DOCSLIB.ORG

A Glottometric Subgrouping of the Early Germanic Languages Joshua Agee San Jose State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Summer 2018 A Glottometric Subgrouping of the Early Germanic Languages Joshua Agee San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Agee, Joshua, "A Glottometric Subgrouping of the Early Germanic Languages" (2018). Master's Theses. 4926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.69cp-8xz2 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4926 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A GLOTTOMETRIC SUBGROUPING OF THE EARLY GERMANIC LANGUAGES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Joshua R. Agee August 2018 © 2018 Joshua R. Agee ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled A GLOTTOMETRIC SUBGROUPING OF THE EARLY GERMANIC LANGUAGES By Joshua R. Agee APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY August 2018 Soteria Svorou, Ph.D. Department of Linguistics and Language Development Kenneth VanBik, Ph.D. Department of Linguistics and Language Development Julia Swan, Ph.D. Department of Linguistics and Language Development ABSTRACT A GLOTTOMETRIC SUBGROUPING OF THE EARLY GERMANIC LANGUAGES By Joshua R. Agee Historical Glottometry, introduced by Alexandre François (2014), is a wave-based quantitative approach to language subgrouping that is used to calculate the overall strength of a linguistic subgroup using metrics that capture the contributions of linguistic innovations of various scopes to language diversification, in consideration of the reality of their distributions. It primarily achieves this by acknowledging the contribution of areal diffusion to language diversification, which has traditionally been overlooked in cladistic (tree-based) models. In this thesis, the development of the Germanic language family, from the breakup of Proto-Germanic to the latest period of the early attested daughter languages (namely Gothic, Old English, Old Norse and Old High German), is accounted for using Historical Glottometry. It is shown that this approach succeeds in accounting for several smaller, nontraditional subgroups of Germanic by accommodating the linguistic evidence unproblematically where a cladistic approach would fail. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank first and foremost Dr. Kenneth VanBik of San José State University for serving as the driving force in my desire to pursue an education and career in linguistics. His encouragement was always incessant and steadfast, and his approach to teaching will always be my golden standard. An equal serving of gratitude goes to my other committee members, Drs. Soteria Svorou and Julia Swan, for their valuable contributions to this thesis. I would also like to thank my good friend, California State Parks Docent Bill Rhoades, whose constant, refreshing support for my academic endeavors has been much appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Susan Agee, whose continued unconditional support for my studies has not been without appreciation. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES...…………………………………………………………… x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………….……………….…….……… xi 1 INTRODUCTION….……………………………………….………………. 1 1.1 Language Change and Subgrouping…………………….………………. 1 1.2 The Stammbaum………………………………………………………… 4 1.3 Ramifications for Germanic Subgrouping………………………………. 7 1.4 Wave Theory…………………………………………………………….. 9 1.5 Historical Glottometry…………………………………………………... 11 1.5.1 Exclusively Shared Innovations (ε)……………………………... 12 1.5.2 Cohesiveness (k)…………………………………………...……. 13 1.5.3 Subgroupiness (ς)………………………………………………... 14 1.5.4 Application to Germanic………..……………………………….. 15 2 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………….…………….. 19 2.1 Building a Database…...………..……...………………………………... 19 2.2 Organization…………………………...………………………...……..... 21 2.3 Innovations………………………….………………………………….... 22 2.4 Notation………………………………………………………………….. 24 3 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………… 26 3.1 Database of Shared Innovations…………………………………………. 26 3.2 Proposed Subgroups……………………………………………………... 36 3.2.1 Northwest Germanic………………………………………………. 37 3.2.2 Northeast Germanic (ON-GO)…………………………………….. 39 3.2.3 Continental Northwest Germanic………………………………….. 40 3.2.4 Northern Northwest Germanic…………………………………….. 41 3.2.5 West Germanic…………………………………………………….. 42 3.2.6 Northern West Germanic (Ingvaeonic)……………………………. 43 3.2.7 Anglo-Frisian……………………………………………………… 44 3.2.8 Teuto-Saxon (OHG-OS)…………………………………………... 44 3.2.9 Old Norse-Old Saxon-Old High German………………………….. 45 3.2.10 Old Norse-Gothic-Old High German…………………………….. 46 3.2.11 Teuto-Gothic (GO-OHG)……………………………………….... 