THE ORIGIN OF THE

THE ORIGIN OF THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

From Proto-Indo-

From Proto-Indo-

European down to Old

European down to Old

English

English

The mechanism responsible for

The mechanism responsible for

the multiplication of languages

the multiplication of languages

The English language belongs to the

The English language belongs to the

Indo-European language family.

Indo-European language family.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE or IE) a

Proto-Indo-European (PIE or IE) a

language believed to have been

language believed to have been

spoken in the 4

spoken in the 4

th

th

and 3

and 3

rd

rd

century BC

century BC

somewhere in Eastern Europe. This

somewhere in Eastern Europe. This

proto-language split into a number of

proto-language split into a number of

dialects which in time became

dialects which in time became

separate languages.

separate languages.

Dialect vs. language

Dialect vs. language

According to Crystal (1997: 114) dialect can be

According to Crystal (1997: 114) dialect can be

characterised as: “[a] regionally or socially

characterised as: “[a] regionally or socially

distinctive VARIETY of language, identified by a

distinctive VARIETY of language, identified by a

particular set of WORDS and GRAMMATICAL

particular set of WORDS and GRAMMATICAL

STRUCTURES. Spoken dialects are usually also

STRUCTURES. Spoken dialects are usually also

associated with a distinctive pronunciation, or

associated with a distinctive pronunciation, or

ACCENT. Any language with a reasonably large

ACCENT. Any language with a reasonably large

number of speakers will develop dialects,

number of speakers will develop dialects,

especially if there are geographical barriers

especially if there are geographical barriers

separating groups of people from each other…”

separating groups of people from each other…”

THE KEY WORDS: VARIETY, WORDS,

THE KEY WORDS: VARIETY, WORDS,

GRAMMATCAL STRUCTURES, DISTINCTIVE

GRAMMATCAL STRUCTURES, DISTINCTIVE

ACCENT.

ACCENT.

Language vs. dialect

Language vs. dialect

Thus dialects of a given language will

Thus dialects of a given language will

differ from one another in:

differ from one another in:



Pronunciation (possibly phonology)

Pronunciation (possibly phonology)



Lexicon (words)

Lexicon (words)



Morphology (distinct forms and

Morphology (distinct forms and

grammatical structures)

grammatical structures)



Syntax (grammatical structures).

Syntax (grammatical structures).

Language vs. dialect

Language vs. dialect

Which criterion is used to classify two systems as

Which criterion is used to classify two systems as

two dialects of the same language or two different

two dialects of the same language or two different

languages?

languages?

The criterion is mutual comprehensibility.

The criterion is mutual comprehensibility.

According to Crystal (197: 114): “dialects are

According to Crystal (197: 114): “dialects are

subdivisions of languages….. It is usually said that

subdivisions of languages….. It is usually said that

people speak different languages when they do

people speak different languages when they do

not understand each other”. Therefore two

not understand each other”. Therefore two

dialects become two different languages if the

dialects become two different languages if the

users of the two varieties find it impossible to

users of the two varieties find it impossible to

communicate with one another because of the

communicate with one another because of the

differences on the phonological, morphological,

differences on the phonological, morphological,

lexical, and syntactic levels.

lexical, and syntactic levels.

The multiplication of

The multiplication of

languages

languages

One language is likely to split into a number of separate

One language is likely to split into a number of separate

languages if:

languages if:

1.

1.

The speech community using this language inhabits

The speech community using this language inhabits

a vast area. The portion of that speech community

a vast area. The portion of that speech community

inhabiting the peripheries of this area are likely to

inhabiting the peripheries of this area are likely to

develop their own regional varieties distinct from

develop their own regional varieties distinct from

the central variety;

the central variety;

2.

2.

