. That King Alfred may already have regained control of part of Essex in the period 893-895 is suggested by the fact that among the English leaders who died in the course of these three years is numbered Beorhtulf, ealdorman on East Seaxnum (ASC s.a. 896; noted by KEYNES and LAPIDGE 1983: 289). There would, however, seem to have been an enclave of Danes left behind after 903 in eastern Norfolk, where

349

the fragmentation of estates went on as elsewhere in the Danelaw. The personal names compounded with -by in Norfolk are exclusively of Scandinavian origin and one of them, *Hrodulfr in Rollesby, appears in an archaic uncontracted form. It has been noted by John Insley that the Scandinavian personal names recorded in sources from Norfolk tend to be archaic in form and he has therefore suggested that Norfolk did not receive immigrants from Scandinavia in the eleventh century as did Yorkshire and the East Midlands and, indeed, other areas of England which had not been settled by the Danes in the ninth century (INSLEY 1979: 56). Several of the Scandinavian personal names combined with -by in Yorkshire appear in forms which reflect sound-developments that did not take place until about the year 1000, notably compound names in -ketill, in which the second element had been contracted to -kel or -kil e.g. Exelby (Aschilebi 1086) and Thirkleby (Turchilebi 1086) in the North Riding (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1990). There are also a few names in -by in Yorkshire whose specifics are personal names of Norman origin which are unlikely to have been introduced into England earlier than the reign of Edward the Confessor (e.g. Bagot in Baggaby and Bardulf in Barlby in the East Riding, Halanant in Halnaby in the North Riding and Poleward in Fockerby in the West Riding (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1983: 54). It is in Cumberland and Dumfriesshire, however, that Norman personal names are combined particularly frequently with the generic -by (47% of the personal names in Cumberland, 75% of those in Dumfriesshire). Some scholars take this as evidence for the adoption of the generic by the English and its survival as a place-name-coining element until well into the twelfth century (EKWALL 1933: 91-92; INSLEY 1986: 172) or even into the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (SMITH 1956: 1. 68). It is, of course, true that a few of the personal names occurring as the specific of Cumberland bfs can be identified with post-Conquest tenants of the localities in question (e.g. Astin in Alstonby and Gamel in Gamblesby; PNCu 102, 192). It seems to me, however, that the bys containing Norman personal names and the names of post-Conquest tenants are most likely to be explained as partial adaptations of pre-existing names in -by in order to incorporate the names of new manorial lords, rather as the names of new Scandinavian lords were incorporated into pre-existing English names in -tan throughout the Danelaw and into Romance names in

350

-ville in Normandy (FELLOWS-JENSEN 1983; 1988). I would argue that most of the names in -by whose specifics are not personal names were coined by Viking settlers and bestowed upon settlements they had taken over from the English, probably early in the tenth century. The names in which by is compounded with a personal name are probably rather younger, dating from after the period of the major Danish defeats. I consider it unlikely, however, that such names were coined from scratch after the Norman Conquest and assume, therefore, that the many names containing Norman personal names were probably adaptations of older names in -by. 10. Names of settlements newly established by the Vikings The final category of names that I want to look at is that consisting of names which can be assumed to have been given by the Vikings to settlements which they established on virgin or abandoned land. I have argued that the best indication of areas newly settled by the Vikings is provided by the distribution of place-names indicating clearing in woodland, particularly by that of place-names in -t>veit. Such names occur particularly frequently in remote and inaccessible areas such as the Lake District and the Yorkshire Moors. A word of caution is necessary, however. The word thwaite was adopted into the English language and was of common occurrence in the northern dialects and it is therefore possible that some of the names were coined by English-speaking people long after the period of Viking settlement. Angus Winchester has recently drawn attention to the fact that in Cumbria thwaite must have survived well into the thirteenth century as a place-name-forming element. Two plots of land there which were described as being "newly assarted" in 1290 bore the names Lynthwait and Kirkethwait and there are several other small units of settlement with names in -thwaite which seem likely to have been established after the Norman Conquest (WINCHESTER 1987: 41-42). Similar reservations also apply to some of the Scandinavian topographical generics, which have also been assumed to have been used to form names for new settlements established by the Vikings, particularly in the North West, where they are extremely

351

common in the Lake District. Yorkshire, too, has many names of this type. Three Scandinavian names containing words for "woodland", Nutwith in Masham in the North Riding (*hnuta-vidr), a lost Fladwith near Nutwith (*flat-vidr) and a lost Flatscoh in Azerley in the West Riding (*flat-skogr] are first recorded as being borne by lands granted by the Mowbrays for assarting in the twelfth century (GREENWAY 1972, Nos. 95, U3 and U5: cf. PNYN 230; PNYW 5. 202) and although the names may well be older than the assarts, the possibility remains that the names were coined by twelfth-century Yorkshire men whose language had absorbed many Scandinavian loan-words. It is probably significant that the map prepared by the Survey of English dialects showing the areas where most Scandinavian loan-words are in use in modern dialects reveals that these areas are the Gosforth region in Cumberland and the Eden valley between Great Strickland and Soulby in Westmorland, closely followed by the Lake District and the northern Yorkshire Pennines (GRADDOLL 1981, map 10). These are areas which have been comparatively inaccessible to the influence of Standard English until the present century and also areas where there was still vacant land available for cultivation by the Danes and even for assarting in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It would therefore be unwise to look upon the Scandinavian place-names in these areas otherwise than as evidence of Scandinavian linguistic influence on the local dialects. Conclusion In summary it must be admitted that the inadequacy of the Scandinavian evidence makes it impossible to determine the degree to which the Scandinavian raiders coined names for their camps and headquarters. The English evidence, however, suggests that the Danes were normally content to employ pre-existing names, occasionally adapting these to suit their tongues. Smaller units of settlement were more likely to be given new names, at first often quasi-appellatival names denoting their status or function, later names containing personal names, perhaps as small landowners began to claim fuller rights of ownership over their holdings. The forms taken by the personal names in some of these place-names

352

suggest that the names may well not have been coined until after the year 1000. Of the names which seem likely to have received their lasting form after the Norman Conquest, some may be the result of partial remodelling by the Normans or their followers of place-names originally coined by Viking settlers, while others may simply reflect the abundance of Scandinavian loan-words that had been absorbed into the dialects of northern and eastern England.

References ADIGARD DES GAUTRIES, J. (1954): Les Noms de Personnes Scandinaves en Normandie de 911 a 1066. Lund. ALBRECTSEN, E. (trans.), (1981): Vikingerne i Franken. Skriftlige kilder fra det 9. arhundrede. Odense. ASC = Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. Oxford, 1892-99. BROOKS, N.P. and GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, J.A. (1986): "Reflections on the Viking-Age silver hoard from Croydon, Surrey". In: M.A.S. BLACKBURN (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Monetary History, Leicester: 91-110. CAMPBELL, A. (ed.), (1962): Tlie Chronicle of Mhelweard. London. (1971): Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History. London. DEPN = E. Ekwall. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. Oxford, 4th ed., 1960. DIL = Dictionary of the Irish Language. Based mainly on Old and Middle Irish materials. Compact Edition. Royal Irish Academy. Dublin, 1983. DR = Danmarks Runeindskrifter, ed. L. JACOBSEN and E. MOLTKE with A. BvEKSTED and K.M. NIELSEN. Copenhagen, 1941-42. EKWALL, E. (1933): "The Scandinavian Element." Introduction to the Survey of English Place-Names, English Place-Name Society I: 55-92. FEILITZEN, O. von (1937): The Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, Nomina Germanica 3, Uppsala.

353 FELLOWS-JENSEN, G. (1980): "Conquests and the place-names of England, with special reference to the Viking settlements." NORNA-rapporter 17: 192-209. — (1981): "Scandinavian settlement in the Danelaw in the light of the place-names of Denmark." H. BEKKER-NIELSEN, P. FOOTE and O. OLSEN (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth Viking Congress, Odense: 133-45. (1983): "Anthroponymical specifics in place-names in -by in the British Isles." Studia Anthroponymica Scandinavica 1: 45-60. — (1987a): "The Vikings' Relationship with Christianity in the British Isles: the evidence of place-names containing the element kirkja." James KNIRK (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress, Oslo: 295-307. (1987b): "York". Leeds Studies in English. New Series 18: 141-55. — (1988): "Scandinavian place-names and Viking settlement in Normandy. A review". Namn och Bygd 76: 113-37. — (1990): Of Danes - and Thanes - and Domesday Book. In: I. WOOD and N. LUND (eds.) People and Place in Northern Europe 500-1600, Woodbridge. GDB = Greater Domesday Book of 1086 in the Public Record Office, London. GRADDOLL, D. (1981): Block 1. Language variation and diversity. The Open University. Educational Studies : A Second Level Course. E263. Language in Use. GREENWAY, D.E. (ed.) (1972): Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1191. London. INSLEY, J. (1979): "Regional Variation in Scandinavian Personal Nomenclature in England". Nomina 3: 52-60. — (1986): Toponymy and Settlement in the North-West". Nomina 10: 169-76. JANSSON, S.B.F. (1966): Swedish Vikings in England: The Evidence of the Rune Stones. London. JONSSON, F. (1912-15): Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning, AI-II + BI-II. Copenhagen.

354

JONSSON, G. (ed.) (1950): Fornaldar Sögur Noröurlanda III. Reykjavik. KEYNES, S. and M. LAPIDGE (eds.) (1983): Alfred the Great. Asser's Life of Alfred and other contemporary sources. Harmondsworth. KPN = J.K. Wallenberg, Kentish Place-Names (Uppsala, 1931). KÜHN, H. (1949): "Birka auf Island." Namn och Bygd 37: 47-64. LOYN, H. (1976): Tlie Vikings in Wales. London. PETERSENS, C. af and E. OLSON (eds.), (1919-25): Sggur Danakonunga, Samfund til Udgivelse af gammel nordisk Litteratur. Copenhagen. PN + county abbreviation = Publication of the English Place-Name Society. RICHARDS, M. (1962): "Norse Place-Names in Wales". Proceedings of the International Congress of Celtic Studies. Dublin 1959, Dublin: 51-60. SAWYER, P.H. (1968): Anglo-Saxon Charters: an annotated list and bibliography, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8. London. — (1982): Kings and Vikings. Scandinavia and Europe A.D. 700-1100. London and New York. SMITH, A.H. (1956): English Place-Name Elements 1-2, English Place-Name Society XXV-XXVI. Cambridge. SRSm = Sveriges Runinskrifter. Smälands Runinskrifter, ed. R. KINANDER. Stockholm, 1935-61. TAYLOR, A.B. (1965): "Eysteinn Haraldsson in the West, c. 1151. Oral traditions and written record". A. SMALL (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth Viking Congress, Edinburgh: 119-34. WINCHESTER, A.J.L. (1987): Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria. Edinburgh.

COMPATIBILITY AND INCOMPATIBILITY - THREE IMPORTANT PERIODS OF ENGLISH-DANISH ONOMASTIC CONTACT Torben Kisbye (t) Our onomastic contact with England stretching over a period of one thousand years can be aptly dichotymized as alternate systems of compatibility and incompatibility. A period of compatibility is the Viking Age and the early Middle Ages.

1.0. The names of moneyers After the conquest of England by Canute the Great, Denmark could boast her first organized monetary system. It was copied from England, our earliest coinage being modelled on the Mhelrsedian penny. The names of moneyers punched into 11th-century coins thus constitute one of our earliest strata of onomastic contact with England. The list below provides a selection of a total of 37 names of moneyers, who can be accredited to Danish mints in the period from Svein Forkbeard (d. 10U) to Eric Emune (d. 1137). The typical OE form appears in brackets. Only one of the often numerous spelling variants will be given: ADI (OE Ada), ALFMER (OE fflmser), ALFNATH (OE Alfnod), ALFRIC (OE Mfricl ALFVOLD (OE Mfwealdl ALWINI (OE Mfwine), AILNOD (OE Mnod\ BERHTNOD (OE Byrhtnod), BRIHRIC (OE Brihtric), CIADWINE (OE Ceadwine), EDGER (OE Eadgar), IADRIF (OE Eadric) EDVART (OE Eadweard), EDWINE (OE Eadwine), ESTMUN (OE Eastmund), .... etc. We should be careful, however, not to gauge the extent of English onomastic influence by the names of the moneyers, because of the difficulties which beset the assessment of their evidential value. Are the name-bearers Danish or English? Or maybe craftsmen of Danish ancestry returned from the Danelaw? The problem of ascertaining the nationality of the name-bearers is the sine qua non for the assessment of an early onomastic impact. But the

356

name/name-bearer relationship defies uniqueness of interpretation. Most authorities actually consider them to be the names of foreigners, and that is the main reason why their names have been excluded from our national thesaurus of personal names. The evidence speaking in favour of at least some of these moneyer names having been borne by Danes and thus testifying to foreign onomastic influence is, as will abundantly appear from the argumentation below, tenuous. Does the growing need to make some of the names distinctive by appending Danish by-names indicate that they had taken root and were in process of achieving some measure of popularity (type GODWINI ΡΕΉΚΜΑΝ, ASFERD UKI Gyoung Asferf>), S^WINE ULFIETS FRNTA (rWulfgeat's relative), ALTWARD KNIRDA, ALTWARD KIDEBIARD, etc.)? There are in the reign of Sven Estridsen, when our coinage begins to assume a distinctively non-English design, names like BRUNMAN, GODWINE, LEOFSIGE, ASFERD, LEOFWINE, S^WINE, MJTVLQl punched in runic script. It is tempting to regard these as the work of native craftsmen, the more so since this feature has in some instances been coupled with the abandonment of the traditional English preposition on in favour of i on the inscriptions (e.g. LIFWIN I BORB). Figure 1

Under King Canute the Danish monetary system became organized along Anglo-Saxon lines with coins struck at officially recognized mints. The illustration shows coins struck for Canute at Lund and Roskilde by Anglo-Saxon moneyers. The reverse inscriptions read BERHTNOD M(onetarius) O(n) LVND (left) and OSGOD ON ROSCEL (right).

357 1.1.

Anglicized names

1.1.2. Graphemic and morphemic evidence These very early names provide some interesting examples of the adoption of distinctively English graphs in the spellings of the signatures of Danish moneyers. That these graphs are in evidence in English as well as in Danish names will appear from the below list of contrasting pairs: Anglo-Saxon

(= wynn) : GODPINE; SPEN (ON Sveinn). Anglo-Saxon ; BERTHNOD; ODDENCAR, Anglo-Saxon intervocalic = /v/ : SWAFA, SVAVA. However, the latter Anglo-Saxon influence, development.

feature does not point unilaterally to but , could also be an indigenous

1.1.3. Morphemic adjustment is common in dithematic names where usually the second, less commonly the first morpheme is anglicized; ESGAR (ON Asgeirr), GARFIN (ON Geir/ϊηητ); DORSTAN (ON Dorsteinn); OSGVT (ON Asgautr), etc. Note a similar awareness of English-Danish morphemic correspondences in names from other sources: OE Eadgar > ON Jatgeirr, OE Afielstan > ON Adalsteinn, ON Steingrimr > OE Stangrim, etc. In a few cases an English name has been made to conform to Danish spelling practice: ULFCIE (OE Wulfsige), ULFIET (OE Wulfgeat), showing the early Scandinavian loss of w- when it precedes a rounded velar vowel. 1.1.4. A few Danish monothematic names of the weak declension in i have received corresponding English variant forms in -a (MANA, BOSA, ΒΑΝΑ, SUNA, SVAVA). Cp. from other sources ON felagi > OE feolaga 'fellow', ON h seti > OE haseeta Oarsman' etc. 1.1.5. Similarly fluctuating forms in -d and -t of names of the type Asgod, Algod, etc. are products of Anglo-Danish interference and not, as traditionally maintained, due to Anglo-Norman spelling (see KISBYE 1979).

358

1.1.6. A curious facet of early onomastic contact between Denmark and the Danelaw is the marked reversion to older name-forms particularly on Sven Estridsen's coinage. We witness for a short period the return of the old diphthongs ai and au, which began to be monophthongized in Danish as early as 900 (e.g. DORSTAIN, SVEIN, OUDBIRN, OUDCEL). These archaic forms, it should be noted, are amply attested in Danelaw names long after the monophthongization took place in Denmark. 1.1.7. The unexpected reappearance of the old nominative -r morpheme on Sven Estridsen's coinage (e.g. DORGUTR, ASMUTR) might be similarly interpreted. The only problem, however, is that the nominative -r is poorly attested in Danish names in England, and that the examples all appear on coins from Lund (Scania), the dialect area where it survived longest. 2.0. Early mediaeval monastic records 2.1. Clerical names English names continue to appear fairly frequently in our early medieval records, the names being now mainly clerical, and abundant particularly in monastic necrologies. They are all from the period when the bonds between Denmark and the Anglo-Saxon, later early Norman, church were particularly strong. The historical background is Denmark's struggle to free herself from the dominance of the archbishopric Hamburg-Bremen by calling in English prelates to help reform monastic life. Many Danish abbeys were modelled on English lines and run by English abbots. The following is only a sample of such clerical names: Alanus (1254, conversus Lund), Albold (12c, LD Lund, monk), Alferth (1366, supertonsori, Lund), Alfwin (12c, LD Lund, priest), Arnulf (1254, monk (< OE Earnwulf, or Danelaw Danish?)), Brikmeer (12c, LD Lund, priest and canon), Edwardus (12c, LD Lund, priest), Elnoth (1095 Ailnothus, priest in Odense), Ethmer (OE Eadmoer) 12c, frater noster, Godebald (lie, bishop of Scania), Lewine (12c, Necr Lund, l a i c u s!), Rikhard (12c Necr Lund, subdeacon), Robert (1144, monk), Robert (1161, abbot) .... etc.

359

2.2. Saints' names A particular bearing on the subject in hand has the early veneration of English saints, whose names soon begin to appear regularly in our national martyrologies and calendars: Alban Anselm Botulf Clemens Thomas Thythger

Si Albani, Odense. His relics were brought to Odense by King Canute Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1104) whose worship was brought to Denmark from Danelaw East Anglia, Budolfi Church, Alborg In Denmark several church dedications. More than 40 in England. numerous church dedications. Capella Beati Thome in Ribe, Altarium Sancti Thome of Kantelberg i Roskilde. (OE Deodgar). Numerous names of shrines and churches, patron saint of North Jutland. Danish Th0ger.

English Saints like Byrinus, Byrnstan, Frithestan, Swithun, fiihel- wold, Bede, Cuthbert, Guthlac, Dunstan, Eadmund, Oswald are mentioned in the Ribe Martyrology (13c) and in the Valentuna Missale. But again the material is inconclusive. The names are English all right, but we are in no sure position to ascertain the nationality of the bearers. The clerical name-bearers are in all probability English, but dare we warily interpret a small handful of entries marked "laicus" as Danes? Throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages English names seem to have left no lasting imprint on our personal nomenclature. Since the axiom should always be observed that names reflect cultural influence, an insignificant trickle of names of the type Robert, Richard, Walter should be interpreted as German. Our contact with England in the late Middle Ages is negligible.

360

3.0. Mediaeval transposed and "translated" names. A period of incompatibility. Another factor which tends to blur the picture is that English names no longer appear in the sources either raw or after having undergone the slight morphemic or orthographic adjustments discussed above, but seem to be quite consistently transposed to our national variants. In other words George will appear as J0rgen, James as Jacob, and Jean as Johanne, Johnson will be Hansen, etc. We are in the period where names of a Christian common European background dominate the onomastic scene, names for which most nations had, and still have, their own national variants, usually again with a vast number of regional (dialectal) ramifications. If it had a readily comprehensible semantic content, the foreign name was often translated (e.g. Greenwall > Gr0nnewold, Brewhouse > Bryghus, Baxter > Bager, Courtman > Hofmand, Brown > Brun, etc.). 3.1. The names of the Elsinore Scots I have made a study of the names of the Scots colony of immigrants at Elsinore in the 16th century, because an abundance of municipal records (conduct testimonials, tax rolls, wills, deeds, letters, etc.) makes it a worth-while effort to try to identify the Scots citizens of the town in Danish name disguise. Their names in transposed form are:

Andrew > Anders Bartholomew > Bertel (sic!) Charles > Karl Frank (Francis) > Frantz George > J0rgen Henry > Henrik William > Villum (Vilhelm)

James > Jakob John > Hans (Johan) Lawrence > Lauritz (Lass) Oliver > Holger Nicholas > Niels Roger > R0tker

In evidence only through patronymic forms are: Martin > Morten, Michael > Mikkel Stephen > Steffen, Matthew > Matts (Matthis).

