Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5-9 August 2013
Edited by Dag T.T. Haug
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 334] 2015
► pp. 89–108

Evaluating prehistoric and early historic linguistic contacts

This paper discusses methods for evaluating potential language contacts before the earliest written documents. It shows that both evaluation of (usually) sparse empirical evidence and typological evaluation are required for an explanation. Of paramount importance are considerations of specificity of change, its likelihood of occurrence in a certain type of system, and the relative chronology of occurrence in the supposedly contacting systems. The paper focuses on the emergence of the bisyllabic domain for phonological processes in Slavic, accompanied by a number of specific and typologically significant changes of the Great-Migration period, evaluating them in comparison with similar processes in neighboring Indo-European. The second point to be discussed is the emergence of the Celtic verb complex and its word order properties, due to an interplay of predicate aspect with syntactic and prosodic factors.
Keywords: bisyllabic domain in Slavic, Celtic verb complex, palatalization, typological evaluation
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.334.06gvo
References (48)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1969. “Lenition in Common Slavic”. Language 45: 3. 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dietze, Joachim. 1971. Die erste Novgoroder Chronik: nach ihrer ältesten Redaktion (die Synodalhandschrift) 1016–1333/1352; Edition des altrussischen Textes und Faksimile der Handschrift im Nachdruck. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
. 1975. Die Sprache der ersten Novgoroder Chronik; die von der Synodalschrift graphisch reflektierte phonetische und phonologische Situation. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.Google Scholar
Eska, Joseph F. 1994. “Rethinking the Evolution of Celtic Constituent Configuration”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55. 7–39.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Continental Celtic”. The Ancient Languages of Europe ed. by Roger D. Woodard, 165–188. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Contact and the Celtic Languages”. The Handbook of Language Contact ed. by Raymond Hickey, 538–549. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falileyev, Alexander. 2010. Dictionary of Continental Celtic Place-Names. Aberystwyth: CMCS.Google Scholar
Gensler, Orin David. 1993. A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Extracts from ‘A typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic syntactic Parallels”. The Celtic World: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies, Celtic Linguistics IV ed. by Raimund Karl & David Stifter, 151–229. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Marc L. 2000. A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Greene, David. 1973. “The Growth of Palatalization in Irish”. Transactions of the Philological Society 72:1. 127–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. “Archaic Irish”. Indogermanisch und Keltisch ed. by Karl Horst Schmidt, 11–33. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 2009. Celtic and Slavic and the Great Migrations. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 2012. “On the Linguistic Classification of Venetic”. Journal of Language Relationship 7. 33–46.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Paola Bellincà. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Steve. 2007. “Remarks on the Insular Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Question”. The Celtic World: Critical concepts in historical studies, Celtic Linguistics IV ed. by Raimund Karl & David Stifter, 230–268. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hock, Wolfgang. 1986/2006. “Das Urslavische”. Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen ed. by Peter Rehder, 17–34. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse”. Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax ed. by Talmy Givón, 213–241. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Isaac, Graham R. 2007. “Celtic and Afro-Asiatic”. The Celtic Languages in Contact ed. by ­Hildegard L.C. Tristram, 25–80. Potsdam: The Potsdam University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Kenneth H. 1967. A Historical Phonology of Breton. Dublin: DIAS.Google Scholar
Jongeling, Karel. 2000. Comparing Welsh and Hebrew. Leiden: Leiden research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2007. Italo-Celtic Origins and Prehistoric Development of the Irish Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 2003. La langue gauloise. Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel. 1974. Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (Studia Linguistica GermanicaVIII). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacCana, Proinsias. 1973. “Celtic Word Order and the Welsh Abnormal Sentence”. Ériu 24. 90–120.Google Scholar
McCone, Kim. 2006. The Origins and Development of the Insular Celtic Verbal Complex. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish.Google Scholar
Meid, Wolfgang. 1993. Die erste Botorrita Inschrift. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Morris Jones, John. 1900. “Pre-Aryan Syntax in Insular Celtic”. The Welsh People; Chapters on their Origin, History, Laws, Language, Literature and Characteristics, Appendix B ed. by John Rhys & David Brymore-Jones, 617–641. London: T. Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar
Petrova, Svetlana. 2011. “Modelling Word Order Variation in Discourse: on the Pragmatic Properties of VS Word Order in Old High German”. Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches ed. by Eirik Welo, 209–228. Oslo Studies in Language 3.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1927–30. “Das nicht-indogermanische Substrat im Irischen”. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 16. 95–144, 231–266, 363–394; 17. 373–388; 18. 233–248.Google Scholar
. 1949. “Zum nicht-indogermanischen Substrat im Inselkeltischen”. Die Sprache 1. 235–45.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1995. “‘Theticity’ and VS order: A Case Study”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 48. 1/2. 3–31.Google Scholar
Schrijver, Peter. 2007. Keltisch en de buren: 9000 jaar taalcontact. University of Utrecht: [URL]Google Scholar
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A Prehistory of Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. “Variation in Major Constituent Order: A Global and a European Perspective”. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe ed. by Anna Siewierska, 475–552. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1995. “Theticity, VS Order and the Interplay of Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 48: 1/2. 72–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A Grammar of Old Irish. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vendryes, Joseph. 1911–12. “La place du verbe en celtique”. Mémoires de la Societé de Linguistique 17. 337–51.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2012. Germania Semitica, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Willem R. 1986. “The Rise of the North Russian Dialect of Common Slavic”. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 8. 503–515.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung”. Indogermanische Forschungen 1. 333–436.Google Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich. 1959. Das Verbum in den Sprachen der Britischen Inseln. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. “Preliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verb”. Celtica 6. 1–49.Google Scholar
. 1964. “Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of Indo-European Sentence Structure”. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 1035–1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrey A. 1995. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Seržant, Ilja A.
2021. Slavic Morphosyntax is Primarily Determined by its Geographic Location and Contact Configuration. Scando-Slavica 67:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Gvozdanovic, Jadranka
2019. Chapter 15. Early Indo-European dialects and innovations of aspect systems. In Historical Linguistics 2015 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 348], ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.