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 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