361

Only in a few cases where the town clerk was ignorant of the Danish equivalent or in the absence of one, has the Scots name been allowed to remain undisturbed. Names like Lawson (Law is short for Lawrence), Watson (Wat is short for Walter), or Gaelic names like Ninian, Angus, Patrick including also patronymics with Gaelic basis, e.g. Patterson, Fergusson, etc. are typical examples of names with their national form retained. But apart from these, the rest of the Scots immigrants seem to have had their names ruthlessly brought into alignment with Danish onomastic practice. 3.1.1. The Scots surnames seem to have undergone similar transposition wherever possible: Jamieson > Jakobsen, Stevenson > Steffensen, Lawrenson (Lowrieson) > Lauritzen, Johnson > Hansen, Mac George > J0rgensen, Anderson (Andrews) > Andersen, etc. Of course the Scots name-equivalents are purely conjectural, we are in no position to ascertain whether for instance the Danish name Andersen reflects a Scots immigrant named: 1. Anderson 2. Andrews; 3. Mac Andrew, or 4. a Scot who simply informed the bailiff or town clerk that his father's name was Andrew - or 5. the son of an Elsinore Scot whose father was called Anders (< Andrew). Our system of shifting patronymics, as we shall see below, was swiftly imposed upon the Scots. 3.1.2. A few names have been changed on the analogy of an etymologically different Danish name (e.g. Mungo > Mogens (Mons), Allenson > Erlandsen, Erskine > Eskild). 3.1.3. Not only do we find the Scots names consistenty transposed in our records, their native name repertory is also drastically curtailed by the adoption of the ancient Danish practice of naming the eldest son after his grandfather. In the cases where the records allow us to establish genealogies, we find few deviations from that pattern: David Thomsen -> Hans Davidsen -> David Hansen -> Hans Davidsen + Christen Davidsen -> David Christensen. 3.1.4. The women's names are much more difficult to account for, because women are more often than not anonymous in mediaeval

362

records. But the names we do find show the same picture: consistent transposition: Helen > Elline, Jean/Joan/Jane > Johanne, Catherine > Karine, Margaret > Margrete (Mette), Mary/ Marion > Marine, Cecily > Citze. 3.1.5. We also see the Scots women abandoning their native tradition of retaining their family name in marriage, something which was customary only among the nobility in Denmark. In the records they are usually mentioned maritonymically, by their first name * husband's name, profession or by-name in the genitive (e.g. Anne Davids, Citze Jacob Skinders, Anne Skomagers, Else Jakob Skottes, etc.). Or they are referred to patronymically by their father's name + datier (Johanne Angusdatter, Elline Davidsdatter), a naming practice which had been given up in Britain long before, but seems to have survived till about 1800 in Shetland through Scandinavian influence. 3.1.6. The Elsinore Scots also seem to have swiftly abandoned their native tradition of hereditary surnames. With the exception of a couple of families of lofty social status (e.g. Level, Marr) they seem to have been forced into conformity with the Danish system of shifting patronymics. Instances abound: Niels Sandersen, son of Sander Baffoer (: Balfour) Hans Thomsen, son of Thomas Rathre (: Rattray) Daniel Lauritzen, son of Lauritz Fergissen (: Fergusson) Willom Willomsen, son of Willom Forbus (: Forbes), etc. The entrenched routine of nominal transposition exercised by the authorities and our ancient system of shifting patronymics seem to be two main factors behind the swift reduction and eventual obliteration of the Scots national names in Denmark. After a few generations they ceased to exist. Occasional entries in the tax-rolls like Hans Albritsen dictus Blackie, Sander Jakobsen kaldet Sander Orrick, however, suggest that the Elsinore Scots in silent protest against the unprovoked abuse of their national names resorted to the use of two sets of names, one with the authorities and one amongst kinsmen. 3.1.7. The Scots immigration in Denmark grinds to a halt after

363

1603. The church registers of the 17th century testify to a nearly complete absorption of the Scots element. They now all appear with Danish patronymic -sen names. A slight residue of Sander and David in the following centuries and of the by-name Skottfe) today still borne by 242 families - would appear to have been our meagre onomastic legacy. Only placenames like Skottenborg (street-name, Viborg), Skottegyde (street-name, Alborg), Skotlerup, Skottedal, Skottemarke, Skodsborg, etc. seem to have stood the test of time. 4.0. 17th-century sources In order to establish whether nominal transposition was the practice of the secular authorities alone, I have studied the baptismal records of some 17th-century churches in Elsinore including that of the garrison of Kronborg Castle, which consisted mainly of German and Scots mercenaries. But the English names we find here are equally consistently transposed (Hans Wallas (: Wallace), Hans Braun, Mikkel Sandersen, Johan Hammeltson (: Hamilton), Hans Andersen, Willom Medsel (:Mitchell), Willom Wriel (:Wright), Johanne Stuert, Jakob Marfild, Jakob Strachan, etc.). Nominal transposition is still common practice in the first half of the next century. We still find no indication of an English name appearing in our records, secular or ecclesiastical, in its true national form. There is still no James, William, Henry, Andrew, Jean or Mary to be seen anywhere. As late as 1733 we find an English lieutenant Johan Stains having his son christened Johan Povl in St. Mary's Church at Elsinore, and it was probably also the name form used in the oral baptismal ceremony. But the 18th century was to mark the end of a long tradition of consistent nominal transposition, which I have illustrated by means of the names of the Scots colony at Elsinore and found recurrent in other late mediaeval records (chancery correspondence, diplomas, etc.). The same feature, however, is found also with the names of citizens of other nationalities. French names seem to have been equally incompatible with our national naming practice. The Elsinore records have Peiter = Pierre, Ludvig - Louis, Hans "Jean-, "en franszosser kaldit Hans", "En Peyter äff Rosseil (« la Rochelle)

364

y Franckeriige", etc. Today the custom lingers on only with names of foreign historical figures, where it is still accepted usage to employ only the old transposed name-forms (e.g. John Lackland = Johan Udenland, Charles I = Karl I, Mary Stuart - Marie Stuart, Louis XIV = Ludvig XIV, etc.). 5.0. The 18th century and the English immigrants. A period of compatibility. The 18th century constitutes a new phase in the relationship between English and Danish personal nomenclature. English names are now for the first time since the Viking age accepted and naturalized in our records in their true national form. The first name is William (1752), which now for the first time appears as William and not in its customary transposed disguise Vilhelm or Villom. Tlie reason behind this sudden departure from the entrenched habit of nominal transposition is difficult to account for. The gradual abandonment of Latin as an international language plays a certain role in the development, for the Danish national variants are often identical with or close to the latinized English forms (James - Jacobus - Jakob; William - Vilhelmus - Vilhelm; Jean Johanna - Johanne). A second and probably more important factor is socio-onomastic. Unlike the humble Scots of the 16th century the next wave of British immigrants represent a trend-setting and feted merchant aristocracy, settling mainly at Elsinore, one of the most important trade and shipping centres of Northern Europe, the gateway to the Baltic, the town of the Sound Dues. Of the 12000 ships that yearly paid their dues in the 1790's one third were British! Their onomastic influence is soon to become noticeable. The first bestowers of English names in Denmark are manifestly people connected with shipping and overseas trade, and if we scrutinize the Church records, we find a sizable number of their business friends on the lists of godparents. People from the English commercial aristocracy of Elsinore and Copenhagen. An English name carried prestige. Like the whiskers and the cut of the coat it became the emblem of the successful merchant in the palmy days of Danish overseas trade.

365

6.0. 19th-century literary sources It is not, as traditionally maintained, the interest in Shakespeare that bridgeheads the dramatic influx of English names in the 19th century. It all starts with the English merchants of Elsinore and Copenhagen and their names being imitated by their Danish colleagues as a mark of class affiliation. But this first wave of English names was soon to be reinforced by a powerful influx of literary names, notably from Shakespeare, Ossian, Dickens, Scott, Conan Doyle, Marryat: Shakespeare:

Ossian: Dickens: Marryat: Scott: Conan Doyle:

Ariel (1836), Cleopatra (1854), Romeo (1859), Cordelia (1834), Jessica (1849), Hamlet (1856), Horatio (1828), Ophelia (1842). (The dates in brackets indicate their first appearance in Copenhagen birth registers.) Selma, Malvina, Minona, Oscar, Ossian, Or/a. Oliver, Ralph, Nicholas, Edwin, Carton, Harriet. Percival, Terrence (Terry), Corny, Harvey, Henry O 'Brien, Clifford Armitage. Type: Erik O 'Brien Jensen. Reginald, Gilbert, Wilfred, Brian, Guy, Quentin, Vernon, Roy, Ivanhoe. Type: Willy Ivanhoe Jensen. Holmes, Sherlock.

6.1. English authors were avidly read and sometimes even their names were given to children in baptism (Milton, Scott, Marryat, Ossian, Stevenson are quite common.) The type of name we have just reviewed is usually referred to as idol names (see KISBYE 1984). They are very important in establishing the concrete background behind the powerful literary onomastic influence, the sources of inspiration. Our legislation concerning personal names, it should be added, had until quite recently done precious little to curb onomastic experiment and eccentricity. Until the close of the 19th century English names were mainly bourgeois. The people who bore them or bestowed them upon their offspring were enthusiastic readers of English literature, they were

366

theatre-goers and wanted this to be known. An English name possessed a high status value in this early period. 7.0. Social decline of English names From about 1900, however, the high status value began to be drastically undermined by the extension of English literature to the masses through cheap penny editions, and when in addition the book market after 1900 became virtually glutted by English pulp fiction (Billy Brown, Nat Pinkerton, Buffalo Bill, etc.), a serious status drop set in. English names began to be associated with the readership of that kind of literature, namely the working class. English names gradually became class specific and through the impact of Hollywood and the whole entertainment industry, they have remained so ever since. 7.1. Below we shall give a selection of names from the entertainment industry, primarily Hollywood. Names of that type were and are still typically bestowed upon working-class children: Gary, Leslie, Howard, Danny, Bogart, Shirly (Temple), Joan (Crawford), Erroll, Elvis, Buster, Lemmy, Noel, Omar, Perry (Mason), Stuart, Mickey, Sean/Shaun (: 007), Kermit, J.R. Juwing (sic!), Dustin (Floyd); Elton, Glen (Miller), Bing, Floyd, Armstrong; Claire (Bloom), Claudette, Daphne (du Maurier), Dolores (del Rio), Loretta (Young), Marlene, Marion, Marilyn, Maureen (O'Hara), Myrna, Rosemary, Scarlet, Vanessa, Veronica (Lake), etc. 7.2. The naive passion for English names also engendered a spate of what I have chosen to call pseudo-English names, i.e. names that have an English suffix grafted on to a non-English root. Particularly names with the suffix -y/-ie tend to become epidemic from about 1900 to about 1940. They seem confined almost exclusively to working-class bearers. Ajly, Alandy, Arly, Bendy, Bjarney, Carly, Chardey, Dally, Dimty, Engly, Canary, Harlei, Jingy, Landry, Pardei, Nanry, Queenie, etc. Also names with phonetic spelling reveal how important it was to people with little or no English training, that

367

their names had the much coveted English sound (e.g. Dik, Djonni, Thjarlie, Endru (: Andrew), Joffry (: Geoffrey), Herri, Meri (:Mary), Semmi, Djimmi, etc. Today names like Dennis, Benny, Brian, Kenneth, Johnny, Jimmy, Elvis, Sean and on the distaff side Alice, Joan, Lizzy, Connie, etc. with relative certainly place their Danish bearers in the working class. They are often referred to as low-status names. It is not the aim of the present paper to establish why English names have so stubbornly remained characteristic of working class people and why, since the end of the 19th century, they have renewed their onomastic repertory from that source, with the entertainment industry and Hollywood providing an almost inexhaustible quarry of models. But the study of this adds new dimensions to onomastics, which we may aptly term socio- and psycho-onomastics.

References KISBYE, Torben (1979): OSGOD/OSGOT on early Anglo-Danish Coinage. Copenhagen: The Department of English, University of Copenhagen, VIII. — (1984): "Bonum nomen est bonum omen - on the so-called idol names." Studia Anthroponymica Scandinavica II.

THE INCORPORATION OF OLD NORSE PRONOUNS INTO MIDDLE ENGLISH Suppletion by loan Otmar Werner It is a well-known and generally accepted fact that the present-day Engl. pronouns they/them and their derive from Old Norse. They are often used as testimony to how close language contact between Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Danes must have been, since these forms are not just singular loan-words but have become elements of a central grammatical paradigm side by side with inherited AS forms. In addition to this we find repeatedly the comment that these pronouns were borrowed in order to avoid homonymies in the traditional paradigm (since JESPERSEN 1905, cf. 1938:66 ). We would like to study these particular aspects in greater detail and place them in a larger framework of Old Germanic paradigm developments; we wish to view these developments within a functional-economic theory of morphology with special regard to pronoun systems, and to consider them as a particular case of language contact.1

1. The OE and ON systems before language contact In looking at these systems of the pers. pron., particularly the 3. pers., we will make use of several theoretical oppositions/polarities (listed below (A) to (F)) to enable us to evaluate and compare the facts encountered (WERNER 1984, 1987).

1 . 1 . The OE and early ME paradigms The OE pers. pron. 3. pers. is summarized in Figure 1 in a somewhat simplified form (e.g. BRUNNER 1965:259f.):

370

Figure 1: The OE paradigm of pers. pron. 3rd pers. sg.

masc.

nom.

he his him hi(e)ue

gen. dat. ace.

\J

fern.

neut.

PiL»

hio heo hit hi(e)re his

tue hi hi(e)ra hiora heora

hi(eke him bTe hit

him heom

hie hi

There are many more vowel variants, esp. in the sg. fern, and pi. forms

The paradigm shows one common "base" - we cannot call it a "root" -, the initial h- since this h- does not occur in the 1./2. pers., we have to interpret it as an expression of '3. pers.'. The categories 'case, number, gender' are, roughly speaking, expressed by the sound groups following the base. This is not a matter of course: we need only think of the present day system he - she - it - they with no basic part in common; even in OE the 1. and 2. pers. operated to a large extent with different bases: io - me - we - as, etc. Here we have our first systematic opposition: (A) A morphological paradigm can operate either with separable uniform bases/roots and changing inflections - or with totally fused and differentiated suppletive forms. There are thus two possibilities: content-units can on the one hand be rendered separately, with common features such as grammatical categories represented by a common expression, and different categories by different additions (it has become usual in such cases to speak of an "iconic" relation); or, on the other hand, the whole content- /category-bundle is rendered by one distinct expression, and if one of the content-features is exchanged the whole expression will have a new appearance. In general, the principle of combination demands that different segments of expression be added to each other; this would then lead to forms longer than those created by suppletion, which demands one segment of expression only. So the choice between

371

inflection and suppletion is principally a matter of expansion vs. condensation, i.e. of language economy, and depends largely on frequency of usage. That is, for highly frequent bundles of content-features it is advantageous to have short ready-made uniform expressions, even if these must be learned separately; the increase in size of the inventory of units pays off in this case; for less frequent bundles it is more useful to have a small number of different signs which can then be combined in each individual case (RONNEBERGER-SIBOLD 1980, WERNER 1987). Pronouns, here pers. pron. 3. pers., are on the whole tools of abbreviation: we use them in a text when we refer to an object already mentioned instead of repeating a proper name or a (possibly very large) definite description (Charles Dickens / this famous author of the 19th century - he). In pronominal systems is it thus useful and commonplace to have short, highly differentiated units, suppletives for example, even if this economy destroys iconic transparency (HAIMAN 1985:157) and means learning many totally different units. The frequency of the pers. pron. 3. pers. in the nominative is higher in languages with an obligatory pronoun (in sentences having no other noun phrase subject: they come) than in languages where the finite verb ending is sufficient (Ital. vengono ); i.e. where the pronoun is, so to speak, an affix of the verb and accordingly short. These considerations already give us a clue to why this change from OE inflection to modern suppletion was brought about. Our next opposition is to a certain extent a repetition of principle (A): (B) The inflection following the common base may either be segmentable into segments of expression, each rendering separate grammatical categories - or it may form one unanalysable suffix comprising all of the categories, which we can also understand as some sort of suppletion, but in a more restricted frame. Some of the suffixes in our OE paradigm show certain similarities and differences which might permit segmentation: we could say that heo is he plus a feminine affix -o·, thus he would have an j^-suffix 'masc.'; or hi(e)r-e could be considered to have a particular sg. suffix -e as opposed to hi(e)r-a with a pi. -a. These are, however, very restricted instances which do not allow

372

any further systematic analysis. From a diachronic point of view these are remnants of an older (Germanic) system with a much greater number of separable suffix-chains; there has been a great deal of change which has resulted in the fusion of these components to simple suffixes. More interesting for a synchronic analysis of our OE system is the following polarity concerning the boundary between base/root and inflection: (G) The constant base/root may make up a relatively large part of the expression while the varying affixes are short or the base may be short, just one sound, and the remainder belongs to the affix. In the case of our OE paradigm we cannot be sure whether we should consider just h- as the common base, as we have done so far, or to take he-/hf- as two base-variants, with the smaller remaining parts as inflection. One might feel inclined to consider the vowel a part of the base since it is present in all inflectional forms and is also quite uniform. But, if we compare sg. he and the pi.-variant hi, it is evident that the vowel quality also takes part in the distinction of the grammatical categories. On the other hand hi- is so widespread that it is difficult to consider the -/- as much a part of the suffixes as, say, -s, -m, (e)ne etc. One may postulate that our analysis should take account of this essential difference. We can attempt to do this by a two-step analysis: if we take he(-) and hi(-) as a first root, a sort of suppletive distinction, we arrive at shorter suffixes for the many /u-bases.2 Diachronically at any rate, this boundary between base and inflection can move in both directions: in such movements the number of undecided borderline elements, which become either more differentiated (diminishing the base) or more unified (strengthening the base), increases or decreases. The process of differentiation can also affect the rest of the base; in this case we have a transition from inflection to suppletion. And if a "base", which was present in part of the paradigm only, spreads to all positions, then suppletion is replaced by inflection. This is what happened in Pre-OE, where we probably had e.g. he, heo, but still it (cf. Goth, ita, OS it), which eventually also became hit. Thus both the common Λ-base and the simple suffixes, i.e. the whole system of inflection in OE, are the result of innovations.

373

This simplicity and uniformity is surprising for a paradigm of 3. pers. pronouns, especially since the use of separate subject pronouns was becoming more and more obligatory. Our next polarity leads us even further into diachrony, this time dealing with later developments: (D) In a paradigm all the positions may be distinct from each other, either by different suppletive forms or by varying affixes - or some positions may be distinct and others not; there can be either systematic neutralisations or unsystematic homophonies. In our OE paradigm we find quite a lot of systematic nondistinction: hit in nom./acc. sg. neut, hie, hi in nom./acc. pi., hi(e)re gen./dat. sg. fern. - all these are lacking case distinctions; similarly his in gen. sg. masc./neut., him in dat.sg.masc./neut. and also even in dat. pl. as well as the whole of the plural all lack (certain) gender distinctions. In all these cases it is a question of definition: what is the rule, what is the exception? Is it at all remarkable to postulate a gender distinction throughout the paradigm and to state then that it is neutralized in the plural? We might just as well say that the paradigm is unequally extended; for this reason we have not included gender in the pl. of our table at all. Thus diachronically, the paradigm can expand and contract more or less systematically. We can presume that Old Germanic did in general distinguish gender in the plural, at least in nom./acc. (cf. Goth, eis - ijös - ija), and that neutralization is a later innovation, more likely brought about by morphological analogy than by mere sound change. So there is an originally semantic-categorial foundation for this reduction of the paradigm, dispensing with obligatory distinctions in cases where there was very often no clear gender attachment anyway. The developments seem to be different in later OE and early ME in Southern England: a number of homophonies arise from mere sound reduction in these (by now) increasingly frequent obligatory and therefore mostly unstressed pronouns (cf. Figure 2, according to BRUNNER 1953):

374 Figure 2: TJie reduced paradigm in southern ME (before influence)

* nom. obi.

fern.

neut.

\he) heo hue «\XA/O hifej v~x ha \a\ ho \fiej ha \a\

1"

Λο^ ΑΛΛΛ. hi(e)

him

hit it

h(e)om hem him

masc.

hire hure her(e)

ON

pi.

ho (£ej ha [a [

ham

The case system is reduced from i to 2, i.e. nom. and obl(iquus), which continues the forms of the dat.; the former gen. functions mainly as the poss. pron. and is thus no longer part of our paradigm. In spite of this reduction of categories - the number of positions has been reduced from 16 to 8 - the number of expression variants has increased considerably, especially in the nom. (and obi. pi.). These variants are the result of reduction processes; full forms and more or less reduced forms are used side by side, partly depending on different levels of stress. Such variation of strong and reduced forms are a normal part of the universal flow of linguistic development (L DTKE 1980); in any event, though, we can ask ourselves why the process of reduction is reinforced and accelerated in certain historical periods of language development. We can suppose that the superposition of languages (English plus Scandinavian and, especially, plus French) has led to quicker and more radical changes than an undisturbed monolingual development would have done. The loss of a written standard for English may have contributed to this; on the other hand it may have been precisely this loss of an accepted orthographic norm that brought the many variants into the manuscripts, variants which otherwise would have remained a matter of the spoken language only. At any rate, one result of this development is that we find, side by side with distinct forms, a number of homophonous expressions in different categories (they are marked in Figure 2): first of all in the nom. with he and ha in sg. masc./fem. and pi., and a in sg. neut. also; hi(e) and ho in sg.fem. and pi.; but also in the obi. with him as masc./neutr. and pi.

375

The forms of our paradigm are, of course, only a rough and summarizing collection of the written records, not yet classified according to their syntactic, textual, stylistic or geographic distribution. The neutralizations in OE affected case distinctions and gender distinctions (esp. in pi.) which were later given up anyway. Our ME homophonies affect primarily number and gender in the sg., distinctions which had to be maintained at all costs. A small paradigm with uncertain or no distinctions in vital categories would hamper communication. At this stage we can postulate the following interdependency: In a large paradigm (as in OGmc, OE with around 20 positions) it is useful to have a common root and different affixes; it would be hard to have fully suppletive forms in all the positions, say, 24 different roots! In such paradigms suppletion is, if present at all, restricted to such highly frequent positions like for example the nom. sg. (cf. the dem. pron. se - /w?f). In a small paradigm however, suppletion is a favoured technique (cf. ModE he - she it - her - they ...). From this we arrive at a conclusion which appears only at first glance to be paradox: in a language with many grammatical categories and many members per category the large group of pronouns tend to work with a common base plus inflection; in a language with little or no inflection, the small number of pronouns tend to be suppletive forms. Although suppletion may be considered the extreme case of inflection and fusion, it nevertheless also shows similiarities to isolated, uninflected lexical units and thus fits into the pattern of a language without inflection. From all this we can conclude that the pronoun system of ME was bound to change, not merely because of homophony in the inflected forms (it would have been able to single out and redistribute the remaining different forms), but because of the reduction in the number of the paradigm positions, a situation which favours suppletion. These tensions between inflection and suppletion bring us to opposition (E) which we can study best in ON.

1.2. The Runic and Classical ON paradigms Figure 3 gives the ON forms of the Classical OIcl texts from about

376

1200 plus in brackets the older Runic plural forms which are more or less testified in inscriptions (NOREEN 1970:312, KRAHE 1957:59-64): Figure 3: The ON paradigm (with Proto-N reconstructions in pi) masc.

fern.

neut.

pi. masc.

nom. han-u

hon

J>at

peir ( they, which they found useful to adopt 4 permanently into their own language system. 3. Discussion of the different forms We should now examine each of the loan forms individually, looking at their phonology, and especially their morphology.

3. 1. ON f>ai(r) - ME pai/pei - ModE they Tlie speakers of OE selected the nom. masc. pi. peifr) from the ON plural forms pei(r), pe&r, pau. We can be quite sure about this, since p&r, pau would not have resulted in ME pei/pai. In spite of this the phonological developments and transitions are not without difficulty. Firstly we have the Norse development from Proto-Norse pai and its analogically enlarged variant paiR, which became ON pei(r). Its further monophthongization in Danish/East Scand. to pe(r) (after 1000) and then to ModDan de [dir] seems definitely not to be involved in the borrowing. However, we cannot be sure whether it was pai or pei, or possibly both, that was borrowed into OE. Therefore it is not quite correct when the standard reference works use formulations like, "pei ... aus an. peir" (BRUNNER 1953:63, similarly MOORE/MARGKWARDT 1963:95); an AngloDanish originally r-less form is the base for the borrowing, not the Classical ON form peir. Secondly, with the diphthong stages we are uncertain because of the complicated OE/ME changes. From OE new diphthongs developed, mainly from vowels plus vocalised g ) Lei] (ModE Le:] > Leil > [ai]) - an almost unbelievable to and from between ai and ei. It is thus difficult to decide whether it was Proto-N ai that entered into OE ai, or ON ei that entered into OE/ME ei; at any rate it was a diphthong that crossed the language border. In the case of they in ME we have roughly the same geographic picture as with the other ME a/-/e/-words: pai (upai(e), payte)" 5) in the N, but also scattered in the S, and pei ("thei, theye") further down in the Midlands and S. The only difference is, of course, the many h- or Λ-based forms in the S, which we have discussed above. 3.2. ON paim/peim - ME paim/peim - ModE them If the (genderless) ON dat. peim had been borrowed exactly parallel to pei we would expect ME forms like paim/peim. These are, however, rather restricted: the type paim is testified in the N alongside pam ("tha(a)m"), which is parallel to pai, but without the spread down to the S. The type peim is very sparsely scattered in and around the Midlands; somewhat denser and wider spread is pern ("the(e)m") (cf. LALME I, maps 41-44). An initial explanation could be monophthongization/shortening in the closed syllable of the frequently unstressed word, followed by secondary lengthening ("aa, ee") when stressed and/or deliberately spelled. It would be a devious path to think of the East-Scand. monophthongized form pern as the only source of ME pern. There is, however, another, even more striking difference between the obi. and the nom.: the dat. forms with />-anlaut are far less common in the central and southern regions, where Λ-form variants still dominate (cf. LALME /, maps 39-40). From this we can conclude that the nom. gained ground and became more widespread much earlier than the obi. forms, even in regions with no Norse population. For centuries the people in these areas had a system with nom. pei and dat. him, heom, horn, ham etc. This means at any rate that there were ME systems where the only borrowing from ON was pei.