47 3.2.12 Central Germanic (OFr-OS-OHG)……………………………….. 47 3.2.13 The Daughter Languages………………………………………… 48 vi 3.3 Final Results…………………………………………………………….. 49 4 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….. 54 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 57 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 63 APPENDIX A: NORTHWEST GERMANIC DEVELOPMENTS…………….. 63 A.1 Northwest Germanic Phonological Innovations………………………... 63 A.2 Northwest Germanic Morphological Innovations………………………. 72 A.3 Northwest Germanic Lexical Innovations………………………………. 76 A.4 Northwest Germanic Syntactic Innovations…………………………….. 78 APPENDIX B: GOTHIC DEVELOPMENTS………………………………….. 80 B.1 Gothic Phonological Innovations……………………………………….. 80 B.2 Gothic Morphological Innovations…………………………………….... 89 B.3 Gothic Lexical Innovations……………………………………………... 98 APPENDIX C: WEST GERMANIC DEVELOPMENTS……………………… 105 C.1 West Germanic Phonological Innovations……………………………… 105 C.2 West Germanic Morphological Innovations……………………………. 115 C.3 West Germanic Lexical Innovations……………………………………. 129 APPENDIX D: NORTHERN WEST GERMANIC DEVELOPMENTS………. 135 D.1 Ingvaeonic Developments………………………………………………. 135 D.1.1 Ingvaeonic Phonological Innovations…………………………….. 135 D.1.2 Ingvaeonic Morphological Innovations…………………………... 139 D.1.3 Ingvaeonic Lexical Innovations…………………………………... 144 D.1.4 Ingvaeonic Syntactic Innovations………………………………… 147 D.2 Anglo-Frisian Developments…………………………………………… 149 D.2.1 Anglo-Frisian Phonological Innovations…………………………. 149 D.2.2 Anglo-Frisian Morphological Innovations……………………….. 149 D.2.3 Anglo-Frisian Lexical Innovations……………………………….. 151 APPENDIX E: OLD NORSE DEVELOPMENTS……………………………... 153 E.1 Old Norse Phonological Innovations……………………………………. 153 E.2 Old Norse Morphological Innovations………………………………….. 169 E.3 Old Norse Lexical Innovations………………………………………….. 173 E.4 Old Norse Syntactic Innovations………………………………………... 177 APPENDIX F: OLD HIGH GERMAN DEVELOPMENTS…………………… 179 F.1 Old High German Phonological Innovations……………………………. 179 F.2 Old High German Morphological Innovations………………………….. 191 vii F.3 Old High German Lexical Innovations…………………………………. 201 F.4 Old High German Syntactic Innovations……………………………….. 208 APPENDIX G: OLD ENGLISH DEVELOPMENTS…………………………... 210 G.1 Old English Phonological Innovations………………………………….. 210 G.2 Old English Morphological Innovations………………………………... 222 G.3 Old English Lexical Innovations………………………………………... 231 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Database of Shared Innovations……………………..……..………….. 27 Table 2. Exclusive Developments of the Daughter Languages…………............. 48 Table 3. Glottometric Values for Supported Germanic Subgroups…................... 49 Table 4. The 15 Strongest Torres-Banks Subgroups (François and Kalyan forthcoming)………………………………………………..…………... 51 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Model language family ABC…………………………………….….... 4 Figure 2. A typical tree representation of the early Germanic languages……..... 8 Figure 3. Bloomfield’s depiction of a wave network in IE………..……………. 10 Figure 4. A wave portrayal of the ABC language family………..……………... 11 Figure 5. A hybrid tree/wave model of Northwest Germanic….……………….. 16 Figure 6. A glottometric diagram of Germanic……………..………………....... 53 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Languages and Subgroups: AF Anglo-Frisian Angl. Anglian Old English CNWGmc Continental Northwest Germanic EGmc East Germanic EN Modern English Finn. Finnish GE Modern German Gmc Germanic GO Gothic IC Icelandic IE Indo-European Ingv Ingvaeonic Lat. Latin ME Middle English Merc. Mercian Old English MHG Middle High German MLG Middle Low German NEGmc Northeast Germanic NGmc North Germanic North. Northumbrian Old English NNWGmc Northern Northwest Germanic NWGmc Northwest Germanic OE Old English OFr Old Frisian OHG Old High German ON Old Norse OS Old Saxon PGmc Proto-Germanic PIE Proto-Indo-European PNGmc Proto-North Germanic PNWGmc Proto-Northwest Germanic PWGmc Proto-West Germanic WGmc West Germanic WS West Saxon Old English Misc. Abbreviations: acc. Accusative adj. Adjective xi adv. Adverb appx. Appendix cf. Confer (compare to cognates) cl. Class cons. Consonant dat. Dative def. Definite deriv. Derivational du. Dual e.g. For Example fem. Feminine fric. Fricative HG Historical Glottometry i.e. That is; as in the case of imp. Imperative indic. Indicative inf. Infinitive inst. Instrumental lab. Labial masc. Masculine n. Noun nom. Nominative neut. Neuter obl. Oblique obst. Obstruent opt. Optative p.c. Personal Communication
Recommended publications
  • 《International Symposium》 Let's Talk About Trees National Museum