If a given peripheral speech community becomes

If a given peripheral speech community becomes

separated from the core speech community, either

separated from the core speech community, either

due to geographical barriers (e.g. mountains) or

due to geographical barriers (e.g. mountains) or

through migrations, its regional variety is likely to

through migrations, its regional variety is likely to

become incomprehensible for the speakers of the

become incomprehensible for the speakers of the

remaining dialects thus becoming a separate

remaining dialects thus becoming a separate

language.

language.

The multiplication of

The multiplication of

languages

languages

A

3

A

1

A

2

B

3

B

1

B

2

C

3

C

1

C

2

D

3

D

1

D

2

E

3

E

1

E

2

F

3

F

1

F

2

F

3

F

1

F

2

Proto-Indo-European

Proto-Indo-European

Sir William Jones, the founder of the Bengal Asiatic

Sir William Jones, the founder of the Bengal Asiatic

Society, in 1786 read a paper to that group in

Society, in 1786 read a paper to that group in

which he claimed that Sanskrit bore to Greek and

which he claimed that Sanskrit bore to Greek and

Latin: “a strong affinity … than could possibly

Latin: “a strong affinity … than could possibly

have produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that

have produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that

no philosopher could examine them all three

no philosopher could examine them all three

without believing them to have sprung from some

without believing them to have sprung from some

common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

(Pyles 1964:71). He further remarked that: “there

(Pyles 1964:71). He further remarked that: “there

is a similar reason for supposing that both Gothick

is a similar reason for supposing that both Gothick

[ that is, the Germanic] and Celtick … has the

[ that is, the Germanic] and Celtick … has the

same origin with the Sanscrit” (Pyles 1964: 71).

same origin with the Sanscrit” (Pyles 1964: 71).

Proto-Indo-European

Proto-Indo-European

LATIN

GREEK

GOTHICK. CELTICK

SANSCRIT

COMMON SOURCE

PROTO-LANGUAGE?

Proto-Indo-European

Proto-Indo-European

Comparative studies:

Comparative studies:

Franz Bopp – 1816 – a study of the verbal endings of

Franz Bopp – 1816 – a study of the verbal endings of

Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Later

Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Later

on, 1833-1852 a huge comparative study in which he

on, 1833-1852 a huge comparative study in which he

added Old Slavic, Lithuanian, Amenian, Albanian, and

added Old Slavic, Lithuanian, Amenian, Albanian, and

Celtic.

Celtic.

Rasmus Rask – an essay on the origin of Old Norse in

Rasmus Rask – an essay on the origin of Old Norse in

which he recognised the relationship of Germanic,

which he recognised the relationship of Germanic,

Hellenic, Italic, and Baltic languages. He also believed

Hellenic, Italic, and Baltic languages. He also believed

that Indo-Iranian might also be related.

that Indo-Iranian might also be related.

Jacob Grimm – the affinity between the above mentioned

Jacob Grimm – the affinity between the above mentioned

languages found in sound correspondencies –

languages found in sound correspondencies –

Grimm’s Law (the 1

Grimm’s Law (the 1

st

st

Consonant Shift)

Consonant Shift)

Proto-Indo-European language

Proto-Indo-European language

The hypothesis: in order to explain the

The hypothesis: in order to explain the

similarities between languages spoken

similarities between languages spoken

in Europe and India the existence of

in Europe and India the existence of

one proto-language is hypothesized –

one proto-language is hypothesized –

Proto-Indo-European (Indo-European).

Proto-Indo-European (Indo-European).

The comparative studies also produced

The comparative studies also produced

language typology:

language typology:

centum

centum

languages

languages

vs.

vs.

satem

satem

languages

languages

CENTUM languages vs. SATEM

CENTUM languages vs. SATEM

languages

languages

The criterion of the division, the way in which

The criterion of the division, the way in which

the initial /k/ behaves in the two respective

the initial /k/ behaves in the two respective

groups of languages. In CENTUM languages

groups of languages. In CENTUM languages

it remains /k/ or is slightly modified as

it remains /k/ or is slightly modified as

regards the manner of articulation. In

regards the manner of articulation. In

SATEM languages it changes into alveolar

SATEM languages it changes into alveolar

fricative, i.e. /s,

fricative, i.e. /s,

ś/

ś/

CENTUM SATEM

CENTUM SATEM

Lat. Centum Avestan satem

Lat. Centum Avestan satem

Germ. Xund O.Ch.S. Suto

Germ. Xund O.Ch.S. Suto

PIE */kmtom/ ‘one hundred’