389

This is easy to understand since homonymies were most drastic and disturbing in the nom.. In the dat. there was always a clear distinction between sg. fern, and pi., and sg. masc./neut. him could be well contrasted with pi. heom, hu(e)m, horn, hem etc. Furthermore nominatives are more inclined to operate with suppletive forms than oblique cases. What, however, was the pattern of development when the southern regions adopted pem in the dat. pi.? Was the northern loan form handed down and accepted from Northern Engl. dialects just like pei but at a later stage? pei had spread rapidly from the domain of bilingualism to more distant parts of the country; but in the case of pem the southern neighbours at first felt no need to imitate. But "suddenly", centuries later, they did - why? Is it not more likely that they restructured their system independently, and that the two forms pei - Jiem gave rise to the analogy: hem > pem after the model of pei to make the paradigm more uniform in the pi.. In this case Engl. them is not an immediate loan form from ON, but a reconstruction long after the period of bilingualism and far from its former home. We do not deny the possibility that the model of northern pem was simultaneously present, but we believe that the impulse for the new change came from the system itself. In the N pai/pei and paim/peim (and peir] were perhaps borrowed as part of the paradigm. Here pai-/pei- formed a suppletive base indicating 'pi.1 with the additional suffixes 0, -m, (-/·). Simultaneously when paim/peim were shortened to Pam/pem, the boundary was moved in favour of suffixes, i.e. to stronger differentiation between nom. and obi. (pei-0, pei-m > p-ei, p-em). Further south pei was initially merely a single suppletive form; as soon as hem was replaced by pem, p- was interpreted as a 'pi.' base with suffixes for cases. The widespread ModE (dialect) form em can be considered a descendant of hem rather than of them. 3.3. ON peir(r)a - ME pair/peir - ModE their In ON the genderless gen. pi. was peira (parallel to the OE dem. psra) or peirra; the geminated r/^form need not bother us here, since only peira seems to have been used for borrowing. In ME we find forms like thayre, pare with final -e, which we understand as

390

a regular ME weakening of the original -a; but also the -e was mostly dropped very early due to general apocope first occurring in unstressed words. In the vowel we have the same variants as in paim/peim, and roughly the same geographic distribution (cf. LALME I, maps 51-64): pair in the N alongside less frequent par(e), peir further south (some what denser than peim], and per, which is more common and reaches further north than peir. In the S the various Λ-forms are still very strongly represented, just as in the dat. pl. This means that peir, like pe(i)m, arrived much later than pei in the S, and that pe(i)m and pe(i)r developed and spread in parallel. This might seem surprising as the gen. of the pers. pron. had adopted the function of poss. pron. only. The paradigmatic (i.e. psycholinguistic) binding of the poss. pron. to the pers. pron. had, however, not (yet) been lost. There is a particularly close connection between the obi. and the poss., as Figure 6 can show: Figure 6:

nom. obi.

i(ch) me~

poss. mltn)

Comparison of poss. pron. and pers. pron. in ME (selected forms) (h)it

him

heo/she hir(e)

his

hir(e)/her(e)

his /pis') ur(e)

bu

he

be~

bi(a)

Mt

we us

£e eu/gou

heo /bei heom /beim

oure/qour

her(e)/beir(e)

The later analogical development of hit - his > it - its is additional evidence for this. The concept of having or re-establishing a common base p(e) for all pl. forms, including the poss., and to differentiate with suffixes is still at work here. With the vowel we cannot decide on the basis of sound developments whether the ModE form derives from peir or per, as both would yield [des]. English orthography has chosen their, a spelling which is not at all dominating in ME; ModE does thus not stress the connection with them in spite of their long parallel development. Summing up, we can say that, for the development of ModE, pei > they is not only the definite and immediate loan from Norse,

391

it is also the hinge for the whole series of changes; them and their seem to be essentially later internal English reconstructions on ME ground. 4. Other cases of suppletion and possible Norse influence Two of the main differences between the pers. pron. systems of OE and ModE are the reduction of the cases on the one hand, and the simultaneous change from inflection to greater suppletion on the other. One means of achieving greater suppletion was the special case of borrowing and remodelling in the pi. to contrast with the sg.; similarly, the demand for stronger differentiation was also present in the nom. sg. to distinguish the genders. What techniques were used here? Is it possible to find Norse influence here too? 4.1. ModE she It is particularly complex and partly debatable, but at any rate interesting how the nom. sg. fern. OE hio, heo found ways to suppletive forms, from which ModE she has become the standard. We have collected and summarized below various explanations found in the literature (cf. LINDKV1ST 1921, DIETH 1955, summarizing MOSSE 1969:83-84, DUNCAN 1972, MARKEY 1972, STANLEY/ROBBINS 1978) in order to evaluate them from our point of view. (a) In ME we find the direct descendants of the Α-forms, merely modified by regular sound change, mostly by weakening and reduction. LALME I, map 11, shows them most frequent in the W around Gloucestershire and scattered further S and N to Cheshire (a relic area along the Welsh border); these include the more traditional forms heo, hu(e), hoe (and huje). but also the more reduced (and homophonous) forms he(e), e (ha, a, hi(j), hy(e) ) - all of them geographically mixed (see LALME I, maps 10-20, for all 'she' forms). This very variety of forms, derived from the traditional base by more or less normal changes, indicates how unhappy the speakers were with this

392

pronoun and how they were looking for new solutions. (b) The OE diphthongs in hso, Ho or hie may have undergone a special phonological development: i.e. an accent and quantity shift as is well attested in certain ON (and Frisian) diphthongs. As a first stage we can reconstruct *h£o, hro, hie > heo, hid, hiS. These diphthongs, falling in tong height, seem to be very unstable ('unnatural'). They have the tendency to dissolve into a sequence of consonant φ plus simple stressed vowel by raising and tightening of the first component; the result would thus be *hj6, *hj£. Here we can already think of an interference between OE and Proto-Norse.The Scandinavians would have treated OE heo,hlo,hle according to their own Proto-Norse developments (Proto-Gmc. eu > eo/iu > ON jo/ju; e > ea > ON ja/JQ/ja); regardless of whether the OE diphthongs were incorporated early as diphthongs and experienced the regular Norse developments later, or whether they were immediately adapted to the ON yV-types by regular sound replacement at a later stage. A similar stress shift, producing yV-groups, is also attested for OE/ME: e.g. sow/low > ME jou etc. (2. pers. pi. obi.), eode > j(e)ode / jede ('went'); but this [jl was only preserved in initial position. After a consonant the φ disappeared, e.g. OE seofon > sufon ('seven'), OE deosan > ME choose. From this one could explain forms like ME hoe, hu in the W; and the rare southern forms with initial j(h)- (LALME /, map 20) may be another way to avoid the hj- group by dropping the h-. (c) In the Ν however, where hjV seems to be better preserved (by Norse speakers?), there were other possibilities to tackle this unusual sound group: these were perhaps already found within Anglo-Norse, similar to developments in other Norse languages. We can compare Icl. hjol, pronounced Lxjou:lL Such a Cx] development might explain the (rare) ME spelling cho, found scattered in the central regions. In Faroese and Norw. dialects we find further fronting and closing yielding the affricate Et/-], cf. Far. hjol [tJOull. In our pron. this would result in hypothetical forms like Ltfo:, tfe:L (d) With this background, we can imagine, that CJ] is also a solution to these difficulties, especially when Anglo-Saxons wished to imitate the pronunciation of their (bilingual)

393

Scandinavian neighbours: CJ"] is a favoured replacement of if this sound is lacking in the sound system, or if used in initial position (cf. German dial. Ci/l instead of [icl ich, nonstandard [Je'mi:] instead of [ce'mi:] Chemie). One could also imagine simplification from [tj*] to CJI in a highly frequent, mostly unstressed word. We have, at any rate in the N, place name developments of this type, both of ON and OE stock: e.g. the well-known example Shetland < ON Hjaltland, or Shipton < Yhupton (13th cent.) < OE *heope-Wn (cf. esp. ΟΙΕΤΉ 1955). This could also explain ME sho/she and consequently ModE she. An important factor is that the sho type is dominant in the N; the she type has a dense area in the Midlands and a scattering further S. The geographic distribution reminds us very much of that of northern pa(i)/pei(i) and the Λ^-emnants in the W and S (cf. maps 11 and 29). Tlie modern forms come from the N, from a region with intensive language contact. We can therefore speculate that she top is not simply a loan, but a product of language contact, possibly of complicated borrowing and reborrowing. From the case of she, quite independent of the language contact problem, we are able to draw one more conclusion about the origins of suppletion (and she has definitely become a further suppletive base): (6) Suppletion (or suppletive bases) can arise from former normal inflectional bases by "unusual", more or less unique sound changes. We already discussed the case of accumulation of regular sound change which can cause once-regular inflectional forms to become so different that the relationship between them is no longer clear according to synchronic rules. Here, however, we would like to distinguish the case where a sound change occurs which is from the very onset rare and restricted; or a sound change that once had a somewhat larger domain, but was levelled out elsewhere, except in such singular isolated cases where suppletion was useful and striven for. Similarly a very restricted, or even a lost local development can provide a form which is taken over into another dialect or into the standard language in order to create suppletion or stronger differentiation; we can think of examples like OE sne

394

> ME wone, ModE one [WAR], or German zwo (a former femjinstead of zwei to distinguish it more clearly from drei. We assume that the special changes that happen in a language contact situation can also create such strongly differentiated or even suppletive forms - she might be just such a case.6 That it was she and not sho that became the standard form may be due to purely geographical reasons: sho was further to the N, she was closer to the new center of London. Another factor may be that he and she form a rhyming pair. Pronominal paradigms are not only a favourite domain of extreme contrasts, but also of irregular correspondences (cf. PIKE 1965) which do not fit into the usual pattern of base and inflection. Once he and she are differentiated enough in their initial consonant, the vowel may be identical and signal an "iconic" similarity. We could take this special property of pronominal and other high-frequency paradigms as an additional item into our list of polarities: (F) A morphological paradigm can comprise general, regular correspondences (roots, bases according to the typological principles of agglutination, inflection...) - or singular, irregular correspondences of any parts of the expressions (often in contrast to the prevailing typological features). 4.2. ModE it A final measure to increase suppletion in the pers. pron. paradigm is the change from hit to it. This development is quite different and much easier to explain, but it is also a striking example of a further possibility and helps us to round off our considerations. In this case an unstressed variant which had lost its initial consonant was selected to become the new underlying form; this form contrasts with he, where the h- was preserved, and with she, where the anlaut was changed. We can classify this example under item (2) above, and consider it to a certain degree parallel with NHG hab-/ha-. The difference is that OHG haben first developed two complete paradigms, one with full forms and one with reduced forms which were shortened at the end of the

395

root: then a selection was made to form a new mixed paradigm. In our paradigm he - she - it only one individual form was shortened, and this shortening occurred at the beginning of the base. The effect of this is more drastic since it becomes a unique form with strong suppletion and without affixation, whereas ha/hab- are weakly suppletive variants which form bases for further suffixes. The dropping of the h-, which in this case has entered the standard language, is probably not due to Norse influence. On the contrary, a center of Λ-dropping in our pron. is found in the Southwest, especially around Gloucestershire, cf. ha/a, hi/i 'they* (maps 32, 36), han(e)/am 'them' (map 45), ha(r)r(e)/are 'their' (map 57). In the case of hit/it (maps 24-25) the much more widespread A-less forms are, however, remarkably located mostly towards the N, E (and S), i.e. also in the former Danelaw. In respect of geography and linguistic mechanisms, therefore, this change has nothing in common with the loans of they/them/their and the language contact phenomena in she. Tlie common denominator of the developments and the selections in the standard language is, however, the goal of producing suppletion. 4.3. ModE he Before we draw our general conclusions from this, we should not forget to consider the masc. he, which seems to have experienced no change at all. In spite of this we can also observe here a shift from inflection to suppletion, since all the surrounding forms have changed. The initial h- is no longer the base of the whole pers. pron. 3. pers. At most one could consider it one of the suppletive bases with further affixes (cf. h-im, h-is, h-er). In the nom. it is a separate base on its own as a result of the changes in she, it, and Ihey. The form itself has not changed, but its surroundings and thus its own structural status has. We can thus postulate a further source of suppletion: (7) Suppletion can be brought about by the isolation of an inflectional form from its former parallels in the paradigm.

396

5. Summary and conclusions. In the development of the system of the pers. pron. 3. pers. we have seen changes of various origin and of quite different mechanisms. Most of the changes are individual ones, they appear to be unsystematic or even "exotic"; to a high degree they belong to peripheral, irregular or locally-restricted developments which have notoriously caused problems in their linguistic explanation. They are not changes in the main stream of a linguistic system, as found prototypically in our "sound laws", but are rather interferences from outside, from other dialects or even from foreign languages. We can also safely presume that the developments which we can observe are only a small fraction of the possibilities: they are the somewhat more definite output following many trials and errors and short-term solutions. Now, if we consider that all these individual events occur within a very central part of the linguistic system, in the very core of a grammar, i.e. in the pronoun system: Is this not a paradox? I do not think it is, we must merely recognize the guiding principles and the rationale of our languages and their developments. Instead of postulating a basic uniformity in language which can be "disturbed" (i.e. the theory of "Natural Morphology" according to MAYERTHALER 1981 etc.), we should look for a consistent and comprehensive theory of language change that explains this non-uniform behaviour. I believe we come closer to a good explanatory theory if we take general principles of economy into account. The central idea is that elements and combinations which are frequently used should be treated differently than elements with lower frequency and occurring in varying combinations. Personal pronouns certainly belong to the elements with the highest frequency. Here it is advantageous to have short, welldifferentiated expressions for many of the categories. The extreme way of achieving this is through suppletion. It is a matter of balance, depending on different factors, to what degree speakers can afford to have strong suppletion without inflection, or to use more moderate compromises like weak suppletion, suppletion plus inflection, or just one regular base with affixes. When suppletion is desirable, however, every possibility will be used to achieve it: those which the existing system allows, and those which are

397

within reach and are offered from outside. Our case is a very disparate one, full of peripheral and random developments with difficult explanations if we consider the problem from the different origins; if, however, we consider the guiding principles, the purpose and the goals, the developments turn out to be quite uniform, sensible and easy to understand, with fully expected and regular results. Footnotes 1

I should like to thank Matthew Wyneken and particularly Stephen Howe for numerous corrections and improvements of mv English text. I am also very grateful to Dr. Lilo Moessner, wno suggested several improvements with regard to the data and their interpretation.

2

Pilch seems to proceed somewhat in this direction, when he writes "Die Pronomina gliedern sich morphologisch nicht in Morpheme wie Stamm und Endung, sondern in Formantien..." (PILCH 1970: 119-21) and uses hyphens in the following way: h-e, h-e-o, h-i, h-i-e, h-i-s, h-i-m, but curiously enough h-it rather than h-i-t (due to unmentioned diachronic reasons?)

3

A certain tendency to replace ModE it by that in many syntactic contexts can, however, also be found in ModE dialects in the N of East Anglia (cf. ORTON et al. 1978, map 73); as Stephen Howe, a native speaker of this dialect area, informs me, the usage is more widespread than the map indicates. The question arises, whether this is a trace of Norse influence - the area was indeed for a short time part of the Danelaw - or an autonomous English development. Since LALME (cf. maps 24-25) has no traces of this, an early Norse origin appears to be improbable.

4

A process of this kind incorporating a foreign element into a native paradigm of highly frequent forms in order to create suppletion is certainly not unique. Ms. Damans Niibling has brought to my attention the case of the verb 'to so in Engadin-Romansh (Pute>), where German loans are used beside traditional Rpmansh forms: inf: ir, pres. sg. vegn, vest, vo pi. giains (!), giais (\)tvaun; imperf. giaiva (!) etc. (see GANZONI 1983: 108-110). We notice the differences to our ME paradigm: This is certainly also a case of bilingualism; the source

398

language is, however not closely related to the receiving one. Ana the paradigm here is that of a full verb, not of a pronoun. 5

In quotation marks we use the representative spelling of the LALME "dot maps", vol. /; the entries in the "item maps", vol. 7: 212-26 are closer to the manuscript forms, e.g. ey, etc.>

6

From the feministic search of an explanation we can at any rate accept the idea that she is the higher marked form in comparison to he (STANLEY and ROBBINS' J1978)). Already OE he-o had an additional affix as against he-, and in the later developments the fern. sg. had experienced many more particular and rare innovations, while he remained unchanged. One might understand this as a mere mechanistic consequence of the sound group heo; since, however, these sound changes are rather exceptional we have again the principle at work that 'feminine' is "something special" in comparison to normal, unmarked 'masculine', which can also serve as unspecified 'human'. (By the way and not quite seriously: is it so hard for our feminists to endure the notion that it is the woman, who is considered to be "special, exceptional" who receives more attention, causes more efforts?) - A relation similar to that of 'masc. (simple) - fern, (complicated)' is, however, that of 'sg. (with traditional forms) - pi. (with innovations)' in our pronouns. Thus 'masc. /male - fem./female' is just a special case of the more general principle of 'normal/frecjuent special/less frequent' and thus of economy. - Markey's (1972) explanation of she as a former sequence of two pronouns se + je, which is the most complicated one so far presented, has the advantage of a possible Frisian parallel; all this is, however, mere reconstruction.

References ANDERSON, Peter (1987): A structural atlas of the English dialects. London: Groom Helm. BJÖRKMAN, Erik (1900-1902): Scandinavian loan-words in Middle English, Parts I + II. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.

399

—

(1901): Zur dialektischen Provenienz der nordischen Lehnwörter im Englischen. Spräkvetenskapliga sällskapets i Upsala förhandlingar 1897-1900, Upsala Universitets Arsskrift 1900. Upsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln. BORETZKY, Norbert, Werner ENNINGER and Thomas STOLZ (eds.) (1987): Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren. Bochum: Brockmeyer. BRUNNER, Karl 3(1953): Abriß der mittelenglischen Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. — 3(i965). Altenglische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DIETH, Eugen (1955): "Hips: A geographical contribution to the 'she' puzzle." English Studies 36:209-217. DUNCAN, Pauline (1972): "Forms of the feminine pronoun in Modern English dialects." In: Martyn F. WAKELIN (ed.): Patterns in the folk speech of the British Isles. London: Athlone Press: 182-200. GANZONI, Gian Paul 2(1983): Grammatica ladina, Samedan: Lia Rumantscha. HAIMAN, John (1985): Natural syntax. Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: University Press. JESPERSEN, Otto 9(1938): Growth and structure of the English language. Leipzig: Teubner. KISBYE, Torben (1985): "Danelagen - sprogstruktur, befolkningsstruktur". In: Hans BEKKER-NIELSEN and Hans Frede NIELSEN (ed.): Beretning fra F0rste tvaerfaglige vikingsymposium. H0jbjerg: hikuin: 43-66. KRAHE, Hans 1961): Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Bd. II: Formenlehre, Berlin: de Gruyter. LALME (1986): Angus McINTOSH, M. L. SAMUELS and Michael BENSKIN: A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, vols. 1-4, Aberdeen: University Press. LINDKVIST, Harald (1921): On the origin and history of the English pronoun she." Anglia 45:1-50.

400 LÜDTKE, Helmut (1980): "Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels." In: Helmut LÜDTKE (ed.): Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin: de Gruyter: 182-252. MARKEY, T. L. (1972): "West Germanic he/er - hiu/siu and English "she". Journal of English and Germanic Philology 71:390-405. MAYERTHALER, Willy (1981): Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. MOORE, Samuel and Albert MARGKWA.RDT (1963): Historical outlines of English sounds and inflections. Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr. MOSSE, Fernand (1969): Handbuch des Mittelenglischen. München: Hueber. (Transl. from French original). NOREEN, Adolf 5(1970): Altnordische Grammatik I, Tübingen: Niemeyer. ORTON, Harold, Stewart SANDERSON and John WIDDOWSON (1978): The Linguistic Atlas of England. London: Groom Helm. PAGE, R.J. (1987): Runes. London: British Museum Publications. PIKE, Kenneth L. (1965): "Non-linear order and anti-redundancy in German morphological matrices". Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 32:193-221. PILCH, Herbert (1970): Altenglische Grammatik. München: Hueber. POUSSA, Patricia (1982): "The evolution of Early Standard English: The creolization hypothesis." Studia Anglica Posnaniensia U:69-85. RONNEBERGER-SIBOLD, Elke (1980): Sprachverwendung Sprachsystem. Ökonomie und Wandel. Tübingen: Niemeyer. — (1987): "Verschiedene Wege zur Entstehung von suppletiven Flexionsparadigmen. Deutsch gern - lieber - am liebsten1. In: BORETZKY et al (ed.): 243-264. SAMUELS, M.L. (1985): "The great Scandinavian belt". In: Roger EATON. Olga FISCHER, Willem KOOPMAN and Frederike VAN DER LEEK (eds.): Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 249-261.

401

SMITH,

A.H. (1956): English place-name elements, part I. Cambridge: University Press. STANLEY, Julia P. and Susan W. ROBBINS (1978): "Going through the changes: The pronoun 'she' in Middle English." Papers in Linguistics 11:71-88. Vikingerne i England og hjemme i Danmark (1981). Ed. by The Anglo-Danish Viking Project. London. (Parallel to an English edition). WERNER, Otmar (1977): "Suppletivwesen durch Lautwandel". In: Gabereil DRACHMAN (ed.): Akten der 2. Salzburger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik. Tübingen: Narr: 269-283. — (1984): "Prinzipien und Methoden historischer Morphologie". In: Werner BESCH, Oskar REICHMANN and Stefan SONDEREGGER (ed.): Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: de Gruyter: 535-545. — (1987): "Natürlichkeit und Nutzen morphologischer Irregularität". In: BORETZKY et al. (ed.): 289-316.