    《International Symposium》 Let's Talk About Trees National Museum

    《International Symposium》 Let’s Talk about Trees National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan. February 10, 2013 Abstract [Austronesian Language Case Studies 2] Limitations of the tree model: A case study from North Vanuatu Siva KALYAN1 and Alexandre FRANÇOIS2 1. Northumbria University 2. CNRS/LACITO Since the beginnings of historical linguistics, the family tree has been the most widely accepted model for representing historical relations between languages. It is even being reinvigorated by current research in computational phylogenetics (e.g. Gray et al. 2009). While this sort of representation is certainly easy to grasp, and allows for a simple, attractive account of the development of a language family, the assumptions made by the tree model are applicable in only a small number of cases. The tree model is appropriate when a speaker population undergoes successive splits, with subsequent loss of contact among subgroups. For all other scenarios, it fails to provide an accurate representation of language history (cf. Durie & Ross 1996; Pawley 1999; Heggarty et al. 2010). In particular, it is unable to deal with dialect continua, as well as language families that develop out of dialect continua (for which Ross 1988 has proposed the term "linkage"). In such cases, the scopes of innovations (in other words, their isoglosses) are not nested, but rather they persistently intersect, so that any proposed tree representation is met with abundant counterexamples. Though Ross's initial observations about linkages concerned the languages of Western Melanesia, it is clear that linkages are found in many other areas as well (such as Fiji: cf. Geraghty 1983). In this presentation, we focus on the 17 languages of the Torres and Banks islands in Vanuatu, which form a linkage (Tryon 1996, François 2011), and attempt to develop adequate representations for it.
  • The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    THE SHARED LEXICON OF BALTIC, SLAVIC AND GERMANIC VINCENT F. VAN DER HEIJDEN ******** Thesis for the Master Comparative Indo-European Linguistics under supervision of prof.dr. A.M. Lubotsky Universiteit Leiden, 2018 Table of contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Background topics 3 2.1. Non-lexical similarities between Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2. The Prehistory of Balto-Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2.1. Northwestern Indo-European 3 2.2.2. The Origins of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 4 2.3. Possible substrates in Balto-Slavic and Germanic 6 2.3.1. Hunter-gatherer languages 6 2.3.2. Neolithic languages 7 2.3.3. The Corded Ware culture 7 2.3.4. Temematic 7 2.3.5. Uralic 9 2.4. Recapitulation 9 3. The shared lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 11 3.1. Forms that belong to the shared lexicon 11 3.1.1. Baltic-Slavic-Germanic forms 11 3.1.2. Baltic-Germanic forms 19 3.1.3. Slavic-Germanic forms 24 3.2. Forms that do not belong to the shared lexicon 27 3.2.1. Indo-European forms 27 3.2.2. Forms restricted to Europe 32 3.2.3. Possible Germanic borrowings into Baltic and Slavic 40 3.2.4. Uncertain forms and invalid comparisons 42 4. Analysis 48 4.1. Morphology of the forms 49 4.2. Semantics of the forms 49 4.2.1. Natural terms 49 4.2.2. Cultural terms 50 4.3. Origin of the forms 52 5. Conclusion 54 Abbreviations 56 Bibliography 57 1 1.
  • Concepts and Methods of Historical Linguistics-The Germanic Family Of