PIE */kmtom/ ‘one hundred’

The typology of Indo-European

The typology of Indo-European

languages

languages

Germanic languages within

Germanic languages within

CENTUM language group

CENTUM language group

Germanic languages are characterised by a number of features which are not

Germanic languages are characterised by a number of features which are not

found in other non-Germanic languages within the CENTUM language

found in other non-Germanic languages within the CENTUM language

group. Three groups of features: phonological, morphological, lexical.

group. Three groups of features: phonological, morphological, lexical.

1.

1.

Phonological features:

Phonological features:

a. The dynamic stress falling on the first, or root syllable of the word;

a. The dynamic stress falling on the first, or root syllable of the word;

b. The far reaching reduction of unstressed syllables including the loss

b. The far reaching reduction of unstressed syllables including the loss

of consonants and vowels in originally word-final position;

of consonants and vowels in originally word-final position;

c. The first consonant shift (Grimm’s Law);

c. The first consonant shift (Grimm’s Law);

d. The shift of IE syllabic /l, r, m, n/ to /ul, ur, um, un/;

d. The shift of IE syllabic /l, r, m, n/ to /ul, ur, um, un/;

2.

2.

Morphological features:

Morphological features:

e. The use of the IE verbal noun in *

e. The use of the IE verbal noun in *

-ono-m

-ono-m

(Acc.) in the function of the

(Acc.) in the function of the

infinitive, OE

infinitive, OE

–an

–an

, e.g.

, e.g.

sprecan

sprecan

, or Modern German

, or Modern German

–en

–en

e.g.

e.g.

sprechen;

sprechen;

f. The functional use of apophony (ablaut) for the formation of the past

f. The functional use of apophony (ablaut) for the formation of the past

tense (strong verbs);

tense (strong verbs);

g. The formation of the past tense by means of the dental suffix /

g. The formation of the past tense by means of the dental suffix /

-d-, -t-

-d-, -t-

/ -

/ -

weak verbs

weak verbs

h. The rise of two kinds of adjective inflection, strong and weak;

h. The rise of two kinds of adjective inflection, strong and weak;

i. The grammaticalisation of the IE nominal bases in

i. The grammaticalisation of the IE nominal bases in

–o-

–o-

and

and

–a-

–a-

for

for

masculine and feminine respectively;

masculine and feminine respectively;

Germanic languages within

Germanic languages within

CENTUM language group

CENTUM language group

3. Lexical features:

3. Lexical features:

j. A good deal of the basic stock of

j. A good deal of the basic stock of

words which are not found outside

words which are not found outside

the Germanic languages:

the Germanic languages:

(cf.

(cf.

storm ~ Sturm, winter ~ Winter,

storm ~ Sturm, winter ~ Winter,

sail ~ Segel; thief

sail ~ Segel; thief

~

~

Dieb

Dieb

;

;

wife

wife

~

~

Weib

Weib

;

;

bone

bone

~

~

Bein

Bein

;

;

hand

hand

~

~

Hand

Hand

.

.

From Proto-Germanic down to Old

From Proto-Germanic down to Old

English

English

Old Old Old Old Old

Old Old Old Old Old

Old High

Old High

Iclendic English Frisian Dutch Saxon

Iclendic English Frisian Dutch Saxon

German

German

PROTO-GERMANIC

NORTH WEST-

GERMANIC

EAST GERMANIC

GOTHIC (4

TH

C.)

NORTH GERMANIC

(OLD NORSE)

THE REMAINING

WEST GERMANIC

INLAND (SOUTH)

GERMANIC