SCANDINAVIAN ENGLISH: A CREOLE IN CONTEXT John Hines Introduction The following paper contains a proposal of the case that the development of "Scandinavian English" can be seen to have been part of a wider process of historical and cultural development in the 9th and 10th centuries. By Scandinavian English is meant the variety of English language extensively marked by Scandinavian influence, primarily in the vocabulary, after the Scandinavian settlements in England of the Viking Period. In this case it appears that the integrated cultural system can be seen as standing in a structurally deeper, or systemically determinant place in relation to the linguistic system, and that the language change is a subordinate aspect of cultural history. In presenting this case it nevertheless seems appropriate to survey the linguistic data per se before the contextual data, if only to underline the point that problems arising from approaching language history as an autonomous system can in this instance be satisfactorily resolved by reference to the wider context. 1. The standard view Canonical historians of the English language, such as Jespersen, Baugh and Strang, have largely agreed on the main lines of a description of this Scandinavian influence within English language (v. JESPERSEN 1938: §§ 57-80; BAUGH 1938: §§ 67-80; STRANG 1970: §§ 139, 176 and 188). It is perhaps the age of this consensus that has led to some apathy towards the subject in recent times. Strang tells the tale in a formal and pedagogic manner. The material evidence which stands at the centre of the standard view is the lexical interference effected by Scandinavian upon English, with items introduced in the form of "loanwords", more or less assimilated to the English phonological system, and caiques, and

404

semantic interference with cognate or similar words. Scanning more searching studies of the topic we can find rather disconnected and usually quite tentative suggestions of Scandinavian influence upon late Old or early Middle English developments in inflectional morphology, syntax and phonology (e.g. FISIAK 1977; POUSSA 1985), but it is the lexis which provides the clearest and most substantial evidence of such influence. Particular attention has understandably been paid to the implication of especially intimate Scandinavian association with English through the introduction or modification of "basic vocabulary": what Jespersen calls "commonplace terms" and Baugh "form words". This includes words such as the personal pronouns ik, they(-) and possibly she, the conjunctions ok and t>oh, affirmative and negative adverbs aye (see below) and nay, and basic-term nouns and verbs such as bark, die, egg, give, kill, leg and skin (SWADESH 1971: esp. 283; HOCK 1986: 215). Although a well-defined and familiar set of problems form quite a large set of words which may or may not be Scandinavian introductions (BJÖRKMAN 1900: 8-13), it is clear that the Scandinavian element in the vocabulary of English texts datable up to the middle of the 12th century, including the last continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle, is small - in all perhaps no more than 100 different items - but turns a watershed and expands rapidly in the Ormulum (S. Lines, c.1175), the texts of the AB group (Herefordshire, c.1200) and subsequently. Mclntosh (1978) has estimated that over 1,000 Scandinavian derived items may be found in Middle English texts, and it is reasonable to view the appearance of these words as defining, lexically, the transition from Old to Middle English. There can be no serious support for any notion that these words were borrowed into English from a relic archaic-Norse speaking community in England as its Norse dialect died out in the late 12th century (cf. GORDON 1957: 327-9). Such a community might have existed, but its capacity to insinuate its language so widely into English when on the point of death is on the evidence of analogy alone highly improbable. The obscurity of the exact dating of Scandinavian sound changes before the 12th century and the degree to which such sound changes vary from region to region limit the contribution which phonological chronology can make to a dating of the movement of words from the one language-system to the other. Nevertheless in some cases

405

the phonological state of Scandinavian words adopted in English would appear to indicate a relatively early date of borrowing, as early even as the 9th century rather than the 10th. The obvious form of the loanword adopted as an English strong feminine noun lagu, 'law' is the PrSc neuter plural *lagu (ON lQg\ with final -u preserved, a form that would not conventionally be expected long after circa 800 (SEIP 1955: 25; M. BARNES, pers.comm.). An equally early form is implied if ME aghtle/eghtle represent PrSc *ahtila and *ehtla before the assimilation of -hi- to -it- (SEIP 1955: 28). Initial w- is preserved before r in OE wrang (ON rangr). Evidence of the loss of such w- is found in alliterating words in skaldic poetry as early as the 9th century, but conversely alliteration in some 10th-century verse indicates the retention of the w- (SEIP 1955: 48). The scarcity with which the assimilation of the consonant groups -mp-, -nk- ,and -nt- or the East Scandinavian monophthongization of ei > e: and au > ft are represented in English have been cited as evidence of early forms (GORDON 1957: 327-8, KOLB 1969; KISBYE 1982: 76-7). These features may indeed represent early borrowing, even though they are not uniform in Scandinavia, as one is characteristic of West Scandinavian and one of East: the diagnostic value of one of the changes may be negated by assuming the dominance of one branch of Scandinavian, but not both. There is certainly nothing in the phonology to contradict the standard historical view that on the whole Scandinavian words found a place in a Scandinavian-influenced variety of English by the early llth century, perhaps at the latest within the reign of Knutr. From then, until Orm wrote, it is supposed that they remained 'hidden* in a subliterary variant; subliterary because of its intellectual and social status, and because of the dominance of southern England, where Scandinavian settlement was minimal, in the production of vernacular texts in this period. 2. Towards an explanation: the first stage This standard view stands open both to a degree of correction as regards literary inactivity in northern and eastern England, and to a considerable degree of sophistication when looked at in the light of recently collected, analogical sociolinguistic data and models

406

derived therefrom. It is one thing to describe the intimate mixing of English and Scandinavian language in specific detail but quite another to explain it. Jespersen rhetorically alluded to a wider context of intimacy in social relations between settlers and natives and implicitly to cognate similarity between them: "They fought like brothers and afterwards settled down peacefully, like brothers, side by side." (JESPERSEN 1938: § 77). Nowadays, to move from context to linguistic product like this demands some systematic, sociolinguistic explanation. Jespersen implies the mixed language was an evolved or created mark of fraternity, a balanced compromise with a degree of give and take like that which may be seen in the political treaty between Alfred and Guthrum in 878: Guthrum accepts baptism; Alfred can then recognize his rule over half of England (SMYTH 1977: 245-54). For all it makes specific this sort of statement by Jespersen could as well represent the fanciful notion of some sort of lexical Academy partitioning the lexicon like the island was partitioned between Saxons and Danes as represent any model paths of linguistic development associated with historical context. Baugh described the Scandinavian elements introduced into English as "such as would make their way into it through the give and take of everyday life". Later, ingenuously or disingenuously, he avoids closer explanation: "Lists .. suggest better than any explanation the familiar, everyday character of the words" (BAUGH 1959: § 75). The details of the processes are left to the reader to infer. One explanation of Jespersen's and Baugh's perceptions is that Scandinavian language in Britain was worn down by the dominant English language. No effort need necessarily have been made by the folk of Scandinavian-speaking communities to transfer to English. As the languages were fundamentally similar a sense of their separate autonomy could have been weak, and thus resistance to the loss of one to the other may also have been weak. In such circumstances of atrophy basic vocabularly could be expected to survive longest from the disappearing language, and in this case would be capable of being preserved in a final amalgam of the dominant and subordinate languages because the similarity of the two languages rendered it syntactically adaptable and relatively unmarked. As Werner shows (this volume), forms available from the Scandinavian language-stock could have been functionally useful in solving problems developing within the structure of English.

407

Scandinavian influence within the English language was not, however, restricted to basic vocabulary, and an alternative, two-part model of Scandinavian-English linguistic relations can be proposed which is more closely linked to specific phases of cultural history and which arguably deals better with the totality of detectable Scandinavian influence. The Scandinavian element within basic vocabulary could have arisen from the Scandinavian colonists exercising a linguistic dominance commensurate with their military success in the earliest decades of the settlement. In the context of language contact basic vocabulary is identifiable with the limited lexis of a primary pidgin language, which in model terms is an uncomplicated second language developed and used for communication between speakers of mutually incommunicable languages (cf. ROMAINE 1988: 33-8, on the limited lexis. Pervasive polysemity, on which Romaine concentrates here is a complicating factor, but does not detract from the essential point being made here.) Pidgins form one well-attested class of linguistic code restricted to simple surface (and perhaps deep) structural character. Bernstein noted a set of linguistic features very similar to those usually listed as typical of a model pidgin as characteristic of a demotic mode of linguistic behaviour which he labelled public language at an early stage in his work on linguistic usage associated with social class in Britain (BERNSTEIN 1971: 23-60 and 134-5). It is sufficient for the present purpose that a priori and a posteriori views on the needs in terms of word classes of basic, utilitarian language coincide: the vocabulary which meets the best and perhaps only pragmatic day-to-day needs of communication. Cassidy (1971) for instance has listed a series of priorities for pidginization: firstly to establish identities in a personal pronoun system; then to establish interrogative markers (not necessarily verbal) and yes/no answers; and thirdly to establish the names of things in a list of basic concepts, with nouns followed by verbs and then adjectives. Following this list from the start gives us a clear impression of the weight of Scandinavian influence in basic vocabulary. In the personal pronouns recorded forms ik, hanum and they(-} are derived from Scandinavian, and parts of the paradigms of ic, fru and we are effectively indistinguishable between Scandinavian and English. A new form she/sho arises in the Scandinavian settled areas (cf. MED s.v. ich, HOFMANN 1955 § 327; McINTOSH et al.

408

1987: vol. 1, maps 10-20 and 28-64). Only the second person plural pronoun, English j£, eow{-) > jow(-) remains quite different from Scan-dinavian (fr-)er, ydr etc. It is unclear at what stage the form aye developed the meaning 'yes', or that it is necessarily derived from Scandinavian ei, but it forms such an obvious pair with nay < Scandinavian nei that some degree of relatedness is probable, and the form could long have lain hidden in subliterary usage. The occasional jea/ia in Old and Middle English can however arise independently of Scandinavian influence (cf. OED s.v. Aye and Yea). Bernstein notes a frequent use of conjunctions in his 'public language': we may note the adaptation of Scandinavian ok to the adversative role of English ac, 'but', while and maintains the additive role (MED s.v. ok). Thus the most restricted variety of speech one might expect to find in regular use probably existed at least in the heart of the Danelaw, in Yorkshire, the East Midlands and Norfolk, in a form or forms that were heavily marked by Scandinavian items. It is possible that Scandinavian English first arose in such form, as a basic common medium of communication between different-language speakers in the early stages of contact, fulfilling very much the functional character of a model pidgin. It would certainly appear improbable that these items of basic vocabulary were carried by originally Scandinavian-speaking folk into an interlanguage in which English were the target language (FISIAK 1977); in such cases one would expect basic vocabulary to be the first elements of the target language to be mastered, so that in this specific case the data would rather imply that Scandinavian were the target for originally English-speaking folk. However, a model sequence of pidginization, creolization and decreolization does not fit the observable impact of Scandinavian language upon English at all well, or the development of Old into Middle English. The classic types of structural simplification of model pidgins, for instance affecting inflectional morphology, analytical syntax and phonological oppositions (THAUGOTT 1973; KAY and SANKOFF 1974), cannot be found in the history of English in this period at a sufficiently substantial volume which is definitely attributable to Scandinavian influence. On the contrary, the intrinsic similarity of Scandinavian and English may have preserved certain complexities such as a dative plural morpheme in -urn, which was reducing to [-an] in the south and south-west (POUSSA 1985: 250 n.6). There is a

409

general problem here in that English, in common with most Germanic languages, drifts from synthetic to analytical syntax throughout the Middle Ages, and thus there are a variety of developments that might conceivably represent a process akin to pidginization - such as the reduction in variety of verbal inflection - but which reflect no demonstrable Scandinavian influence. A similar situation holds for phonology. A case has been made for a barrier to the spread of the voicing of initial fricatives (producing, for instance, COeet] > Loeetl) around the Scandinavian-settled areas, although it is hard to see the resulting phonological systems on the one side of the subsequent dialect boundary as in any significant degree quantifiably more simple than the other (POUSSA 1985). If there were a first-level, lexically mixed or even predominantly Scandinavian contact language as suggested here, then the intrinsic similarity, phonologically and morphologically, between English and Scandinavian provides a ready explanation of the absence of extensive signs of model pidginization. 3. Lexical strata in 10th- to 12/13th-century texts English texts produced from the 10th to the mid 12th centuries appear to reveal a linguistic system in which Scandinavian-derived items belong properly to utilitarian and/or demotic lects. The dominant role of topic in governing the appearance of Scandinavian influence is forcefully evident. Two topics in particular see the substantial early adoption of Scandinavian words into literary English: social relations, from the law down to domestic terms; and seafaring. This is such well-beaten ground that there is no need to dwell upon it. The Northumbrian glosses of the second half of the 10th century, ascribed to the composition of one Aldred, in the Lindisfarne Gospels and Durham Ritual Book (KER 1943, and 1957: 144-6 and 215-6; KENDRICK et al. 1956-60; BROWN et al. 1969), are an illuminating source for the function of Scandinavian influenced language within the linguistic and especially the literary system. A list of fourteen plausible loanwords in these glosses can be drawn up (see Table 1 in the Appendix) (cf. ROSS 1942; HOFMANN 1955: §§ 232-54). What is most interesting is the way

410

in which they are used as glosses. Nearly all are gloss Latin words for which English alternatives are also used. Only sacloas for securus, flege for culex and efne for materia are glosses in which only a Scandinavian-derived word is used for a particular Latin one, but in these cases the Latin words concerned occur just once or twice, dearf/dearfscip are used a little more frequently than their English alternates dyrstig, fore-onfong and bseldo for audax, praesumptor and temeritas. The remainder of the words in the list appear less frequently than native English alternates. The noun dre§I does appear extensively for servus, but esne is clearly preferred, and where dr&l appears paired with esne as a gloss, or the less frequent dea, it is usually in second place. Similarly Scandinavian ge-eggedon once follows English ge-weehton in glossing concitaverunt (COOK 1894). Aldred's apparent purpose in providing alternative glosses varies (cf. THOMPSON and LINDELÖF 1927, Ivi-lxxv). In some cases one apparently has, simply, a pair of synonyms. In other cases alternative translations are being offered. The nearest we get to a variant translation with a 'Scandinavian* alternative is in Mark V.3 where domicilium (Authorised Version: 'dwelling') is translated bus [veJI lytelo bfe, 'house or tin a] small farmstead'. Scandinavian-derived brydlopa is clearly a particularly appropriate word for glossing nuptiae: of the alternates used in the Lindisfarne Gospels, fserma and geriord would do for any feast, and helmed primarily means 'coitus', at best justified as pars pro toto. In Matthew XXII however, the first gloss of nuptias is da feermo [veJl brydlopa, after which fserma alone is used in the rest of the chapter (SKEAT ed. 1871-77). Curiously the Durham Ritual glosses use only gimunge, a word which seems to be used quite regularly in English for the marriage feast, for nuptiae. This word occurs in all three times in the Ritual, on folios 51-52. The glossator may be seen here to be subject to conflicting pressures: to produce a vernacular gloss that is fitting in terms of the language used but that at the same time is readily comprehensible. Alternative glosses placed in second place are unlikely to be words that should be less familiar to the reader of the gloss, words the glossator is taking the opportunity to teach the reader; if anything they should be more familiar, ensuring that the meaning is not missed or mistaken. That at the same time they fall into a set of words that are used more sparingly than certain

411

alternates can be explained through their being words familiar through speech but of dubious normative status. The use of these words in the Northumbrian glosses may thus imply that Scandinavian-derived items bore a greater load in the spoken language of the community the glosses were produced in and for than would appear if their functional load were measured by quantity in the text. As interpreted here, the evidence of these glosses flatly contradicts Gorlach's assertion that at this time the Scandinavian and Anglian dialects in England were "of similarly low prestige and largely unused in written form", upon which he bases a model of adstratal language mixing (GÖRLACH 1986: esp, 338). Hofmann was dismissive of some items which had been taken or mistaken as examples of Scandinavian loanwords in these glosses which may nevertheless be significant examples of commonality or convergence between language in 10th-century Northumbria and Scandinavia. The term convergence is used here to represent a particular process, not the result of a variety of possible processes: the success or emergence of similar or equivalent items within languages in contact as a result of their contact rather than their transference from the one to the other or the more selective processes producing a classic koine (HOCK 1986: 485-512). The common form hundrad, 'hundred' is rightly better explained as a native development from the normal English form hundred ( or -a] in words or syllables typically under low stress; mid and ard are regular for mid and art, normal hwset appears frequently as h weed, often as hwsedt and once as hwsetd; nonce forms ad for set and somed for samod (the latter in the Rushworth2 Gospels) are also recorded. The form mid is recorded once as early as the late 7th- or early 8th-century Mercian Epinal Glossary (SWEET ed. 1883, 19 coll. E-F line 30: pictus acu - mid needlse asiuuid. On need! needle' see CAMPBELL 1959: § 423. On the date, see PARKES 1988). Graphic confusion of and in the glosses is minimal and can be discounted in these cases. An identical process of lenition affects the development of medieval Scandinavian, with, for instance, h vat > hvad, (h)vad and hva and at > ad. These variants do not become generalized in Scandinavia before the 13th century,

412

but a runic inscription from H0nen, Norway, as best it can be interpreted and dated, apparently provides evidence for the change at > af> within the first half of the llth century (SEIP 1955: 51 and 182; HAUGEN 1976-. 205; OLSEN 1951: 23-68). It is not unreasonable to suggest that both languages may have had a tendency to lenition in these positions, which was catalyzed by their contact. A particular connection and similarities between Anglian English and Scandinavian may have been unbroken from time immemorial before these forms appear (cf. HINES 1984: esp.299-300,but also NIELSEN 1981: 223-58); it seems unnecessarily negative to regard these developments as unconnected and entirely coincidental. The a of the second syllable in Northumbrian hundrad, as in Scandinavian, where se or e is to be expected in English, is a remaining problem. The form hundrasd does in fact occur once. The spelling with is quite regular, and even extended to the less common forms in final < - d > , hundrad. Assimilation to Scandinavian hundrad is possible, perhaps probable. A different problem is posed by a single spelling tid (JOHN XIX, 14) for normal tid, 'time': not a word one would expect typically to carry low stress. A lapse towards the Scandinavian form preserving Germanic final -d is conceivable here, although in this case simple error is rather more credible. Hofmann also dismissed the form by, glossing doniiciliuin, as a Scandinavian form on the inconsequent grounds that Scandinavian bfr, 'farmstead' is an incorrect translation, and that by is a native form derived from the verb used regularly to gloss habitare and possidere in the glosses, bfa, normal OE boan (1955: §247). It would appear possible for bya to derive independently in Northumbrian English, for instance from bo- + suffix -Jan. 'to make a homestead'. Hofmann suggests "spontane Palatalisierung in Auslaut und Hiatus" (HOFMANN 1955: §247). As an Old (or derived Middle) English verb it is recorded only in these Northumbrian glosses. A noun by from this source is simply not adequate to explain a place-name element so common in the English Danelaw, and in southern and eastern Scandinavia. Even if the verb bya is not in origin an assimilation of native baa to an introduced, related noun bf (a simple and adequate explanation), it is difficult to conceive of its regularity in these glosses as entirely unconnected to the introduction of the new noun, even though the verb did not survive into the Middle English period as the noun

413

did. Old English baan similarly goes out of use. Whatever the actual stories in any of these cases, it is clear in principle that the intrinsic similarity between Anglian English and Scandinavian languages might well encourage forms of mutual convergence. The strong constraint arguably exercised by traditional lexical norms upon Aldred in the 10th century may appear to weaken a little in the late Old English Chronicle, particularly in the Peterborough Annals and those sections of the D MS dealing with Margaret of Scotland. Here can be found occurrences of Scandinavian-derived items corresponding to speech behaviour within the 'post-creole continuum', the scale of lects between deep creole and standard, described by Bickerton (1973). Bickerton noted that most deviance from predicted usage was backwards: that is, in the form of lapses in the occasional use of low-status words in place of available higher-status alternatives. Such seems likely to be the character of the one use of stor, 'large' (ON storr] rather than micel to describe a great thundering in the E MS of the Chronicle for 1085. The first occurrence of the adjective bathe, 'both' (ON bädir) is in the final continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle: it is used there once, as is the alternative surviving normal Old English beien. Scandinavian English tacen, 'take' (ON taka) is still used less frequently than OE niman in the two final continuations of the Peterborough Chronicle, but rather than appearing as momentary lapses occurs more in concentrated stretches of discourse, which in themselves are coherent in tone in this sense for what we might call a paragraph or so. The drift towards Middle English norms in these continuations is exemplified by the regularized use of oc, 'but', bop{-) (ON froh) and (once) fra, 'from' (EARLE and PLUMMER (eds.) 1892). The Ormulum may have been written within a dozen miles of Peterborough, no more than twenty years after the close of the Peterborough Chronicle (PARKES 1983). The shift in literary linguistic norms however is substantial, including the use of Scandinavian-derived vocabulary. There are about 150 items of this kind in the Ormulum (BRATE 1884). There are about 100 in the texts of the AB group, dated circa 1200 and provenanced in Herefordshire. About 80% of these items are examples not previously recorded in Old English, including the whole Peterborough Chronicle. One might suppose a common and simple process to be involved here, with the archaic norms of literary Old

English eventually superseded by forms closer to contemporary colloquial usage, with possibly too a degree of emphasis on the value of the demotic 'creole' in face of French overlordship. This supposition is probably too simple. Certainly there is an increased drawing upon Scandinavian-influenced English of previously non-literary character, but we are not necessarily in these Middle English texts simply seeing more of a demotic basilect. The linguistic system revealed is complex. As one aspect, more of the type of basic vocabulary discussed already is revealed, for instance in the regular use of jtejj, pejyn and />ejjre, or no wit and bule (ON naut and buli) rather than the reflexes of OE neat and bulluca, by Orm, and the first appearence of nay here, in the AB texts, and at the same time in The Owl and the Nightingale and possibly La3amon. Another aspect, however, is the appearance of Scandinavian-derived items which greatly exceed the observed bounds of superficially simple or restricted linguistic modes. The adjectives and adverbs adopted within written Old English are generally of a rigid or unexpressive character (Table 2), a predictable feature of restricted, utilitarian language (cf. BERNSTEIN 1971: 42). In Orm and the AB group are found Scandinavian-derived qualifiers and epithets that involve a degree of personal evaluation, such as Scandinavian goligr, s!0gr and mjukr, the latter a common word in these religious texts (Table 3). The adverb heepelij occurs in Orm only in the phrase laetenn heepeli^, 'to regard with scorn', which might plausibly represent an unrecorded but possible Scandinavian construction implying the analysis, inference or attribution of attitude: lata hsediliga. The adjectives gra and bla(-) in the AB-group maintain the sinister connotations of Scandinavian grar and blär rather than being colour terms. The stylistic use of such terms in these texts too looks like something very different from a mere relaxation into a colloquial mode. Orm commonly places the more obviously expressive adjectives in rhetorical strings of pairs or triplets of semantically equivalent adjectives, usually combined with original English forms (Table 4): a good example is trigg (ON tryggr), which appears three times, always in the phrase trigg 7 trowwe. In passing one may note that skir (ON skirr, 'bright') seems to have become confused with sker (ON skaerr, 'clear'), which is an Old English adoption in a legalistic sense of 'uninvolved'. hajherr occurs just