    Concepts and Methods of Historical Linguistics-The Germanic Family Of

    CURSO 2016 - 2017 CONCEPTS AND METHODS OF HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS Tutor: Carlos Hernández Simón Sir William Jones, Jacob Grimm and Karl Verner from Lisa Minnick 2011: “Let them eat metaphors, Part 1: Order from Chaos and the Indo-European Hypothesis” Functional Shift https://functionalshift.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/metaphors1/ [retrieved February 17, 2017] CONCEPTS AND METHODS OF HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS AIMS OF STUDY 1) Language change and stability 2) Reconstruction of earlier stages of languages 3) Discovery and implementation of research methodologies Theodora Bynon (1981) 1) Grammars that result from the study of different time spans in the evolution of a language 2) Contrast them with the description of other related languages 3) Linguistic variation cannot be separated from sociological and geographical factors 3 CONCEPTS AND METHODS OF HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ORIGINS • Renaissance: Contrastive studies of Greek and Latin • Nineteenth Century: Sanskrit 1) Acknowledgement of linguistic change 2) Development of the Comparative Method • Robert Beekes (1995) 1) The Greeks 2) Languages Change • R. Lawrence Trask (1996) 1) 6000-8000 years 2) Historical linguist as a kind of archaeologist 4 CONCEPTS AND METHODS OF HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS THE COMPARATIVE METHOD • Sir William Jones (1786): Greek, Sanskrit and Latin • Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European • Regular principle of phonological change 1) The Neogrammarians 2) Grimm´s Law (1822) and Verner’s Law (1875) 3) Laryngeal Theory : Ferdinand de Saussure (1879) • Two steps: 1) Isolation of a set of cognates: Latin: decem; Greek: deca; Sanskrit: daśa; Gothic: taihun 2) Phonological correspondences extracted: 1. Latin d; Greek d; Sanskrit d; Gothic t 2. Latin e; Greek e; Sanskrit a; Gothic ai 3.
  • Internal Classification of Indo-European Languages: Survey

    Internal Classification of Indo-European Languages: Survey

    Václav Blažek (Masaryk University of Brno, Czech Republic) On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: Survey The purpose of the present study is to confront most representative models of the internal classification of Indo-European languages and their daughter branches. 0. Indo-European 0.1. In the 19th century the tree-diagram of A. Schleicher (1860) was very popular: Germanic Lithuanian Slavo-Lithuaian Slavic Celtic Indo-European Italo-Celtic Italic Graeco-Italo- -Celtic Albanian Aryo-Graeco- Greek Italo-Celtic Iranian Aryan Indo-Aryan After the discovery of the Indo-European affiliation of the Tocharian A & B languages and the languages of ancient Asia Minor, it is necessary to take them in account. The models of the recent time accept the Anatolian vs. non-Anatolian (‘Indo-European’ in the narrower sense) dichotomy, which was first formulated by E. Sturtevant (1942). Naturally, it is difficult to include the relic languages into the model of any classification, if they are known only from several inscriptions, glosses or even only from proper names. That is why there are so big differences in classification between these scantily recorded languages. For this reason some scholars omit them at all. 0.2. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984, 415) developed the traditional ideas: Greek Armenian Indo- Iranian Balto- -Slavic Germanic Italic Celtic Tocharian Anatolian 0.3. Vladimir Georgiev (1981, 363) included in his Indo-European classification some of the relic languages, plus the languages with a doubtful IE affiliation at all: Tocharian Northern Balto-Slavic Germanic Celtic Ligurian Italic & Venetic Western Illyrian Messapic Siculian Greek & Macedonian Indo-European Central Phrygian Armenian Daco-Mysian & Albanian Eastern Indo-Iranian Thracian Southern = Aegean Pelasgian Palaic Southeast = Hittite; Lydian; Etruscan-Rhaetic; Elymian = Anatolian Luwian; Lycian; Carian; Eteocretan 0.4.
  • Official Standard of the Old English Sheepdog General Appearance: a Strong, Compact, Square, Balanced Dog