415

twice, in the formula hajherr hunte. In the case of these pairs of synonyms one may feel that we have almost the opposite of the case of Aldred the glossator, who may reinforce the sense of his translation with an unmistakable, familiar term: bejjsc/-k, braf), radd, and sieh as used could rather be explained by their associated native equivalents, and be used for the joint purposes of rhetorical rhythm and creating pleonastic opulence; they are not needed, but emphasize the richness of the author's wordhoard by their unexpected occurrence. A veritable indulgence in the use of a large and varied vocabulary is a feature of the style of the AB group, with French and Latin adoptions to match or overmatch the Scandinavian-derived forms, and four of the rare English adoptions from Welsh (ZETTERSTEN 1965: 275-83). Adjectives seem best to represent this rich and expressive range of vocabulary, a point which in another context might be taken as support for Bernstein's implication that this word-class may be especially diagnostic of more or less restricted modes. Orm uses a number of nouns of Scandinavian origin on an occasional basis amongst equivalent English nouns, but of these only nape, 'grace' (ON nad) used once instead of English jj'/e is convincingly diagnostic of an exclusively sophisticated level of discourse. Sowppess (pi., ON saudr), 'sheep* appears once beside several examples of the predictable English shep, as does /ojfte (ON logi) beside fir, 'fire': apparently examples of Scandinavian-derived items creating pleonastic duplication of terms in what would otherwise be regarded as basic vocabulary. Likewise the Scandinavian-derived verbs dejenn, gangenn and gifenn, 'die', 'go' and 'give' are still used in Orm less frequently than their English equivalents swelltenn, gan and yfeon (HOLT (ed.) 1878). A model of the interaction of Scandinavian and English language in the Viking Period may then distinguish lects at two levels at least: a level of basilectal, restricted and utilitarian language produced by a shift in Old English targeted upon Scandinavian or containing the residue of the atrophy of Scandinavian under English dominance, and a higher level in which English is the dominant, lexifier language but within which Scandinavian items also carry definitive status. In the case inferred here the expansion of mixed language usage into more elaborate forms (= decreolization: on this as a matter of synchronic relations or diachronic development, see below) implies an expansion in both

416

English and Scandinavian vocabulary: both language stocks have or retain some measure of normative, target status. However, there is no evidence for a full scale of lects decreolizing towards acrolectal Old Norse* as there is, apparently, a full range of more or less anglicized French and possibly Latin in later medieval England (BAILEY and MAROLDT 1977; WARNER 1982). TTiis implies that Scandinavian did not maintain any dominant position at all levels of this system, and as we shall see this is best explained by postulating two chronological phases of development. The supposition of a simple transition from Scandinavian to a dominant or targeted Old English is problematic, partly in face of the maintenance of Scandinavian elements in basic vocabulary but especially with regard to the place of Scandinavian-derived items in the more expressive range. The complete absence of the characteristic forms of the richer variety of Scandinavian English from written Old English indicates that this variety was not located in the middle range of a single scale of lects between a mixed basilect and a pure acrolect, but stood perhaps as an alternative acrolect. One must remain cautious by considering the problems of dating the formation of either of these ranges. As far as phonological relative chronology goes there is no evidence on which to divide the two, but amongst the significant forms noted here from the higher range the only unrepresented Scandinavian sound change is the shift of stress in the diphthong of *meuk- > mjukr, neither an easily datable nor necessarily very early change (HAUGEN 1976: 154). There is no philological reason why this whole system should not have been formed in the 9th and 10th centuries, and dates later than the early llth century are increasingly improbable. 4. Contextual explanation: acculturation and creolization Creolists at least up to Mühlhäusler (1986: 268-73) are generally happy to accept historical evidence of the context of language contact as supporting evidence of particular modes of language mixing. The linguistically non-simple situation which may be perceived here is readily explicable through the constraints of historical context. It is certainly more satisfactorily explained in

417

this way than by postulating special cases of 'adstratal' linguistic relationship (HOCK 1986: 411; GÖRLACH 1986, as above). An initial phase of Scandinavian dominance is readily comprehensible as Scandinavian was the language of the conquerors and colonists of considerable areas of eastern and northern England. It is equally comprehensible that subsequently the linguistic tide could have been turned, in the context of a rather less widely recognized process of Anglo-Scandinavian acculturation which becomes most clearly evident in datable forms from the very end of the 9th century onwards. The general shape of this process is the extensive adoption of Anglo-Saxon culture in the settled areas, within which cultural process we find the careful preservation of elements of Scandinavian character. The product is a mixed culture which is consciously articulated at the highest social and most sophisticated artistic level, not simply the thoughtless confusion of cultures in contact. It is possible only to give summary references to the relevant data for this process of acculturation here. Perceived voids in the archaeological evidence for Scandinavian settlement in England, such as the scarcity of Viking-type burials, and features such as the location of many of those burials of this type that are known in churchyards can be positively interpreted in terms of a general, and quite rapid, adaptation in form at least to the existing practices of the settled area. In itself this is not necessarily a sign of religious conversion, but the speed of the establishment of Christianity as the normal religion of the settled areas is generally recognized. At the centres of wealth and power of Scandinavian Northumbria, sometimes regarded as more obdurately pagan than the Midland Danelaw (WHITELOCK 1941), there is evidence of the thoughtful assimilation of Scandinavian traditions to prevailing Christianity from the very start of the 10th century. On a carved stone cross at Gosforth, Cumbria, Christianity and pagan myth are intelligently harmonized, for instance by the presentation of ViOarr, a Norse god who survives the mythical apocalypse of Ragnargk after vanquishing the demon Fenrisulfr, as a typological prefiguration of the fallen and risen Christ (BAILEY and CRAMP 1988: 100-4; HINES, forthcoming). From about the year 900 coins were struck at York carrying both the Latinized Scandinavian names of kings and Latin Christian mottoes, Mirabilia Fecit, Dominus Deus Omnipotens Rex, and a thought-provoking AJvval-

418

duLs], interpretable as a Latinization of vernacular alwalda/ alwaldR, analytically meaning 'all-ruler' (dominus omnipotens) in both Northumbrian English and Scandinavian but with collocative meanings of 'God' (Deus) and 'king' (Rex) in the two languages respectively (LYON and STEWART 1961). On some later York coins, St. Peter's Pence, the hammer of Thor and the Christian cross may be seen as fusing as symbols, as on the Fishing Stone at Gosforth (PIRIE et al 1986: esp. 42-3; BAILEY and CRAMP 1988: 108-9). The ecclesiastical character of the St. Peter's Pence is comparable with a series of St. Martin's coins from contemporary Lincoln, and slightly earlier St. Eadmund's coins from East Anglia, commemorating a Christian king martyred by pagan Danes (STEWART 1967; BLUNT 1969). TTie cult of Eadmund of East Anglia can also be seen in relationship to what were probably local traditional stories apologizing for the slaying of Eadmund by the Danes by introducing a treacherous huntsman as a culpable third party. A similarly defensive tradition can be traced concerning the slaughtered Northumbrian King Mia (SMYTH 1977: 36-61). There are several good reasons why this process of acculturation should have come about. Adaptation obviously contributes to the security of newcomers who wish to become settled in an area, both by appeasing or relieving the feelings of an actually or potentially hostile native population, who in this case were possessed of a high and stable culture, and through their own psychological adaptation: making the settlers feel better adjusted to their environment, and being a means for them to assert that they belonged there. If the external forms of Viking-period culture in Scandinavia were particularly correlated with the demographic flux of this age of migration they must have been inappropriate to a community seeking to become settled in England. The proposition is made here that the more elaborate range of Scandinavian English was produced as a deliberate act and was part of the particular instances of acculturation. Culturally and linguistically these developments follow the sociolinguistic axiom that distinctive language forms, particularly the use of distinctive vocabulary and accent, are commonly used as 'acts of identity' for individuals and groups, embodying an identity of speakers as members of a particular group, not just as classified by an analytical observer but as they wish to present

419

themselves. As Le Page and Tabouret-Keller put it: (...) the individual creates for himself the patterns of his linguistic behaviour so as to resemble those of the group or groups with which from time to time he wishes to be identified, or so as to be unlike those from whom he wishes to be distinguished (LE PAGE and TABOURET -KELLER 1985: 181). Modern case studies have tended to focus upon the assertion of difference, or alienation, by this means, but in the more general view the socially integrative function of language may be placed high in the scale of importance of language's functions (cf. LABOV 1972: 1-42 and MÜHLHÄUSLER 1986: 81-2). A telling parallel to the situation inferred in 10th-century England is that reported by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller from Belize in the 1970's where the younger generation in particular were coming increasingly to emphasize their mixed, local Belizean identity through a variety of cultural adaptations including a distinct change of attitude towards the 'Creole' language (LE PAGE and TABOURET-KELLER 1985: 207-21). It would be particularly comprehensible for AngloScandinavian culture to establish itself especially as the second generation of the colonies, the first born to settlers in England, reached adulthood. Is it appropriate to classify Scandinavian English, at any stage of its history, as a Creole? Clearly it bears some of the major typological features regularly recognized as characteristic of Creoles: it is mixed language, readily distinguishable from its parents, and becomes naturalized as a first language. Although not simply the product of depidginization in the ideal sense one phase of its inferred history is the formation of a language-code which would fulfil the social and linguistic functions of a model pidgin even if the similarity of the languages in contact obviated the drastic simplification observed in other cases of pidginization. Taking Creole as a sociolinguistic term, with special attention to the re- lationship between social and linguistic variables rather than one defined by purely linguistic criteria, its use in this context does seem appropriate, particularly in light of the stress that is often placed on the correlation of Creole-formation and the establishment of group identity and cohesion. Polomo quotes a definition of creolization as:

420

(...) an 'evolutive process liable to operate on any type of speech' - vernacular, pidgin, or other variety - as soon as its sociolinguistic conditioning has been established with the formation of the relevant group'. (POLOME 1982: 237) Alternative models for Scandinavian English which may be considered, such as koino-formation or interlanguage, may correspond in principle to parts of the whole process but would imply an oversimplified, if not mistaken, view if used to classify the example. No-one should regard creole as a simplistic term to use. Characterizations of Creoles may vary from the liberal, as that of Polome\ quoted here, to the strictness of Bickerton's definition in his book Roots of Language (BICKERTON 1981: 4). Tlie value of the term lies not in summarizing the details of the history of Scandinavian English language mixing, but in locating analogous data and associated theory. From this the usual cross fertilization of case-study and general understanding can proceed.1 Footnote S. G. Thomason and T. Kaufman (1988): Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics, with much relevant theoretical discussion, and a particular case study of Norse influence on English, was available to me too late to be paid due attention in this paper. References BAILEY, C.-J. and K. MAROLDT (1977): "The French lineage of English". In: J. MEISEL (ed.): Pidgins-Creoles-Languages in Contact. Tübingen: 21-53. BAILEY, R. N., and R. CRAMP (1988): The British Academy Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Volume II. Oxford. BAUGH, A. C. ( 1959): A History of the English Language. 2nd. ed. London. BERNSTEIN, B. (1971): Class, Codes and Control. Volume 1. London.

421

BICKERTON, D. (1973): "The nature of a Creole continuum". Language 49: 640-69. — (1981): Roots of Language. Ann Arbor. BJÖRKMAN, E. (1900-02): Scandinavian loan-words in Middle English. 2. vols. Halle. BLUNT, G. E. (1969): "Tlie St. Edmund Memorial Coinage". In: Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History 31: 234-55. BRATE, E. (1884): Nordische Lehnwörter im Orrmulum. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Halle. BROWN, T. J. et al (1969): The Durham Ritual. Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile XVI. Copenhagen. CAMPBELL, A. (1959): Old English Grammar. Oxford. CASSIDY, F.G. (1971): "Tracing the pidgin element in Jamaican Creole". In: D. HYMES (ed): Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: C.U.P.: 203-23. COOK, A. S. (1894): A Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels. Halle. EARLE, J. and C. PLUMMER (ed.) (1892): Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. Oxford. FISIAK, J. (1977): "Sociolinguistics and Middle English: some socially motivated changes in the history of English". In: Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny XXIV: 247-59. GORDON, E. V. (1957): An Introduction to Old Norse. (2nd. ed.): Oxford. GÖRLACH, M. (1986): "Middle English - a Creole?" In: D. KASTOVSKY and A. SZWEDEK (eds.): Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. Berlin: 329-44. HAUGEN, E. I. (1976): The Scandinavian Languages. London. HINES, J. (1984): The Scandinavian Character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking Period. Oxford. — (forthc.): "Re-reading the sculpture of Anglo-Saxon Cumbria". In: Saga-Book XXII. HOCK, H. H. (1986): Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin

422

HOFMANN, D. (1955): Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen der Wikingerzeit. Copenhagen. HOLT, R. (ed.) (1878): TTie Ormulum. Oxford. JESPERSEN, 0. (1938): Growth and Structure of the English Language. 9th ed. Oxford. KAY, P. and G. SANKOFF (1974): "A language universale approach to pidgins and Creoles". In: D. DE CAMP and I. HANCOCK (eds.): Pidgins and Creoles: current trends and prospects. Washington: 61-72. KENDRICK, T. D. et al. (1956-60): Evangeliorum quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. 2 vols. Lausanne. KER, N. R. (1943): Aldred the Scribe. In: Essays and Studies XXVIII: 7-12. — (1957): Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford. KISBYE, T. (1982): Vikingerne i England - sproglige spor. Copenhagen. KOLB, E. (1969): "The Scandinavian loan-words in English and the date of the West Norse change MP > PP, NT > TT, NK > KK". English Studies 50: 129-40. LABOV, W. (1972): Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia. LE PAGE, R. B. and A. TABOURET-KELLER (1985): Acts of identity. Cambridge. LYON, C.S.S. and B. H. I. H. STEWART (1961): "Hie Northumbrian Viking Coins in the Cuerdale Hoard". In: R. H. M. DOLLEY (ed): Anglo-Saxon Coins. London: 96-121. McINTOSH, A. (1978): "Middle English word geography: its potential role in the study of the long-term impact of the Scandinavian settlements upon English". In: T. Andersson and K. I. Sandred (eds): The Vikings. Uppsala: 124-30. McINTOSH. A. et al (1987): A linguistic atlas of late medieval English. Aberdeen. MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. (1986): Pidgin & Creole Linguistics. Oxford. NIELSEN, H. F. (1981): Old English and the Continental Germanic Languages. Innsbruck. OLSEN, M. (1951): Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer. II. Oslo.

423

PARKES, M. B. (1983): "On the presumed date and possible origin of the manuscript of the Orrmulum: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 1". In: STANLEY, E. G. and D. GRAY (eds.): Five Hundred Years of Words and Sounds. Woodbridge: 115-27. — (1988): Palaeographical Commentary. Epinal, Bibliotheque Municipal, MS 72(2), fols 94-107. In: BISCHOFF, B. et al·. The Epinal, Erfurt, Werden and Corpus Glossaries. Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 22. Copenhagen: 13-17. PIRIE, E. J. E. et ai (1986): Post-Roman coins from York excavations 1971-1981. The Archaeology of York 18/1. London. POLOME, E. C. (1982): Language, Society, and Paleoculture. Stanford. POUSSA, P. (1985): "A note on the voicing of initial fricatives in Middle English". In: EATON, R. et al. (eds.): Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory vol. 41: 235-52. ROMAINE, S. (1988): Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford. ROSS, A. S. C. (1942): "Four Examples of Norse Influence in the Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels". In: Transactions of the Philological Society 1940: 39-52. SEIP, D. A. (1955): Norsk Sprakhistorie til omkring 1370. (2nd ed.) Oslo. SKEAT, W. W. (ed.) (1871-77): The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian versions, (etc.). Cambridge. SMYTH, A.P, (1977): Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880. Oxford. STEWART, Β. Η. Ι. Η. (1967): "The St. Martin coins of Lincoln". In: British Numismatic Journal 36: 46-54. STRANG, B. M. H. (1970): A History of English. London. SWADESH, M. (1971): The Origin and Diversification of Language. London. SWEET, H. (ed. 1883): The Epinal Glossary. London

424

THOMSON, A. H. and U. LINDELÖF (1927): Rituale Ecclesiae Dumelmensis. Publications of the Surtees Society GXL. Berkeley. THOMASON, S. G. and T. KAUFMAN (1988): Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley. TOAUGOTT, E. G. (1973): "Explorations in Linguistic Elaboration; language change, language acquisition, and the genesis of spatio-temporal terms". In: ANDERSON, J. M. and C. JAMES (eds.): Historical Linguistics I. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, North-Holland Linguistic Series 12a: 263-314. WARNER, A. (1902): Complementation in Middle English syntax and the methodology of historical syntax. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press. WHITELOCK, D. M. (1941): "TTie Conversion of the Eastern Danelaw." In: Saga-Book XII: 159-76. ZETIERSTEN, A. (1965): Studies in the Dialect and Vocabulary of the Ancrene Riwle. Lund. Appendix Table 1: Scandinavian loanwords in the late 10th-century Northumbrian glosses OE

ON

Translation

aful(ic) brydlopa by cost dearlt-) efne flege ge-eggian hold ora sacteas

Qflugr bruolaup byr kostr djarfr efni fley

terrible marriage farmstead manner bold(-) material boat egg on minor nobleman ounce blame-Xcauseless

hgldr aurasaklauss

425 song

όίτ

saeng f>ir

fcraell

bed maid thrall

Table 2: Scandinavian-derived adjectives and adverbs recorded in Old English texts OE

ON

Translation

aful bathe dearf fer norrene roda sacleas sker stor twinn >at>an l>rinna witter wrang (n.)

Qflugr b dir djarfr foerr norroen raudr saklauss skaerr storr tvinnr f)aoan l»rinnr vitr (*w-)rangr (adj.)

terrible both bold mobile Norwegian red blame- or causeless uninvolved large twin thence thrin wise wrong

Table 3: Scandinavian-derived adjectives and adverbs in Ormulum and the AB texts Ormulum bral> bun golike hael>eli3 haijherr hel>enn

ON

Translation

beiskr bradr buinn gegniliga goligr haediliga hagr heoan

bitter rash ready appropriately goodly scornfully capable hence

426

ille immess meoc, mec radd ser skir

illr ymiss mjukr hraeddr se"rskirr

sieh tor trigg -f)rifenn usell wannt whetenn

s!0gr tortryggr ->rifinn vesall vanr,-t hvaöan

bad various(ly) meek afraid separate, especial(ly) clear (appears to have become confused with sker < ON skaerr) sly difficult trusty thriven wretched wanting whence

angrfullr badir blär »kangr djarfr drupi grar greior hagr hoflauss lagr mjukr skuta (n.) skaerr |>rifinn vitr

sorrowful both livid, sinister foolish bold drooping grey, malicious ready, clear capable immoderate low meek mocking clear, pure thriven wise

AB texts ancreful bade bla(-) cang derf drupi gra greioe haher hofles lahe meoke scuter sker driven witer

427

Table i: Use of Scandinavian-derived adjectives in Ormulum be33sc:

full bitterr 7 full begjsc (6698); full be33sc 7 full off atterr (10018); berjske waestme (10034); be 7 sallte tseress (13849); be33ske taeress (18045)

braf>:

Forr jiff f)e riche mann iss braf) 7 grimme 7 tor to cwemenn (7164-5)

ha3herr:

rihht god 7 ha3herr hunte (13477) sieh 7 3eep 7 hajherr hunte (13499)

radd:

drefedd wass 7 radd (2169-70)

skir:

skir 7 fre (8O15); all skir fra {>e deofell (12194)

sieh:

sieh 7 3eep 7 ha3herr hunte (13499)

trigg:

trigg 7 trowwe (Preface 69) hold 7 trigg 7 trowwe (6177) trigg 7 trowwe (12181)

usell:

usell lif (891); unnorne 7 wrecche 7 usell child (3668), wrecche 7 waedle 7 usell mann (5638) usell wass 7 weedle (7732); usell wrecche (10140) usell wihht (11591); usell mann (13978)

REFLECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE AND THE DEMISE OF ORKNEY AND SHETLAND NORN Michael P. Barnes 1. The background Scandinavians settled in Orkney and Shetland in the ninth century, possibly even earlier. The majority, or the linguistically influential among them, appear to have come from the coastal areas of western and south-western Norway. By the end of the ninth century it is likely that their form of Scandinavian had become or was becoming the dominant language of the Northern Isles. Of other languages that were or may have been spoken there at the time the Scandinavians arrived, few traces remain. During the period c. 1350-1800, Scandinavian was replaced in Orkney and Shetland by Scots. For geographical and political reasons the change came earlier in Orkney. It is widely held that the seventeenth century saw the disappearance of Scandinavian as a general medium of communication in these islands (e.g., MAR WICK 1929: xxiv-xxvi), but the evidence is contradictory, and some scholars favour an earlier date (e.g., DONALDSON 1983: 9). In Shetland Scandinavian seems no longer to have been the common language by 1750 (STEWART 1964: 163-5), but it has been claimed that it remained predominant until the last quarter of the seventeenth century (FLOM 1928-9: U7). Language contact between Scandinavian and Scots is thus an event of the past. We are unable to make our own observations, and are dependent on the records of earlier observers (and historical sources in general) and on our ability to interpret them. To judge from such records, interest in the Scandinavian of Orkney and Shetland and its displacement by Scots was minimal until the second half of the nineteenth century. But by then the last native speakers had almost certainly gone to the grave, although it has been suggested that in Shetland there were a few who could speak a native Scandinavian language as late as the 1880s (JAKOBSEN 1928-32: xix; TAIT 1953: 21).

430

The first substantial work to deal with what by then appears to have been only a Scandinavian substratum in the Scots of the Northern Isles was Edmondston 1866. His book is appropriately, if somewhat over-ambitiously entitled: An Etymological Glossary oj the Shetland and Orkney Dialect, but in his preface he acknowledges: "Most of the Shetland words in this book are derived from or are nearly related to the old Norse" (p. vi). He goes on: From more frequent business and social intercourse with their southern neighbours, the people of Shetland are rapidly losing, or rather have already lost, a distinctive dialect; and when the present old inhabitants have passed away, most of the οία Norn will be buried with them. (EDMONDSTON 1866: vi) Here we meet the term Norn (< Old Norse norrcenn Of northern origin, Norse', or norrcena 'Northern language, Norse language'). It is first attested in or shortly after 1485 and used then to denote Scandinavian as opposed to Scots (JOHNSTON, JOHNSTON and JON Stefansson 1907-42: 1 no. 33). To Edmondston, however, who was a Shetlander, the distinction between a Scandinavian language and a form of Scots heavily influenced by Scandinavian seems blurred. His uncertainty is reflected by later Shetlandic writers, who have tended to see Shetland dialect as something quite distinct from Scots, many assuming it to be in some way a direct descendant of Scandinavian or to have arisen from an amalgamation of Scandinavian and Scots (e.g., SAXBY 1907-8: 65-9; SANDISON 1953: ix-xii; GRAHAM 1984: xiii-xx). Like Edmondston, certain of these writers thus make no proper distinction between Shetland dialect and Norn (e.g., SANDISON 1953: especially vi-ix; cf. also STEWART 1964: 170 concerning similar attitudes among the general population). It is therefore worth stressing that in this paper the term Norn denotes only the spoken Scandinavian of Orkney and Shetland. Edmondston was followed by the renowned Faroese scholar, Jakob Jakobsen, who spent the years 1893-5 in Shetland and made several summer visits to Orkney between 1909 and 1914. The results of his researches were published in both popular and scholarly form. His principal works, regarded by many as laying the foundations of all subsequent research on Norn and on the

431

interaction between Scots and Scandinavian in the Northern Isles, are Jakobsen 1897; 1908-21; 1911; 1928-32. Jakobsen came too late to find any Norn speakers. Nor, as is apparent from his Glossary, did Edmondston know any. Their works therefore consist mainly of collections of words - mostly of Scandinavian origin - peculiar to or characteristic of Shetland and, to a much smaller extent, Orkney. However, whereas Edmondston 1866 consists simply of Shetlandic and Orcadian head-words followed by an English translation and sometimes a suggested etymology, Jakobsen went to great lengths to give a detailed account of pronunciation. His 1897 work attempts in addition to systematise the sound changes that had taken place between Old Norse and Shetland Norn on the basis of the pronunciations of words and phrases of Scandinavian origin he heard in the 1890s. Both the Danish and the English-language version of his etymological dictionary, which contains some 10,000 items, include phonetic transcriptions of the head-words (and many others), as well as translations and etymological notes. From the lengthy introductions in the 1908-21 and 1928-32 dictionaries and from others of Jakobsen's works on Norn, we can see how he viewed the change from Scandinavian to Scots, especially in Shetland. Although, unlike Edmondston, Jakobsen was obviously quite clear about the distinction between a language and a substratum, he seems nevertheless to have absorbed sufficient of the Shetlanders' imprecise way of thinking to advance the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a gradual but increasingly Scots dominated intermixture of the two languages. By the end of the nineteenth century, he appears to think, a stage had been reached in this development where the grammatical structure of the language spoken in Shetland was entirely Scots, while large areas of the vocabulary were still of Scandinavian origin (1928-32: xix-xx). Other scholars worked on both Shetland and Orkney Norn in the first decades of the twentieth century. Haegstad 1900 is an annotated edition of a thirty-five-stanza ballad in Shetland Norn, which, together with a version of the Lord's Prayer, a list of some thirty everyday words and a so-called "phrase" in the same language, had been recorded in 1774 by George Low, a Scots minister resident in Orkney (cf. LOW 1879: 105-U, 180). Hsegstad, a meticulous and careful scholar, worked to a standard format

432

which he later used in his detailed descriptions of the medieval dialects of western Norway. His main concern lay in comparing the individual vowels, diphthongs and consonants he deduced from manuscript spellings with their counterparts in an idealised Old Norse in an attempt to isolate dialect features and delineate dialect boundaries. While Haegstad thus felt able to relate the Norn of the ballad, and tentatively Orkney and Shetland Norn as a whole, to the dialects of south-western Norway, he had nothing to say about the causes or the process of the change from Scandinavian to Scots in the islands. Strong support for Jakobsen's view of the change came from Flom 1928-9 and Marwick 1929. Flom goes so far as to postulate a steadily declining ratio of Norn to Scots words; he even gives precise figures: 12:5 in 1850 and 1:1 in 1900, but he does not discuss their implications for earlier or later periods (1928-9: 150). Marwick's 1929 study is the Orkney counterpart of Jakobsen's principal works on Shetland Norn, though it is designed on a somewhat smaller scale. It contains a brief history of the decline of Norn in Orkney, linguistic analysis and an etymological dictionary with a corpus of some 3,000 words. Marwick was very much Jakobsen's pupil and quotes with approbation the earlier scholar's views about the intermingling of Norn and Scots. There, until recently, Norn research rested. The intervening period, it is true, saw the appearance of a number of articles touching on aspects of Shetland and Orkney Norn, and a few of these were mildly critical of earlier work. Stewart (1964, 172), for example, is less than happy about Jakobsen's lack of systematic thinking and describes his listing of twenty-five variant pronunciations of the word gopn 'the hollow of the hand, a handful' (1928-32: 253) as "phonetics run riot". However, nothing that appeared between the end of the 1920s and the early 1980s was designed radically to challenge the view of linguistic development in Orkney and Shetland that Jakobsen, Rom and Marwick had espoused. Then in 1984 an article by Laurits Rendboe was published, with the intriguing title "How 'worn out' or 'corrupted' was Shetland Norn in its final stage?" - "worn out" and "corrupted" being descriptions applied to Shetland Norn by earlier, mainly eighteenth-century writers. The article makes the plausible claim that "worn out" means not "decayed" but "dropped out of fashion", and it is argued that as long as Norn continued to be

433

used by native speakers it survived in pure form, unadulterated by Scots pronunciation, grammar or lexicon. According to Rendboe, there can be no question of a gradual intermixture of the two languages in Shetland. On the contrary, the evidence leads inescapably to the conclusion that "Norn stood firm to the end" (1984: 80). In a further work which deals chiefly with the word list compiled by George Low in 1774, this hypothesis is extended to include even the alleged last speakers of Shetland Norn in the second half of the nineteenth century (RENDBOE 1987: 97-9, 116).

2. The questions Now that I have outlined some of the basic facts and suggested certain of the issues involved, I want in the remainder of this paper to examine more closely two different aspects of the Norn problem. First: Do we know or can we know much for certain about the phonological, morphological or syntactic structure of Orkney or Shetland Norn, or about the general shape of the lexicon in either language? Apart from their intrinsic interest, some knowledge of these matters seems to me essential if claims about the purity of Norn at given stages in its development are to be debated in any detail. Second: Can we deduce anything about the fate of Norn from a study of the political and social history of Orkney and Shetland? Even if little direct information is forthcoming about the language situation in the islands in earlier times, such a study may suggest parallels with other communities in which language contact, bilingualism and language death have been more closely observed. The literature on this subject is now considerable and increasing (cf., e.g., DRESSLER and WODAKLEODOLTER 1977).

3. Structure With the first of the two above points in mind, I have examined in detail both Jakobsen's and Marwick's accounts of Shetland and Orkney Norn, as well as the few seventeenth and eighteenth-

434 century fragments of these languages, and I have concluded not only that we know little for certain about their structures, but that it is impossible with the evidence now at our disposal to fill in anything but the smallest gaps in our knowledge. We are slightly better placed with regard to morphology and lexicon than phonology and syntax, but I do not think we are in a position to make satisfactory generalisations about either Orkney or Shetland Norn at any level, except possibly for the Viking-Age and early medieval period, before change had distanced them too much from their Common Scandinavian origin. 3.1. Phonology Criticism of Jakobsen's and Marwick's methods has been infrequent and muted. Svavar Sigmundsson 1984 is entitled "A critical review of the work of Jakob Jakobsen and Hugh Marwick", but the points made in this article are mostly restricted to the lexicon. We learn that we are today better equipped to deal with the lexical data gathered by these two scholars and can show that they falsely attributed Scandinavian origin to a number of words and failed to note various Icelandic parallels. Other aspects of Jakobsen's and Marwick's work on Norn are largely ignored. One of the few, brief statements about phonology makes the extraordinary claim that in Marwick 1929 "the vowel system of Norn was [...] established" (1984: 282). I introduce this article not so much for the pleasure of criticising the author as to exemplify the casualness which has characterised most approaches to Norn since the days of Jakobsen and Marwick. With regard to phonology, Stewart's warning about "phonetics run riot" gives a truer reflection of the position than Svavar's careless claim. I have certainly found it impossible to establish even in outline the phonological system or systems of Orkney or Shetland Norn using Jakobsen's and Marwick's data. To some extent we may blame their methods, which sprang from the priorities of linguistic enquiry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but even with modern methodology it is far from clear that the information available to either of them would have been sufficient to allow the setting up of the most basic phonological system. By way of exemplification let us look at four points in detail.

435

3.1.1. Short rounded vowels According to Haegstad (1900: 33-45), who was writing about Low's 1774 material, Shetland Norn had at least the following short stressed rounded vowels, which do not appear from his account to be combinatory variants: o, o, &, "trong ο ('narrow d), u, "open u (Open it), 0. It may be that Heegstad reckoned with more than these, but his description is too imprecise and his distinction between sound and spelling too unclear to be sure. To explain how Hsegstad relates these and the other vowels he posits for eighteenth-century Shetland Norn to the assumed Old Norse system would prompt not unwarranted accusations of an excess of zeal, but in order to give the reader a flavour of the complexities involved, I shall cite the example of Old Norse short /o/. This, according to Haegstad, may have the following reflexes: o, o, a, "trong o, 0, u, a, and a. Jakobsen has seven or eight short rounded vowels in his 1897 work (ix): a, o, o, o, o, u, (o), 0 (the status of is unclear), and nine in his 1928-32 dictionary (viii): 4, o, o, o, o, u, o, 0, so. In 1897 (120-1) he reckoned with the following reflexes of Old Norse short /ο/: ο, σ, o, o, u, 0, $, a, , a. Jakobsen stresses that his description includes forms from all parts of Shetland, but he makes no systematic attempt to assign particular sounds or reflexes to particular areas, let alone to set up any kind of sound system. At the time he was active in Shetland this may of course have been impossible. Apart from anything else, many of the Norn words in his dictionaries were, according to his own statement, influenced by Scots pronunciation. Rendboe (1987: 81-2) finds a smaller inventory of short rounded vowels represented in Low's word list: Co], [ft], [o], [u], [y], [0]. None of these are obviously combinatory variants, but the material is too limited to be positive about this one way or the other. The reflexes of Old Norse short /o/ in the list, according to Rendboe, are: [ft] ("lidt ftbnere end i dansk" 'a little more open than in Danish1), Col, for! (1987: xi, 81-2). If we turn to Orkney Norn, we find that there is a manageable number of short rounded vowels: [u], to], [3], [0], but that the reflexes of Old Norse short /o/ may be all of the following: [a], Ca:], [A], [ul, [u:l, Co:], [01 (MARWIGK 1929: xxxix-xliv). The four scholars' descriptions of short rounded vowels and of

436

the reflexes of Old Norse short /o/ in Shetland or Orkney Norn illustrate well the state of the art. Their presentations suffer from two fundamental and obvious drawbacks. First, the differing and often imprecise phonetic notations make it hard not only to discern any phonological systems, but even to obtain a general impression of the sounds that occurred in Orkney or Shetland Norn. Second, the wildly varying and not obviously motivated ways in which a single Old Norse phoneme is said to develop make it well nigh impossible to predict development in words nowhere recorded. Lack of data and lack of explicitness by the investigators are clearly both to blame for this messy and confusing picture. What the modern scholar can do to unravel the twisted strands is not immediately apparent. 3.1.2. The dental spirants Co] and Cd) These sounds have been given particular attention in the discussion of Norn and the Scots dialect of Shetland and Orkney (e.g., LAURENSON I860: 195; MARWICK 1929: xliv, xlvii, 227; CATTORD 1957: 72; GRAHAM 1984: xxiii). It is claimed that their absence in most positions in nineteenth and twentieth-century Shetland dialect and, according to an eighteenth-century source, in earlier Orkney dialect ([Θ] at least), is due to the fact that they were lost in Norn, just as in most other varieties of Scandinavian except Icelandic. Gatford (1957: 73) claims that "Norn speakers had a smaller 'repertoire' of consonants than the incomers, and failed to acquire some of the essential consonantal distinctions of Scots." This theory may have some validity, but in the case of [Θ1 and Ed] it sits rather ill with Haegstad's view (based on the eighteenth-century written material, cf. HMiSTAD 1900: 67-8) that Old Norse t develops to th (denoting [0] and Co]) in medial intervocalic (Cdl) and final postvocalic position ([Θ]). Did Norn, or at least Shetland Norn, have [Θ] and Co] even though they were not the reflexes of their Old Norse counterparts? And if so, why did Shetlanders have trouble with the same or similar sounds in Scots? No satisfactory answers can be given to these questions at present, nor are any likely to be forthcoming unless significant fresh data come to light.

437

3.1.3. Syllable length One of the more interesting points made by Catford (1957: 71-2) is that "Norn influence is probably to be seen in one of the most general characteristics of Shetland speech - namely, in the structure of the syllable." He notes that stressed monosyllables, when closed by a consonant, are generally either of the pattern VGG or WC. and relates this to the pattern in Norwegian and Swedish (in which, as in Faroese and Icelandic too, stressed syllables of any type are normally VGC or WC). Regrettably, Catford's account suffers from imprecision. In particular the statement: "A somewhat similar phenomenon occurs in English and Scots generally, but the contrast between the two types of syllable is much more clear-cut in Shetland than elsewhere, and associated there with other peculiarly Shetland features" cries out for amplification and exemplification. Nevertheless, if his observations are correct, it could well be that the syllable structure of modern Shetland speech reflects, at least in part, a Norn substratum. A thousand pities then that this phenomenon seems never to have been observed by Jakobsen. On the contrary, in his account of the vowels he heard in Norn words and phrases (JAKOBSEN 1897: 115-29) we find that long and short may occur regardless of the number or length of the following consonants; indeed, sometimes the vowel may vary between long and short in the same word, even within the same geographical area. Marwick (1929) likewise says nothing about the length of stressed syllables in his section on phonology (xxxix-xlviii); from the examples there quoted and from those given in the dictionary it is nevertheless apparent that neither the system envisaged by Catford nor the Faroese-Icelandic-Norwegian-Swedish system can have prevailed at the time he was compiling his work. Heegstad (1900) and Rendboe (1987) were working with written texts only, but nothing in these texts seems to have suggested to them that stressed syllables of any type regularly took the form VCC or WC. Once again we are faced with an impasse on a fundamental issue of Norn phonology, and it is not easy to see any satisfactory way forward.

438

3.1.4. Palatalisation Jakobsen (1897: U2-3; 1928-32: Ivii and elsewhere) makes much of the palatalisation of Old Norse /I:/, /rl/ and /n:/, /rn/ to what he transcribes I n,. He seems to view this as part of a more general tendency to palatalise consonants, although the limits of the tendency are never clearly defined. Potentially this is most interesting. One thinks of the similar or perhaps identical palatalisation of Old Norse /I:/, /rl/, /Id/ and /n:/, /rn/, /nd/ in north and east Norway and wonders whether it is true after all that the bulk of the Scandinavian settlers in Shetland came from the west and south-west. If true, might there have been subsequent influence from the north and east? The difficulty is that we do not know precisely what Jakobsen's / and n, denote. He talks of a "mouilleret palatal udtale" in Danish (1908-21: addendum ix), which is rendered "softened, palatal pronunciation" in English (1928-32: ix). Catford writes: Another notable feature is the "softening" or palatalisation of certain consonants, particularly final dd, nn and 11 in certain circumstances. [...] Even where dd, nn and 11 are not now noticeably palatalised, however, what is probably the effect of former palatalisation is often to be seen in the diphthoneisation of a preceding vowel, especially e, e.g., in the words bed and men pronounced beeedd, meeenn. [...] Palatalisation of this type is unknown in Scots, but is found in certain Norwegian dialects, and is no doubt another Norn survival. (CATTORD 1957: 72) I have myself listened to various types of modern Shetland speech, but I have been unable to detect any sounds identical or very similar to Norwegian [&] and [ft]. I have also made enquiries of Gunnel Melchers, who is at present engaged in a detailed study of the Scandinavian element in Shetland dialect (cf. MELCHERS 1981; 1983). She writes (personal communication): "I think statements on palatalisation are very much based on the dentalised articulatory setting. [...] TTie following consonants are extremely fronted and cause diphthongisation of preceding front vowels: /n/ /d/ /nd/ (especially) /JV. Not restricted to Norn words! Seems to be fairly general!" This point is also made in one of her published works (1983: 16): "It seems that speakers of Shetland dialect have

439

a dentalised articulatory setting generally." The question which thus emerges, and to which there appears to be no answer, is: did Jakobsen, Catford and Melchers hear the same sounds? If they did, it seems clear that Jakobsen and Catford misinterpreted them since Melchers' conclusions are based on the use of both spectrograms and direct palatography. But, as with the three previous examples discussed, we cannot be sure. The possibility exists that Jakobsen at least heard something more like the Li:] and [p:l of northern and eastern Norwegian dialects, and that these sounds were subsequently lost from Shetland speech. However, such thoughts belong to the realms of speculation. 3.1.5. Concluding reflections on phonology The four examples I have given amply illustrate the difficulties which confront anyone who wishes to try and establish the phonological system or systems of Norn on the basis of Jakobsen's and Marwick's data and the seventeenth and eighteenth-century material. The examples have been chosen more or less at random, but could be multiplied many times over. Given this negative result, one wonders whether investigation of the current pronunciation of place-names, primarily those which have no authorised written form such as field-names, might yield new insights, but it should be remembered that at least three generations intervene between the last speakers of Norn and today's oldest informants, and in many parts of Shetland and in many families the gap will be considerably wider. Stewart 1987, for example, in which the majority of entries are accompanied by an IPA transcription, brings us no nearer a phonology of Shetland Norn, but a drawback with this work is that it deals only with island and farm-names. Contemporary pronunciation of place-names clearly cannot be written off as a source, but much ground work remains to be done, and results may well be meagre. 3.2. Morphology I will not attempt a detailed examination of any morphological features here since space is limited, but content myself with a general outline of the problems. The individual words recorded by Jakobsen and Marwick tell

us little more than that certain inflexions and word-formation elements that we know from Old Norse and later Scandinavian languages had at one time been in use in Norn. Tliis is not a very exciting discovery. A late seventeenth-century Orkney Norn version of the Lord's Prayer (cf. WALLACE 1700: 68-9), the eighteenthcentury texts written down by George Low, including his word list, and the Norn fragments quoted by Jakobsen can tell us considerably more, but all these sources suffer from drawbacks. 3.2.1. The Lord's Prayers Except in times of liturgical primitivism like the present, the language of religion has not been noted for its close correspondence to everyday speech. We certainly cannot assume that either the Orkney or the Shetland Lord's Prayer is representative of late seventeenth or eighteenth-century Norn. Indeed, it is uncertain what these two texts represent. Rendboe (1984: 62) suggests that they are derived from the Old Norse homilies. This may be so, although neither in the Norwegian or Icelandic Homily Book nor in any other medieval Scandinavian sources does the Lord's Prayer appear as a continuous text. There are also considerable differences between the Old Norse and the Norn versions and between the Norn versions themselves. Yet as far as we know, no part of the Bible was ever translated into any form of Norn. Where, then, and when did these Lord's Prayers originate, and how and why were they transmitted in a country in which Scots and English appear to have been the sole media of religion since the late sixteenth century? Unfortunately, neither of the two men who are responsible for their preservation provide any source references (WALLACE 1700: 68-9; LOW 1879: 105). According to later writers (LAURENSON I860: 191; JAKOBSEN 1897: 16; RENDBOE 1987: 8), Low wrote his version down from the dictation of an old woman, but I cannot follow this story further back than Laurenson. How he might have known the circumstances in which Low obtained the Lord's Prayer 86 years earlier is not clear. The information could perhaps have come to him through oral tradition, but it is worth noting that Laurenson was not a native of Foula and seems to have spent the greater part of his life in Lerwick. It is very probable, as suggested by Kirby (1976-80: II 125), that vernacular Lord's Prayers were used in the liturgy in medieval

441 Scandinavia and that this is the source of our two Norn versions. We know that a decision was taken to translate the Lord's Prayer, Ave Maria and the Greed into Swedish, apparently for use both in church and at home, but only as late as 1441 (GRANLUND 1951: 361-2). It is also worth noting, however, that the collecting of Lord's Prayers in exotic languages enjoyed something of a vogue in the eighteenth century as awareness of Man's varied linguistic heritage grew, and some writers and editors in this period were less than scrupulous in the way they treated their source material. Clearly the linguistic evidence provided by the Orkney and Shetland Lord's Prayers should not be ignored, but because of the uncertainty which surrounds their age, provenance, transmission and style, I do not think great reliance can be placed on these texts as sources of information about seventeenth and eighteenth-century Norn. 3.2.2. Hildinakvadet A sketchy and incomplete Shetland Norn morphology could be constructed on the basis of the ballad Low wrote down in Foula in 1774. Popularly known as Hildinakvadet since Haegstad's edition of 1900, this ballad contains sufficient material to show that Shetland Norn was a west Scandinavian language whose inflexional system had undergone some simplification in comparison with Old Norse. (For a brief discussion of the salient features cf. BARNES 1984: 32-3.) As in the case of the two versions of the Lord's Prayer, however, there must be uncertainty about what form of language we have in Hildinakvadet. Here at least Low provides a reasonable account of his source: an old Foula man named William Henry with whom he worked for a whole day, refreshing him from time to time with "a dram of gin" (LOW 1879: Ivi). However, apart from the fact that in places Low's text needs the hand of a skilful editor to provide it with meaning, Scandinavian ballads are often poor guides to contemporary speech. Faroese and Norwegian ballads, for example, not only contain archaic linguistic features, as one might expect, but also a number which do not seem ever to have been part of everyday language (cf., e.g., the uninflected forms of nouns and adjectives in the Faroese texts, and the con- struction: possessive adjective + noun + suffixed definite article in both Faroese and Norwegian tradition).

442

3.2.3. The Cunningsburgh phrase and the word list Much closer to everyday Norn, one would imagine, are Low's word list and the so-called "Cunningsburgh phrase" recorded both by him and by Jakobsen (LOW 1879: 105-7, 180; JAKOBSEN 1928-32: cxv). The difficulty here is that the phrase consists of three very brief sentences which in the form we have them can hardly be said to exhibit Scandinavian morphology at all, while the word list, as the name suggests, contains only individual words - 34 singular nouns and one plural, all apparently in either the nominative or the accusative case. Rendboe claims (1987: 91-6), on the basis of his analysis of the "grammatiske traek" ('grammatical characteristics'), that the list is evidence of a vital, living language, which still preserved gender, number and case inflexion. But the evidence for this is mostly lacking. His conclusion about case is based principally on the assumption that where words appear in the list with a non-nominative form, it is because they were offered in answer to the question: "What do you call...?" Insufficient weight is given to the fact that we find the alleged accusative forms mainly where the nominative marker historically was -r. An alternative explanation could therefore be that the nominative -r ending had been lost from the language, with possible coalescence between nominative and accusative as the result. Of genitive and dative forms there are none (except for two genitives in the first element of compounds). Regarding gender, very little can be determined from the list alone since adjectives and other markers of gender are absent. Inferences can of course be drawn from the forms of the words included and from comparison with other Scandinavian languages, but it is important to realise that the list itself provides no direct evidence in this matter.