    Official Standard of the Old English Sheepdog General Appearance: a Strong, Compact, Square, Balanced Dog

    Page 1 of 2 Official Standard of the Old English Sheepdog General Appearance: A strong, compact, square, balanced dog. Taking him all around, he is profusely, but not excessively coated, thickset, muscular and able-bodied. These qualities, combined with his agility, fit him for the demanding tasks required of a shepherd's or drover's dog. Therefore, soundness is of the greatest importance. His bark is loud with a distinctive "pot- casse" ring in it. Size, Proportion, Substance: Type, character and balance are of greater importance and are on no account to be sacrificed to size alone. Size - Height (measured from top of withers to the ground), Dogs: 22 inches (55.8 centimeters) and upward. Bitches: 21 inches (53.3 centimeters) and upward. Proportion - Length (measured from point of shoulder to point of ischium (tuberosity) practically the same as the height. Absolutely free from legginess or weaselness. Substance - Well muscled with plenty of bone. Head - A most intelligent expression. Eyes - Brown, blue or one of each. If brown, very dark is preferred. If blue, a pearl, china or wall-eye is considered typical. An amber or yellow eye is most objectionable. Ears - Medium sized and carried flat to the side of the head. Skull - Capacious and rather squarely formed giving plenty of room for brain power. The parts over the eyes (supra-orbital ridges) are well arched. The whole well covered with hair. Stop - Well defined. Jaw - Fairly long, strong, square and truncated. Attention is particularly called to the above properties as a long, narrow head or snipy muzzle is a deformity.
  • AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR of OLD ENGLISH Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies

    AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR of OLD ENGLISH Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies

    AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR OF OLD ENGLISH MEDievaL AND Renaissance Texts anD STUDies VOLUME 463 MRTS TEXTS FOR TEACHING VOLUme 8 An Introductory Grammar of Old English with an Anthology of Readings by R. D. Fulk Tempe, Arizona 2014 © Copyright 2020 R. D. Fulk This book was originally published in 2014 by the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Arizona State University, Tempe Arizona. When the book went out of print, the press kindly allowed the copyright to revert to the author, so that this corrected reprint could be made freely available as an Open Access book. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE viii ABBREVIATIONS ix WORKS CITED xi I. GRAMMAR INTRODUCTION (§§1–8) 3 CHAP. I (§§9–24) Phonology and Orthography 8 CHAP. II (§§25–31) Grammatical Gender • Case Functions • Masculine a-Stems • Anglo-Frisian Brightening and Restoration of a 16 CHAP. III (§§32–8) Neuter a-Stems • Uses of Demonstratives • Dual-Case Prepositions • Strong and Weak Verbs • First and Second Person Pronouns 21 CHAP. IV (§§39–45) ō-Stems • Third Person and Reflexive Pronouns • Verbal Rection • Subjunctive Mood 26 CHAP. V (§§46–53) Weak Nouns • Tense and Aspect • Forms of bēon 31 CHAP. VI (§§54–8) Strong and Weak Adjectives • Infinitives 35 CHAP. VII (§§59–66) Numerals • Demonstrative þēs • Breaking • Final Fricatives • Degemination • Impersonal Verbs 40 CHAP. VIII (§§67–72) West Germanic Consonant Gemination and Loss of j • wa-, wō-, ja-, and jō-Stem Nouns • Dipthongization by Initial Palatal Consonants 44 CHAP. IX (§§73–8) Proto-Germanic e before i and j • Front Mutation • hwā • Verb-Second Syntax 48 CHAP.
  • United States National Museum

    United States National Museum

    Q 11 U563 CRLSSI . e I ^ t UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 218 Papers 1 to 11 Contributions FROM THE Museum OF History and Technology SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION O WASHINGTON. DC. ^ 1959 WS'n NOV 16 1959 ISSUED NOVl 61959 Smithsonian Institution UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Remington Kellooo Director Smith, Director Trank a. Taylor, Director Albert C. Museum oj jXatural History Afiisfum of ///'A"V 'iiiil Tirhwiliniv Publications of the United States National Museum include two The scientific publications of the United Stales National Museum States National Museum scries, Proceedings oj the United States National Museum and United Bulletin. dealing with the In these series are published original articles and monographs facts in the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired Copies of fields of Anthropolog)', Biology, Geolog)', History, and Technology. each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the dififerent subjects. separate The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in size, with the form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in publication date of each paper recorded in the taljle of contents of the volume. separate In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes either octavo or in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are papers re- qiiarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 lating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions Jrom the United Stales National Herbarium.
  • "Ich Höre Gern Diesen Dialekt, Erinnert Mich an Meine Urlaube in Kärnten

    "Ich Höre Gern Diesen Dialekt, Erinnert Mich an Meine Urlaube in Kärnten

    "Ich höre gern diesen Dialekt, erinnert mich an meine Urlaube in Kärnten ... ": A survey of the usage and the popularity of Austrian dialects in Vienna John Bellamy (Manchester) A survey of over 200 Austrians was undertaken in Vienna to investigate the extent to which they say they use dialect. They were asked if they speak dialect and if they do, in which situations they would switch to using predominantly Hochsprache. The responses have been analysed according to age, gender, birthplace (in Austria) and occupation to find out if the data reveals underlying correlations, especially to see if there have been any developments of note since earlier studies (for example, Steinegger 1995). The same group of informants were also asked about their opinions of Austrian dialects in general and this paper details their answers along with the reasons behind their positive or negative responses in this regard. The data collected during this survey will be compared to other contemporary investigations (particularly Soukup 2009) in an effort to obtain a broader view of dialect usage and attitudes towards dialect in Vienna and its environs. Since a very similar study was undertaken at the same time in the UK (Manchester) with more or less the same questions, the opportunity presents itself to compare dialect usage in the area in and around Vienna with regional accents and usage in the urban area of Manchester. References will be made during the course of the presentation to both sets of data. Language planning in Europe during the long 19th century: The selection of the standard language in Norway and Flanders Els Belsack (VU Brussel) The long 19th century (1794-1914) is considered to be the century of language planning par excellence.
  • Gothic Introduction – Part 1: Linguistic Affiliations and External History Roadmap

    Gothic Introduction – Part 1: Linguistic Affiliations and External History Roadmap

    RYAN P. SANDELL Gothic Introduction – Part 1: Linguistic Affiliations and External History Roadmap . What is Gothic? . Linguistic History of Gothic . Linguistic Relationships: Genetic and External . External History of the Goths Gothic – Introduction, Part 1 2 What is Gothic? . Gothic is the oldest attested language (mostly 4th c. CE) of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family. It is the only substantially attested East Germanic language. Corpus consists largely of a translation (Greek-to-Gothic) of the biblical New Testament, attributed to the bishop Wulfila. Primary manuscript, the Codex Argenteus, accessible in published form since 1655. Grammatical Typology: broadly similar to other old Germanic languages (Old High German, Old English, Old Norse). External History: extensive contact with the Roman Empire from the 3rd c. CE (Romania, Ukraine); leading role in 4th / 5th c. wars; Gothic kingdoms in Italy, Iberia in 6th-8th c. Gothic – Introduction, Part 1 3 What Gothic is not... Gothic – Introduction, Part 1 4 Linguistic History of Gothic . Earliest substantively attested Germanic language. • Only well-attested East Germanic language. The language is a “snapshot” from the middle of the 4th c. CE. • Biblical translation was produced in the 4th c. CE. • Some shorter and fragmentary texts date to the 5th and 6th c. CE. Gothic was extinct in Western and Central Europe by the 8th c. CE, at latest. In the Ukraine, communities of Gothic speakers may have existed into the 17th or 18th century. • Vita of St. Cyril (9th c.) mentions Gothic as a liturgical language in the Crimea. • Wordlist of “Crimean Gothic” collected in the 16th c.
  • University of Groningen an Acoustic Analysis of Vowel Pronunciation In