3.2.4. Jakobsen's late nineteenth-century fragments In my view little is to be learnt about Norn morphology from the fragments of Norn recorded by Jakobsen in Shetland in the 1890s. By common consent no native speakers of Norn then remained, and the likelihood is that none had existed for a good many years. What Jakobsen managed to pick up was therefore odd bits of Norn that for one reason or another were memorable and had been transmitted by people who were not native speakers, in some

443

cases perhaps through two or more generations. Most of the fragments bear clear signs of their long exile from Norn-speaking communities. Many cannot be understood fully or at all; others have no discernible inflexional system, either Scandinavian or Scots. Those few that are comprehensible and clearly Scandinavian in structure are very brief and reveal little of Norn morphology. I will include two fragments by way of example; the first has no obvious inflexional system, the second is recognisably Scandinavian. (1) Kwarna farna 'Where are you going?1 or 'Where have you been?' (2) Sponna hgQra glegan 'The spoon is lying in the window' In (1) we can detect the words k war 'where' and some part of the verb fara 'go', but the final syllables seem to be an example of the levelling of endings under -9na, -na or -a which characterises many of Jakobsen's Norn fragments (cf. RENDBOE 1984: 65-8; BARNES 1984: 30, 40-41). (2) confirms what we know from the other sources: that like virtually all forms of Scandinavian Norn had a suffixed definite article, and that the third person singular present tense indicative of the verb ended in -r. The form of the article in spoijna is unexpected, the nominative masculine singular in Old Norse being -inn. It is hard to see why -inn should develop to -na in this word, but not in other comparable masculines. The article in glegan looks like the old accusative masculine singular in the form it has when suffixed to a weak noun, but after a preposition denoting rest we should according to the original four-case system expect a dative.

3.2.5. Concluding reflections on morphology From these stray remarks and examples it should be clear that I think our chances of being able to establish a morphology of Shetland, let alone Orkney Norn are slim indeed. It must be said though that we can be somewhat more positive about morphological than about phonological structure. It could scarcely be otherwise given that we are dealing almost entirely with written data.

3.3. Syntax Syntax has not been a great favourite among Norn researchers, and I will content myself with just a few remarks on this topic. Rendboe (1984: 75-6) hazards the opinion that the syntax of the following rhyme is Norse (recorded in JAKOBSEN 1897: 8-9; 1928-32: xviii): Da var9 gua ti, when sona mm guid to Kadanes: hau käq ca1 rossa mare häq käq ca1 big bere häq käq ca1 eld fire häi] kaq ca1 klovandi taings He points to what he calls "the proper use" of the four cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative; the presence of the suffixed definite article; lack of an indefinite article; and the word-order: head + modifier in sons nun. Considerable good will is required to recognise the use of all four cases and much of what Rendboe says clearly comes more properly under the heading of morphology or morphosyntax, but the point about word-order is well made. Examination of the syntax of other Norn texts and fragments naturally yields more detail, but it is of much the same kind. We get further evidence about word-order (for example that Norn not unexpectedly was a V2 language) and considerably more information on morphosyntactic patterns. But those who seek answers to the kind of questions that linguists have recently been asking about other Scandinavian languages will for the most part scour the Norn texts in vain. We cannot, for example, tell whether Orkney or Shetland Norn were null-subject languages like Icelandic, languages that required the subject position to be filled like Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, or whether, like Faroese, they were in the process of changing from the former to the latter type. Nor is there much in the extant material that can help us reconstruct the Norn system or systems of pronouns and anaphors and thus determine among other things whether Orkney or Shetland Norn had clause-bounded reflexivisation only or whether either of them allowed non-clause-bounded reflexivisation like Faroese and Icelandic. Even word-order, apart from the basic

445

patterns, is an unknown quantity. As central a question as whether Orkney or Shetland Norn had the structure: INFL + ADVP + VP like Icelandic, ADVP + INFL + VP like Danish, Norwegian and Swedish (giving word-order of the type: [... at hari\ ikke kunne komme '[... that he] not could come'), or either like Faroese, cannot, as far as I can see, be answered.1

3.4. Lexicon The Norn lexicon is likely to be a more fruitful object of study than the phonology, morphology or syntax. This is not only for the obvious reason that individual words can often usefully be examined in isolation, but also because the available material is much greater. Attention was drawn above to the size of Jakobsen's and Marwick's dictionaries (c. 10,000 and 3,000 words), and these are not our only sources. As Svavar Sigmundsson (1984) points out, knowledge of Scandinavian vocabulary and its history is much improved since the days of Jakobsen and Mar wick. A modern scholar would be able to undertake a thorough revision of both dictionaries and suggest many new parallels and revised etymologies. In particular it is clear that a number of words Jakobsen assumed to be Scandinavian are in fact of Dutch or Low German origin (MURISON 1954: 125). They were probably borrowed into Norn or Scots, or both, as a result of the extensive contacts that existed first with the Hanseatic traders and later with the Dutch fishing industry. The lexicon of both Orkney and Shetland Norn may also even yet be capable of expansion. As late as the 1930s a previously unknown Norn rigmarole, probably a lullaby, was recorded in Shetland by a Finnish scholar (ANDERSSON 1938: 88). Unfortunately Graham (1984) does not state whether any of the words of Scandinavian origin in his collection supplement those recorded in Jakobsen 1928-32, but cursory examination suggests that this is indeed the case. One imagines that the same goes for Elizabeth J. Smith's collection of words, sayings and idioms mentioned by Rendboe (1987: 115, 124), although he too is reticent about the overlap with Jakobsen's dictionary. Even with fresh sources of information, however, it seems doubtful if we shall ever know such basic things as how to count from one to ten in either Orkney or Shetland Norn.

446

4. Language and history As the above discussion shows, I believe the paucity of data makes impossible an adequate linguistic description of Orkney or Shetland Norn. But this does not mean that I think Norn studies should be abandoned. Even though we have drawn a blank in our search for the structures of these languages, other avenues remain open. Greater attention should in my view be paid to the history of the Northern Isles. We need to examine carefully the stages by which they passed from Scandinavian to Scots domination, and to compare the results of this examination first with statements on the language situation by travellers and historians from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries and second with the increasing body of knowledge about language contact and language death. Here I can do no more than outline a few events that seem of particular importance and indicate ways in which they may be plausibly interpreted. I am convinced, however, that this is a topic which would repay more detailed study. 4.1. Some important historical facts In 1195 Shetland was removed from the earldom of Orkney and bound more closely to the Norwegian crown. In 1379 the Scots-speaking Sinclairs succeeded to the earldom. In 1468 Orkney and in 1469 Shetland were pledged to King James III of Scotland by King Christian I of Denmark and Norway for the marriage dowry of his daughter. The diocese of Orkney, unlike the earldom, included Shetland, and there were Scottish bishops in Orkney and Scottish clergy in both groups of islands from the late fourteenth century. After the Reformation in 1560, virtually all the ministers in both Orkney and Shetland appear to have been Scottish. The immigration of Scottish laymen into Orkney seems to have been a very long and gradual process, but one which gained considerable momentum in the latter half of the fourteenth century. Apart from churchmen, there do not appear to have been many Scottish immigrants in Shetland until the sixteenth century, when they arrived in considerable numbers. The date of the last extant document in a Scandinavian language emanating from Orkney is c. 1426. In Shetland it is 1607. The first surviving document in Scots

447

from Orkney is dated 1433, and as early as 1438 the native Lawman of Orkney was using Scots on internal Orcadian business. The first surviving Scots document from Shetland is almost a century younger, dated 28 October 1525. The late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries were a time of lawlessness, turbulence and social upheaval. In Shetland, the contrast with the preceding period seems to have been especially marked. In 1611 the Scandinavian laws that, nominally at least, still remained in force in Orkney and Shetland were abolished and Scottish law introduced in their place. From about 1700 onwards the islands entered a period of relative stability. Economic changes, particularly in Shetland, the beginnings of formal education and, not least, drastic improvements in the operation, the teaching and the spiritual example of the Presbyterian Church combined to effect a transformation from turmoil to order, although the term stagnation is sometimes applied to the eighteenth and early nineteenth-century period in Orkney. 4.2. Contemporary accounts of the linguistic situation in the Northern Isles 15OO-1900 References to Norn in Orkney and its replacement by Scots begin in the second half of the sixteenth century and are most frequent in the eighteenth. The chief sources are reprinted in Marwick 1929 (224-7, with bibliographical details). If we piece the information in these sources together, the following picture emerges. Norn was the principal language of the islands in the sixteenth century, in the sense that it was the first language of the majority of the population. Scots was however also widely spoken and many understood and used both languages. By about 1700 the situation had changed dramatically and in only a few parts of Orkney, particularly the northern part of Mainland, was Norn still regularly spoken. Here there were even then a few monoglots. The last references to Orkney Norn as still a living language are from the 1750s. Later writers describe it almost entirely as a language of the past. The earliest references to the linguistic situation in Shetland of which I am aware go back to the second half of the seventeenth century. (A useful list can be found in STEWART 1964: 163-6.) These suggest that until the end of the seventeenth century Norn was the first language of virtually all native Shetlanders, although

there are indications of widespread bilingualism, especially in the more southerly part of the islands. In the early part of the eighteenth century Norn still seems to have been widely used and to have been the first language of many Shetlanders, especially in the northern islands, but several writers about this time emphasise that Scots was the normal linguistic medium. During his 1774 visit, George Low gained the impression that Norn was virtually extinct, and that view is confirmed by an early nineteenth-century writer who suggests that the language died out some thirty years previously. This is in stark contrast to the information provided by Jakobsen, who notes (1928-32: xix): "The last man in Unst who is said to have been able to speak Norn [...] died about 1850. In Foula, on the other hand, men who were living much later than the middle of the present (19th) century are said to have been able to speak Norn." Jakobsen himself casts doubt on the ability of these individuals to speak genuine Norn, but Rendboe (1987: 99) champions them as the last native speakers of Scandinavian in the Northern Isles.

4.3. Residual matters of importance We need to note certain other, disparate pieces of information that have a bearing on our topic. (1) Even though the formal education available to most people in Orkney and Shetland was minimal or non-existent until well into the eighteenth century, private initiative of various kinds seems to have ensured the spread of a very basic form of literacy in English throughout many parts of the islands. George Low came across an example in Foula during his 1774 tour (1879: 104-5): "one of the most sagacious of the natives was teaching his son to read the Bible, and to know the numbers of the Psalms; he told the boy the Vorty'th and Zaxt Z'am, XLVI, was a Hex, a Hell, a Hu, and a Hi." (2) There are reports that the population of Foula was all but wiped out by what was presumably a smallpox epidemic at the end of the seventeenth century, and that this was followed by a second epidemic in 1720 (BALDWIN 1984: 55). One claim has it that after the first visitation only five or seven people were left (HOLBOURN 1938: 73). (3) There is little evidence of language conflict in either Orkney or Shetland, and there are only a few, uncertain indications of negative or positive attitudes to Norn (RENDBOE 1984: 68-79; 1987:

449

2-4). This contrasts strongly with, for example, the position of Gaelic in Scotland. (4) Certain of the seventeenth and early eighteenth-century reports about the linguistic situation in Orkney and Shetland stress the good quality of the Scots spoken by the inhabitants. But those writing in the second half of the eighteenth century or later speak of difficulty in understanding the Scots spoken in the islands, of language mixture and of a Norwegian accent. (5) Jakobsen in the 1890s managed to record a great many Norn fragments, ranging from snatches of conversation to rhymes. A few have a recognisable Scandinavian grammatical structure; many have no discernible grammatical structure at all but are nevertheless comprehensible; some can be understood only partially or not at all. Marwick, working in the early years of this century, found a large quantity of words he considered to be of Norn origin, but virtually no examples of complete phrases, sentences or rhymes. (6) The words listed in Jakobsen 1928-32 and in Marwick 1929 reflect everyday life - work and play. There is little there, for example, of the terminology of religion, law or politics.

4.4. An interpretation of the death of Norn Having put forward what I consider the essential facts of the case, I will now suggest an outline interpretation of how Norn came to be replaced by Scots in Orkney and Shetland. It seems clear that Scots had become the dominant language among literate Orkneymen as early as the middle of the fifteenth century, but they probably formed a small proportion of the whole population. One can only guess at the total ratio of Norn to Scots speakers at this period and at the degree of bilingualism, but there is ample evidence of widespread Scottish immigration into Orkney before the pledging of the islands in 1468 (CLOUSTON 1932: 215-83). Nevertheless, sixteenth and early seventeenth-century writers commenting on the linguistic situation state that what they variously call "idiomate proprio", "vetere Gothica lingua", "the language of Norway" and "Norse" was widely used, and one even claims that in the sixteenth century nothing but Norse was spoken. What evidence they had for their assertions is unclear, but if, as is widely reported, Norn continued to be spoken in parts of Orkney as late as c. 1750 and had been in decline for some time before that, it is not improbable that its use was widespread some

450 two hundred years earlier. The most reasonable conjecture is that the bulk of the population continued to speak Norn as their first language throughout the sixteenth century, but that many had also learnt to speak Scots as a result of the increasing numbers of Scots speakers in the islands and the economic, political and cultural ascendancy these had achieved. There are no indications of large-scale Scottish immigration into Shetland before the end of the fifteenth century, but after the pledging of the islands to Scotland in U69 and in particular during the sixteenth century, what had previously been a dribble seems to have turned into something of a steady stream. There is also linguistic evidence to suggest that the Scots of present-day Shetland dialect was imported into Shetland in the sixteenth or at the latest in the seventeenth century (CATFORD 1957: 73-5). In spite of the arrival of Scottish immigrants in fairly large numbers, many of them people of relative wealth and power, I find it hard to believe that the need to learn Scots began to make itself generally felt in Shetland much before the last quarter of the sixteenth century. Certainly, life in the islands does not appear to have undergone dramatic change in the hundred years after the impignoration. As the term reminds us, Shetland was only pledged to the Scottish crown; all its old laws and customs seem to have remained largely intact. The period c. 1560-1700, on the other hand, was one of great turmoil and upheaval, both in Orkney and Shetland. 1560 was the year of the Reformation in Scotland, which was closely followed in the islands by the reigns of Earls Robert and Patrick Stewart - a roughly fifty-year period notable for its lawlessness and general anarchy. After the execution of Earl Patrick in 1615, preceded in 1611 by the abolition of all the old Scandinavian laws, which he and his father, Robert, had constantly manipulated to their advantage, there followed a period of exploitation under the Stewart kings James VI and Charles I, then the Civil War, then further exploitation, coupled, in certain years, with famine. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, not surprisingly, public morality in Orkney and Shetland, especially the latter, seems to have been at a low ebb. The sources tell of drunkenness, violence and a general contempt for the institutions of religion and the law. It seems as though the fabric of society had gone to pieces. (For a brief account of this period in Shetland, cf. GRAHAM 1983: 217-19, 224.)

451

It is a commonplace that upheaval and violent change in society are often followed by linguistic change, especially where the upheaval results in close and continued contact between languages not in contact hitherto. The migration period and Germanic syncope, the development of English after the Viking and Norman invasions and the fate of Gaelic after the Highland clearances may be cited as examples. Since language is a human activity, and human activity seems to be unpredictable, it is hard to know how safe it is to argue from one linguistic situation to another. I would go no further than to say that the available evidence makes it likely that the period 1560-1700 saw great changes in the relationship between Norn and Scots and in the shape of Norn. If Orkney was already largely bilingual in the sixteenth century, it is likely that many inhabitants will have concluded during the seventeenth that Norn was an insufficiently useful or prestigious language to be worth passing on to their children. The language and terminology of religion, law and politics had become exclusively Scots in Orkney, and all writing had been done in that language, as far as can be seen, for about two hundred years. In Shetland during the same period most people must increasingly have felt the need to learn Scots. The early seventeenth-century Shetland Court Books make it clear that by about 1600, at least, Scots had become the sole language of public affairs (DONALDSON 1958). Since the clergy had for the most part been of Scottish origin during the sixteenth century, it is a reasonable assumption that Scots was also the sole language of religion. There are certainly no indications that the language of the Reformation in Shetland (or Orkney) was ever Norn. In spite of this, the ministers of the new Church do not appear to have experienced the language difficulties that confronted their colleagues in the Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland. The only hint we have of a problem is the reference to Magnus Norsk, a minister in Unst in the 1590s, who is said to have earned the nickname because he went to Norway "to learn the Norse language in order to qualify himself for preaching to the Zetlanders, who at this time understood no other" (SCOTT 1928: 298). As a recent scholar has stressed, the reality is more likely to be that Magnus was called "Norsk" because he was a Norwegian (DONALDSON 1958: 79; this point is also made in SCOTT 1928). The best place to have learnt Norn would have been not in Norway but in his own parish in

452

Unst. (There is, though, the possibility that he went to Norway to learn something of the new religious terminology and divine services there.) All things considered, it is likely that from the late sixteenth century on increasing numbers of Shetlanders began to learn Scots. Intermarriage between Norn and Scots speakers was probably also a factor, as it presumably had been in Orkney earlier. Drastic linguistic reorientation during the seventeenth century is reflected in the reports of writers in the first half of the eighteenth. In Orkney, Norn is spoken of chiefly as a relic. In Shetland, things had not apparently gone quite so far, although Norn seems to have been the first language of the majority only in the northern islands and perhaps in one or two other outlying places, such as Foula. At this point two matters should be emphasised. First, there is nothing suggestive of a mixed language - part Norn, part Scots prior to the early eighteenth century. On the contrary, some writers around 1700 compliment both Orkneymen and Shetlanders on the fluency and quality of their Scots. It is nevertheless true of virtually all documented cases of bilingualism and incipient language shift of which I am aware that the dying language exhibits symptoms of interference and decay. (Two classic studies, both with copious references, are DORIAN 1981 and SCHMIDT 1985.) It is hard to imagine that Norn, as the language in retreat, remained uninfluenced by Scots, as Rendboe (198 / / (THURNEYSEN 1975: 77; O'RAHILLY 1976: 53-7); indeed, they may be extremely archaic dative forms. Survivals of neuter forms we can safely date to before the end of the 9th century (THURNEYSEN 1975: 154), e.g. An Dun 'the fort', Slag na Galltanaich 'the hollow of the foreigner', Seabhal na Fionndanaich 'Seabhal (an ON loan-name applied to a mountain) of the Norseman', Beinn Cloich 'stone mountain', and Beinn Feusaig 'hairy, i.e. lush or grassy as opposed to bare, mountain*. The name An DUn provides the ex nomine onomastic unit for a number of names, but how many of these will be that early is difficult to say. Very possibly Beinn na Diiine and Loch na Düine 'the mountain and lake of the fort' for example are, but it is probable that the ex nomine unit retained a 'fossilised* archaic genitive form in the creation of later names. Finally we can consider the absence of lenition in the initials of the ex nomine units in the names Loch Bacabhat, Loch Fionnacleit and Loch Mille Thola, which have ON loan-names as specifics following the Gaelic term for 'lake*. In the names Bothan daran and Fuaran daran 'the bothy and spring of CStl daran there is no lenition of the specific either. Lenition of genitive masculine personal-names probably originates by analogy with personal-names in a position following the genitive singular of mac 'son'. An instance where lenition of the personal-name occurs by analogy

483

after radical mac is found in the Book of Deer, of the 12th century (JACKSON 1972: 141 paragraph 27d). The phenomenon then spread to other genitive masculine personal and non-personal propernames regardless of position. Possibly this had become the rule by the early part of the 13th century. Tlie place-nomenclature in the west of Lewis, then, provides substantial evidence for a continuous Gaelic speaking presence through the Norse settlement period; and this is corroborated by material we shall be looking at later on. From this we can anticipate that language contact between Norse and Gael ranged over several centuries, from the advent of the first Norse settlers up to and beyond the cession of political sovereignty to Scotland in 1266. 2. Old Norse place-names in Lewis Now let us turn to the question of the degree of Norse settlement in the west of Lewis. Briefly, three stages or phases of Norse settlement are apparent from the type and distribution of settlement-name generic elements found there. In addition, settlement-names within each phase, especially within the first two, have certain names or generics clearly identifiable with them; the identification is made on linguistic and/or distributional grounds. Belonging to the primary phase are the loan-names *Bheitir from ON fiveitar, and Tolstadh from ON polfsstadir, earlier fiorolfsstadir, and an important group of toponyms with an early syntactical structure noun + adjective or, onomastically, generic + specific.3 Belonging to the secondary phase are the names Bostadh, Siabost and Labost, all containing the ON settlement generic bolstadr. In addition, there are associated shieling sites inferred by names in ON (-)sfetr, such as Laimiseadar and Siadar. The tertiary phase of settlement saw a consolidation and intensification of the Norse presence, but it was not one solely characterised by the establishment of new settlements. More importantly, this period saw a growth from within Lewis itself, e.g. some original shieling sites were possibly becoming permanently settled at this stage. What is most striking from the distribution of the various settlement and associated names involved is that the southern part

484

of the area concerned only begins to have permanent contact with the Norse community within the tertiary period. In fact, this area, constituting the townships of Britheascleit and Callanais (where the famous Gallanish stones are to be found), has none of the settlement or associated names found to the north. Apart from the possible exception of some coastal-names, Norse loan-names in these two townships are comparatively late. We find, therefore, that the process of Norse settlement was a staggered affair and, furthermore, that the intensity of that settlement was not constant throughout the area. We now turn to the question of the nature of language contact between Norse and Gael. By definition, the existence of loan-names and loan-words implies that there was contact. We have also seen that this contact was subject to the phased nature of Norse settlement, and areas were necessarily differentiated because of the degree of physical contact. We have seen that some groups, notably in the townships of Britheascleit and Callanais, remained relatively isolated for some time. The same is true for early Norse settlement areas. In Tolstadh, one of the primary settlements, we find the loan-name *Wongalairidh containing an ex nomine unit from ON MngvQllr 'the assembly site', revealing how at least this settlement preserved its own integrity with regard to its institutions.4 The real evidence here, however, is phonological: some names appear to have been borrowed by Gaels long after they were created by Norse. Given this background, what can we say about the nature of language contact? It appears likely that interaction really began to take place only by about or a little before 800, the period of relative isolation having lasted in some areas for about 50 years or so. Despite Jackson's comments on the relative similarity between Old Norse and Old Irish compared with English and Chinese (JACKSON 1962: 6), the Norse nevertheless spoke a language totally unintelligible at the outset to the established inhabitants of the area, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that linguistic contact was initially slow in developing. Before the end of the primary settlement period we can assume that some of the more important Norse place-names, like those of settlements, and some Norse personal-names also, had come to be borrowed by Gaels, and vice versa. (At this stage, of course, neither linguistic group need have adopted personal-names

485

concerned as part of their own anthroponymy.) It is only during the secondary settlement phase that we would expect much by way of an exchange of appellatives, although loan-words might be datable to any time after this period. There are several forms which clearly belong to the earliest strata of loan-words, and which can be ascribed to the 8th century, e.g. aoidh 'ford, isthmus' ON *aid later eid; *Rostainn with ON *stainn later steinn 'rock, stone'; the personal-names Uisdean ON *Aystein ace. later 0ystein, and Amhlaigh ON *Aleif ace. later Olaf. Other loan-words can be shown to have been borrowed much later however, e.g. *urrdh 'pile of boulders' from ON urd cannot have been borrowed before c. 1100, because ON rd earlier yielded the G. reflex [R] (velarised alveolar or post-alveolar trill) or Cr] (alveolar flap). For the majority of loan-words, however, we have no criteria by which to date them. 3. Old Norse personal-names in Lewis Listing all ON loan-words in the nomenclature (including personal-names, and derivational forms whose Gaelic etymons do not survive) we have a grand total of approximately 90 borrowed items. This figure includes loans no longer current in the lexicon of the area, e.g. beirghe (of a type of coastal promontory) from an ON dative bergi but it is incomplete since among borrowed items surviving in the lexicon there are some not cited in the nomenclature. Of our list, 14 are personal-names (see Appendix). (If, incidentally, we were to enquire after the names of Norse settlers we should also have to include personal-names cited only in loan-names, e.g. BJQrn, Ketill 7Kolla/i, Gudrun, Pora, Porir and Porolfr, as well as the Celtic loan Kaiman.) Terms for natural features account for 48 items on our list, while the remainder include terms dealing with land-use, husbandry, fishing and other occupations, as well as for a number of species of flora and fauna and a few miscellaneous items.