    University of Groningen an Acoustic Analysis of Vowel Pronunciation In

    University of Groningen An Acoustic Analysis of Vowel Pronunciation in Swedish Dialects Leinonen, Therese IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2010 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Leinonen, T. (2010). An Acoustic Analysis of Vowel Pronunciation in Swedish Dialects. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 Chapter 2 Background In this chapter the linguistic and theoretical background for the thesis is presented.
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Iranian Dialectology and Dialectometry Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pv6f9g9 Author Cathcart, Chundra Aroor Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Iranian Dialectology and Dialectometry By Chundra Aroor Cathcart A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Andrew J. Garrett, Chair Professor Gary B. Holland Professor Martin Schwartz Spring 2015 Abstract Studies in Iranian Dialectology and Dialectometry by Chundra Aroor Cathcart Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Andrew Garrett, Chair This dissertation investigates the forces at work in the formation of a tightly knit but ultimately non-genetic dialect group. The Iranian languages, a genetic sub-branch of the larger Indo-European language family, are a group whose development has been profoundly affected by millennia of internal contact. This work is concerned with aspects of the diversification and disparification (i.e., the development of different versus near-identical features across languages) of this group of languages, namely issues pertaining to the development of the so-called West Iranian group, whose status as a legitimate genetic subgroup has long remained unclear. To address the phenomena under study, I combine a traditional comparative-historical approach with existing quantitative methods as well as newly developed quantitative methods designed to deal with the sort of linguistic situation that Iranian typifies. The studies I undertake support the idea that West Iranian is not a genetic subgroup, as sometimes assumed; instead, similarities between West Iranian languages that give the impression of close genetic relatedness have come about due to interactions between contact and parallel driftlike tendencies.
  • Adverbial Reinforcement of Demonstratives in Dialectal German

    Adverbial Reinforcement of Demonstratives in Dialectal German

    Glossa a journal of general linguistics Adverbial reinforcement of COLLECTION: NEW PERSPECTIVES demonstratives in dialectal ON THE NP/DP DEBATE German RESEARCH PHILIPP RAUTH AUGUSTIN SPEYER *Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article ABSTRACT CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Philipp Rauth In the German dialects of Rhine and Moselle Franconian, demonstratives are Universität des Saarlandes, reinforced by locative adverbs do/lo ‘here/there’ in order to emphasize their deictic Germany strength. Interestingly, these adverbs can also appear in the intermediate position, i.e., [email protected] between the demonstrative and the noun (e.g. das do Bier ‘that there beer’), which is not possible in most other varieties of European German. Our questionnaire study and several written and oral sources suggest that reinforcement has become mandatory in KEYWORDS: demonstrative contexts. We analyze this grammaticalization process as reanalysis of demonstrative; reinforcer; do/lo from a lexical head to the head of a functional Index Phrase. We also show that a German; Rhine Franconian; functional DP-shell can better cope with this kind of syntactic change and with certain Moselle Franconian; Germanic; serialization facts concerning adjoined adjectives. Romance; dialectal German; grammaticalization; reanalysis; NP; DP; questionnaire TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Rauth, Philipp and Augustin Speyer. 2021. Adverbial reinforcement of demonstratives in dialectal German. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1): 4. 1–24. DOI: https://doi. org/10.5334/gjgl.1166 1 INTRODUCTION Rauth and Speyer 2 Glossa: a journal of In colloquial Standard German, the only difference between definite determiners (1a) and general linguistics DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1166 demonstratives is emphatic stress in demonstrative contexts (1b).