486

4. Gaelic loan-words in Old Norse names In comparison, Gaelic loan-words in the Norse element of the nomenclature are few (nominally we can only look for these in the ON loan-name content). They include G. buaile 'enclosure' found in the loan-names Buaileabhair and Buaileabhal·, G.äirigh in its earlier sense of 'milking-place' in *Wongalairidh; G. cro 'fold, pen' in the loan-name Crodhair (consisting of a plural ON form); G. äth 'ford* possibly in Athabhat; and G. creag 'rock' in Cliasam Creag·, as well as the EIr. form ail 'rock' found in the loan-names Eilistean and Eileastar (though in the former ail is most likely a Gaelic loan-name); and the EIr. personal-name Colman in the loan-name Calmaistean. 5. The language contact situation in Lewis judging from the place-names What can be inferred from all this? First of all it must be pointed out that we are at a disadvantage in that we are only considering the evidence of the nomenclature, not of the whole lexicon, a fact which has inherent limitations. When we consider the great number of loan-words for natural features, we could describe this phenomenon as a 'contribution in terminology'. We have to remember that both Norse and Gaelic people were essentially fisher-farmers. This contribution, then, is not a result of innovation, technological or otherwise, but could indicate that Norse communities, some of them at any rate, held greater political status. Although the nomenclature can offer no proof here, one way or another, within such a situation we can envisage a tendency to speak the language of the dominant group in order to communicate with it, and this implies a certain amount of bilingualism. The picture is further coloured by the more intimate contact inferred by personal-name borrowing, and the borrowing, both ways, of technical terms indicating improvements arising from an exchange of ideas. That this contact was linguistically beyond the level of an exchange of appellatives is shown for example by the

487

forms sporan 'purse' ultimately from an ON verb, and Bratag ultimately from an ON adjective. Realistically, though again this cannot be shown either way from the evidence of the nomenclature, there was probably linguistic interaction in many forms, from the use of individual lexical items in isolation, to the use of whole phrases, switching and calquing, up to the conscious cultivation of the use of more or less distinct languages. Although still speculative, perhaps the least presumptuous model of the times is one which shows Gaelic speaking communities in the immediate vicinity of Norse settlements initially attracted by the confidence and independence of their neighbours, and the development of closer relations over a period of time. Was this the situation everywhere? As we have already seen, Gaelic appears to have persisted in the west of Lewis through the period of Norse settlement. But did it survive as the language of a predominantly weaker, i.e. less politically dominant, people, or did it persist as the language of a warrior/aristocratic class which held on to its power vis-ä-vis its own people, whether or not it maintained political independence from its Norse neighbours? It is probable that the answer is both. In areas which had seen primary and/or secondary Norse settlement, undoubtedly there existed a substratum of nominally Gaelic speaking people. In Tolstadh, one of the heartlands of Norse country, we see the influence of this group in the ON loan-name already referred to, *^ngalairidh, with its generic a loan-word from EIr. airge 'milking-place'. Meanwhile, the situation in the townships Britheascleit and Callanais infers either that Norse settlement there was sporadic and short-lived, or that loan-names there resulted from a situation in which inter-marriage had taken place. Either way, a Gaelic hegemony could have prevailed. Then there is the perplexing matter of the name An Dun, a neuter system, as seen from its form in Beinn na Düine etc. Close by, in what is now at any rate part of the same township, is Bostadh. This was evidently a Norse settlement-name, or was it? Was it the Norse name for a settlement separate from the fort (An Dim) or their name for An Dun itself, or did the name evolve initially as a nonsettlement-name independently of another Norse name, but one now lost, for the fort? It might be argued that the name of the fort and those of one or two other features beside it were kept up by Gaelic speakers elsewhere, while the fort itself lay under Norse

488

control. This seems unlikely, not least because elsewhere there are, as far as I know, only examples of dun as chronologically later masc. u-stems or later still masc. o-stems. If it were a question of the name having been kept alive by a Gaelic speaking substratum, the decision by a once Norse, but now Gaelic speaking and identified lordship to revert to the fort's former Gaelic name must have been political. This is something we cannot demonstrate, and supposes the use of a particular criterion for naming places we cannot be sure was relevant at the time. Another possibility is that An Dun and Bostadh, as separate settlements (initially at least), were able to co-exist, and that a Gaelic lordship prevailed in the settlement of An Dun. To a large extent, then, contact between Norse and Gael initially meant the borrowing of individual lexical items on the part of the latter and ultimately, we may assume, at least a modicum of bilingualism. Greater interaction and closer linguistic and cultural contact is however inferred by other loans of a more specialised nature. Contact developed, however, only after a period in which Norse and Gaelic communities had remained relatively isolated from each other. Even at the end of this period, it seems probable that some Gaelic communities remained politically independent of their Norse neighbours. It was under these circumstances, then, that the Gaelic language prevailed, on the one hand as the language of part of a Norse ruled population and, on the other, as the language of a perpetuated independent Gaelic community. It is from this situation that the picture we have of the Hebrides in the llth and 12th centuries ultimately derives - the picture of a Gaelic speaking ruling class of mixed Norse and Gaelic stock. 6. Contact evidence from morphology and syntax As already mentioned, examining the nature of Norse-Gaelic contact through the place-nomenclature of an area has inherent limitations. This is especially so when we consider aspects of syntax and morphology. There do not appear to be any instances in the dialect of the west of Lewis of morphological influence from Old Norse. There may, however, be information about the language of the descendants of Norse settlers there. For example, G. palla 'ledge'

489

appears to be from an otherwise unattested weak form of masculine ON pallr; and the loan-name Cliasgro in all probability derives from an ON Kleifsgrof 'the stream of the slope (with a path up it)' with genitive singular of an unattested neuter form of feminine kleif. Until we have collected all the relevant material, it remains conjectural, but it seems likely that we will ultimately find evidence for what we might call Hebridean Norse, the variety of Old Norse spoken in the Hebrides. It has been argued by some that Gaelic names like Dubh Sgeir 'black skerry (which contains a loan-word from ON sker) are syntactically the result of Norse influence. There is really no evidence for this. The structure qualifier + noun was standard at one time in all the Celtic languages - it survives now only to a very limited degree. The changeover to the structure noun + qualifier, e.g. An Sgeir Dhubh 'the black skerry', was certainly not complete by the time the Norse arrived. There is a more intriguing group of names in the west of Lewis, however, that should be referred to here. It consists of the forms Amar Sine (ON Hamar Sfna 'prospect hill'), Beirghe Lägha (ON Bergit Laga 'the low(er) promontory'), Steinn Langa (ON Steininn Langa 'the long stone'), Lidh Langa (ON Hlidin Langa 'the long hillside'), and Muile Mucal (ON Mulinn Mykli 'the small mull'). The Old Norse recontructions here have a structure noun + qualifier, whereas classical Old Norse had the structure qualifier + noun. It might be argued that here we have evidence for Gaelic influence on the Norse language of Lewis. However, these names reflect the original structure of Proto-Scandinavian, which survives for example in the Norwegian name Landegode (ON Landit Goda). This and the fact that the Lewis names are geographically associated with primary settlement sites favours treating them as early rather than late forms. It is of importance that there are a few other examples of names with the archaic Norse structure, qualifier + noun, in Lewis, and also in St Kilda. Were we to find other examples dotted around the Hebrides - particularly to the south - we may have to reassess the evidence; otherwise the evidence would appear to indicate early Norse settlement on the western periphery of Scotland. One other possibility concerning these names needs to be considered; this is that they are Gaelic names, i.e. names created by Gaelic speakers using lexical items that had already been borrowed from Old Norse. The possibility certainly cannot be

490

overlooked. ON hamarr, berg, hlid, muli and possibly steinn were all borrowed into Gaelic at one time or another; but we should also have to admit the borrowing of the adjectives mykill/mikill, lagr and langr, as well as the noun syni, something for which there is otherwise no evidence. Pleas have previously been made for further research into the whole area of Norse-Gaelic relations, and of course funds to execute it. While some progress has been made, the need for the continuation of such research is no less urgent. For the west of Scotland, this should include two major projects: Firstly, a thorough study of the Norse loan-word content in Gaelic, searching both place-name and non-place-name material; and secondly, the compilation of a computerised database of Norse loan-names. I have made a start on the first matter. The second should not be too difficult to achieve, although I have over-simplified in stating the requirements, but it would be time-consuming and demand more financial resources. It cannot be over-stressed that we need such material at hand to be able to tackle more fully questions on the contact between Norse and Gael. Footnotes 1

In fact there are only about 250 ON loan-names in nearly 3000 items I collected from the Gaelic nomenclature in the west of Lewis.

2

Modern Scottish-Gaelic forms are quoted where available.

3

For a discussion of these, see below and Cox 1987 I: 245-48.

4

The etymology of the Isle of Man name Tynwald is identical.

491

References COX, R.A.V. (1987): Place-names of the Carloway Registry, Isle of Lewis. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Glasgow. FELLOWS-JENSEN, G. (1984): "Viking Settlement in the Northern and Western Isles - The Place-name Evidence as seen from Denmark and the Dane Law". In: FENTON, A. and H. PALSSON (eds.): The Northern and Western Isles in the Viking World. Edinburgh: 148-68. FRÄSER, I. A. (1984): "Some further thoughts on Scandinavian placenames in Lewis." Northern Studies 21: 34-41. HENDERSON, G. (1910): Tlie Norse Influence on Celtic Scotland. Glasgow. JACKSON, K.H. (1962): "The Celtic Languages during the Viking Period." Proceedings of the International Congress of Celtic Studies 1959. Dublin: 3-11. (1972): The Gaelic Notes in the Book of Deer. Cambridge. MacBAIN, A. (1922): Place-names of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, edited by W.J. WATSON. Stirling. NICOLAISEN, W.F.H. (1976): Scottish Place-names, their Study and Significance. London. OFTEDAL, M. (1980): "Scandinavian Place-names in Celtic Territory: An Attempt at a linguistic Classification." In: T. Andersson, E. Brylla and A. Rostvik (eds.): Ortnamn och sprakkontakt. Norna-rapporter 17. Uppsala: 163-91. O'RAHILLY, T.F. (1976): Irish Dialects Past and Present. Dublin (1st ed. 1932). THURNEYSEN, R. (1975): A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin (1st ed. 1946). WATSON, W.J. (1906): "Some Sutherland Names of Places." Celtic Review II, No. 8: 232-41. — (1926): History of the Celtic Place-names of Scotland. Edinburgh.

492

Appendix The following is a list of probable ON loan-words found in the nomenclature of the west of Lewis. They are classified only broadly by (a) personal-names (b) terms for natural features and (c) other items. a) AHghar ON Hallgeir acc.m.; Amhlaigh *ÄIeif acc.m.; IBäididh Botey f.; TBeinn Beini(r) m.; ?Cruimean Hromund acc.m.; lomhar fvar acc.m.; Laghmann LQgmann acc.m.; Leöd Ljot acc.m..; Raghnall Rognvald acc.m.; Raonailt Ragnhild acc.f.; Torcall Porkel acc.m.; Tormod *Pormund acc.m.; Tomod Hamund acc.m.; Uisdean *Aystein acc.m. b) Rocks, projections, eminences, precipices: allt 'crag' holt nt.; amar 'crag' hamar acc.m.; beirghe 'point' bergi dat.nt.; bodha 'reef boda acc.m.; *cealla 'ledge' hjall acc.m.; camp Overhang' kamp acc.m.; cleite 'hill' kletti dat.f.; cnap 'knob' knapp acc.m.; iola 'ledge' *hylla; lobht 'terrace' lopt ni.-,muthair 'crag' mugi m.; palla 'ledge' *palla acc.m.; ran 'hill' hraun nt.; rubha 'point' hruga or hrufa-, sgeir 'skerry' sker nt.; stac 'stack' stakk acc.m.; stalla 'ledge' stalla acc.m.; stob 'stump' stobba oblique m.; till 'crag' *hugl·, *urrdh 'boulders' urd f.; steinn 'stone' stein acc.m. Indentations, plains, depressions: bagh 'bay', vag acc.m.; bot 'lake-head' botn m.; *ceos 'hollow' kjos acc.m.; dail 'valley' dali dat.m.; doca 'pit' dokk f.; *fid 'lea fit f.; geodha 'ravine' gjssav< *el

Gortmo

e

Carrar oe Toureen/;: · 1311 7l

Rosmuok ;275.S 23*.4

i

i 180.8 i

:

: : :

: : : : :

: : >x : ; : ; :- -

jjj iSjjjj r

i;i I |||ti:i:i iaiSiiiii Υ

H

Ir

206.31 ii;

ι · :·;: :·:·:·?|ι 105.3

ρ^ϋΗ§ϋ ••V'

|| ;

i

izwjii

I

iZSO.lj

< >piddal

30* -Z

f

If?.

202.1 :

7 I nver i.n i 279.3

i :-: ;-:·>:·:·:·;·:·: :; ·:·:·;·:·:·:·;-:·;-:· ·:

IIPP ;

islii-jS::! ii

SSSigffi: /

13

11

12

Μ

15

15

1:2.25

1:1.4

1:1.2

1:1.5

1:1:8

1:0.9

AVERAGE I r i sh/Eng l i s h

·····:··'· ::|: ii |W.;| .

:

; ENGLISH ?

i :^:S·:·::-: : >

ΐ:ΐ:ΐ:ί:ί ·

ί

1 JJ213.0JI

1 :171.» i' iv

ι

SSi is ii IP Number of

"

^

0

^

*

VO

+

*"·

*"*"

tri

*

^~

4-

ν

·

4-

*

1

4

*

**·

0

+

6

in '

+

I

1

+

1

1

•f

•N

4

*

+

Η

CL II

CM - Ο

—

E c ο Φ •σ 4-» Φ Ο ιη

Φ Φ

IΙ

in

C

ι_

II

II 1

0

18 *

0

— 0

V)

φ u c

c φ ro Q. η

4—>

to

4-1

Ο 4-1

4

+

4-

4

^

CM

iri

0. "^

Q. CO

εο ro in

ID

+

0 1

4· X

9! ο

iri in

in vb

SI

+

CM

to

β

in

CM

ο LD

.

CM L_ Φ L_

OJ

c.

.c

1

E

4—>

4->

r:

0 0 0 c_

II

II

.0 II

ro 5

i

t?>

in CO.

l, Λ II

i_ υ

TO

Φ II

0)

CNj

Interlocutor

00

9« paternal grandmother 0= maternal grandmother

r··

II

II

LLJ

ΙΛ

o in

\7= paternal grandfather |8= maternal grandfather

01

ο to

7

Ο

/ " no answer

Λ CO CO

U

8°

**o o^o TJ

CM CM

CM LU

0 Ο

maternal uncle paternal aunt maternal aunt friends at school

•^r oo r-

2= 3= 4= 5=

0 0

ID _ι

do you speafc to your X?

ι

r-

675

2.4.1. In

Gort Mor (Gortmore)

For six of the 11 informants in Gort Mor the top point (+2) "often" was obtained, but only one pupil had a Language Use Index lower than 1.1 and that was a pupil born in County Wicklow (Gort 87: 5:9) and he was not a native speaker of Irish. Thus the Language Use Matrix of Table X gives us a picture of Irish as spoken in the families of a dozen school children as reported by themselves. But Table X contains more than sociolinguistic information on language use, it also correlates the self-reported data with the accomplishment in written Irish and English, that is, in the two major blocks of columns to the right. The high average Language Use Index 1.76 in Gort Mor corresponds well to the average Irish Error Index (16.1) obtained in the Irish essays. However, this "fair result" in Irish does not mean that the result in English should be bad. Bilingualism is no obstacle against learning good English as well. This is evidenced by the average English Error Index of the 11 informants of Gort Mor (10.6), which is a "good" mark However, the column NW (number of words) indicates that the children investigated in Gort Mor all write considerably longer essays in English (average 275.5 words) than in Irish (average 202.1 words) (cf. also section 2.3.1.), There does not seem to be a strong correlation in Table X between the Language Use Indices for Irish and the Irish Error Indices. Only for five of the 11 pupils can such a correlation be demonstrated. Two pupils (Gort 87:5:1 and 87:6:11) have Irish Error Indices above 19 ("passed"), although they reach 2 ("often") in their Language Use Indices. On the other hand, one pupil (Gort 87:6:4) has the Irish Error Index 8.6 ("good" to "excellent") in spite of a considerably lower Language Use Index for Irish (1.47), that is, "often" to "seldom". Five pupils who have high Irish Language Use Indices (LUI 1.94 to 2) also have "fair" Error Indices, that is, below 17: Gort 87:6:2 has the LUI 1.94 and the Ir. El 12.38 ("good" to "fair"), Gort 87:6:6 has the LUI 2 and the Ir. El 13 (also "good" to "fair"), Gort 87:5:7 has LUI 2 and Ir. El 16.87 ("fair"). Gort 87:6:12 has the LUI 2 and the Ir. El 14.52 ("fair") and finally Gort 87:5.13 has the LUI 2 and the Ir. El 12.77 ("good to "fair"). The English Error Indices are everywhere in Table X below El 10.5 ("good") except in three cases: Gort 87:6:6, Gort 87:5:7 and Gort 87:5:13, which yields the "good" average Error Index 10.6 for English in Gort Mor.

676 2.4.2. In Ros an Mhil (Rossaveel) In Ros an Mhil, where almost the same high average Language Use Index (1.78) is reached for Irish as in Gort Mor (1.76), the picture of the individual and average accomplishment in written Irish is completely different: although nine of the sixteen pupils have 2 "often" as Language Use Index and although in their families (see columns 1 to 6) Irish is only insignificantly less used compared to the pupils in Gort Mor, the Error Indices for Irish is much worse (higher). Only three of the nine pupils have Irish Error Indices below 17.5 ("fair"): Rosa 87:6:10 LUI 2 - Ir El 17.4; Rosa 87:6:12 LUI 2 - Ir El 14.2 and Rosa 87:6:15 LUI 2- Ir EI 6.O. The six other pupils with a LUI of 2 have high Error Indices between 24 and 32 ("failed"). There are, however, also two pupils with LUI 2, who reach the Ir El below 14-15 ("fair"), one of whom has even the Ir El 6 ("excellent"). The Irish average Error Index is therefore as high as 22.2 in spite of the high average Language Use Index (1.78) for Ros an Mhil, the highest in our measurements in Gonnemara. Consequently an intensive use of spoken Irish does not guarantee a good mark in written Irish at school. Ros an Mhil is a good example of this fact. Three Rossaveel pupils even rocket to Error Indices over 30, but not above 40. Ros an Mhil is a special place in a corner of its own. It is 'traditional' in mentality as compared with 'modern' An Cheathru Rua further west and it is in direct contact through the harbour with the intensely Irish-speaking Aran Islands (cf. Map 2). In comparison Gort Mor has more of the traditional oral-literarcy culture still surviving; a few families is enough for language maintenance by their insistence on accuracy of language and verbal precision. The difference in our test between Gort Mor and Ros an Mhil can perhaps be explained by such factors.

677

Table XI: Sociolinguistic matrix of the use of Irish (5th and 6th school years), Ros an Mhil (Rossaveel), Sept. 1987, bilinguals

CM J

i_

CM

α

c.

in

CM

CM

iO CM

c^

Ο

CM

^ Ο CM

•~

Ο

CO

co r-

CM CM §

ο ο

ιη

CM 1

sD ΟΟ

0

CM CM

\O

in tri

κ roCM

in

ΙΟ

O^ ό CN CM CM CM CM

ro

0

ο σ» ο ο

iO

CT ^O CM CM

CM

f ro in

0 0 ro in

1

ro in to

CM

ο

Ο

ο

CO Γ-

CM

0 CM

ο

CM

CM

CM

CM CM

X

•σV 4) W

3

9

L·

rx CO

CM

ζ

cr

CM

in ro C^

J

1987 English

CM

α Τ.

ο

I

ι JOD

Ο

[CM

CM S

CO

·CM>τ

CM CM

ο ο ro CO

CM CM

-

r-

2

Η Ο

Η

5 CM

CD

CO CM

CM

>£>

P;

,

i

__ I

|

* 4·

ro

+ *

*x i 4

4

4>

*

I

Ο 4 1

V

*

^cl + +

v

Ο 4 — |CN; CM ~~

i

Ml

CL JT

—

Z

cN,in

:

i

;

•z.

10

— CN|tOiCN; — 1 1 1

UJ

en

! m

O ': O - O O i i n i O

OO

c

CN

LU

CN

:

in Ό o to σ CN in o to CN to CN CN

OO'tO

1

* *

-

* *

*

*

·*·

1 0

1

* * I

1

h ..

*

0 0 *

1

*

CN

1

*

.—

1

*

O

1

4>

1

σ

1

*

1

o o

00

o

*

'

o

1

r-·

""-

•f

1

v^

1

lO

+

^

•N,

* * Sv

^

+

ι

i

i

ΐ

i * "~ v

0 ν.! +

* ""·

* * O

CN

*

*

1

""

*

*

O

to

' 1 *

1 * : +

Γ»·.

•f

I

+

+ +

cl φ J

1°- £ i \O QD 0 C O oo· to1 — CN' :o'

1

* O

Φ

:

^

j

o 0 * ι o o o "o" + ι +1 + 1 v I I

to

in

o-

!

00 CJ

i

!5

;^

""

1

Τ O'CN to 1i — CN|CN

r·-

1 O

'

:5 i · Ρ

O' O

ι ; ^T'r-

0>

i

:Ό:

ίσ· ,

I D , — CM . CD ' vO *O to O>i — : CMiCM " ι ' rO'

— —

Interlocutor

σ

toi N ^J" 1

1

^D ^τ ^τ in . t o .· ,| .· :o·

Q.

~z.

ι

!

o o oo > co in

UJ

CO

— !fO

CN ! vO : CN r^- ! CO vO CO

i-

01

ι

i ^*

1

ω

CO to CN — 'CN

ι

to •^ CN'CN r-,to OO (^ 1

CO

:

no answer

j

>x : β» ' Ώ J£· ^

! ι

Γ--' CD

!