Talk:Celtic language decline in England

Page title (Celtic language-death/decline)

When I created this entry, I used the title 'Celtic language-death in England', and it was moved to 'Celtic language decline in England' on the grounds that '"death" is inaccurate since a Celtic language is spoken (officially) in Cornwall'. This is one of those pages where finding a good title is tricky (it could equally have been 'Expansion of English in England' or something like that), so I ummed and ahhed about the most useful title for a whie. I don't particularly mind the new title, but as a point of fact, Cornish definitely died before it was revived! So for my money, it's a bit euphemistic to call the entry 'language decline'. And Cornish revival has its own entry, of course. Alarichall (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually replied on my talk page without realizing the discussion had been put here, but generally my thoughts are that since this article is primarily about the dominance of English as languages emerged from (whatever periods the 13th - 17th centuries covers) and then covering how the Celtic languages declined, and not mainly about the specific 'death' of Celtic languages better described perhaps at Dolly Pentreath and other more specific articles. I am also unconvinced that a language spoken after a revival is 'dead' quite in the sense of Language death because although it did die, it is not dead now. an overall unsatisfactory situation really, I am not adverse to it being moved back by the way, if someone can come up with a good reason to prefer death, over decline. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  11:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A consensus?

Hi, Alarichall. You might have seen me kicking around the talk section for Brittonicisms in English. My concern regarding this page is that currently, it states that there is a scholarly consensus that a small number of politically elite Anglo-Saxons could have effected such a shift. However, I’m not sure that such a consensus exists. The following writers have all posited a large-scale migration of some sort. (In the interest of keeping things up to date, I’ve only included things that were published in the twenty-first century.)

- David Crystal describes a process by which a large folk migration occurs, and the migrants interact with the local population, but for whatever reason completely destroy any presence of the native language. Crystal particularly compares the totality of the English replacement of Brittonic with the Vikings and the Normans (the latter of whom were a genuine elite), who did not manage to effect such change. (Crystal, David, The Stories of English, New York: Overlook Press, 2004).

- Richard Coates cites studies of downturns of population in post-Roman Britain by Mike Baillie and Ken Dark to explain how the Anglo-Saxons could have taken over areas without a forceful extermination, and states unequivocally, "I know of no case where a political ascendancy has imposed its own language on a conquered people without an easily discernible impact from the language of the conquered, even if the conquered had little to offer the newcomers materially or culturally." (Richard Coates, “Celtic whispers: revisiting the problems of the relation between Brittonic and Old English,” 2017).

- In his book Inventing English (2007), Seth Lerer unambiguously maintains the traditional hypothesis in describing the Anglo-Saxon takeover of southern Britain, as do Fred Robinson (Fred C. Robinson, “Old English,” in Early Germanic Literature and Culture, 2004, p. 205) and Jeremy Smith (Jeremy J. Smith, Old English: A Linguistic Introduction, 2009, p. 5).

- Richard Hogg and Rhona Alcorn also describe a large-scale migration of Germanic peoples into eastern Britain, whose descendants then spread into the western regions as well. (Richard Hogg, Rhona Alcorn, An Introduction to Old English, 2012, pp. 3-4)

- Haruko Momma and Michael Matto state that “the idea of English as ‘the language of England’ goes back to the fifth and sixth centuries when a large number of people migrated from the North Sea region to Britain ... by the time Bede completed the Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 ... the descendants of these settlers could be identified as gens Anglorum (‘English people’), a group unified through their common language.” (Haruko Momma, Michael Matto, A Companion to the History of the English Language, 2011, p. 154)

- The 2009 edition of The English Language: A Historical Introduction, by Charles Barber, Joan C. Beal, and Philip A. Shaw, states that “whether or not the prestige associated with the language of a political elite would have been sufficient in itself to achieve the replacement of Old British with Old English remains an open question. The example of the Normans ... suggests that this is unlikely, but we cannot rule it out.” (p. 107)

- Oliver J. Padel argues that the data indicates an "American model" of Anglo-Saxon settlement, in which "a major replacement of population, language, and place names occurred over a comparable time scale...[the model] provides easily the best match for the degree of linguistic and toponymic replacement that occurred in England, while still leaving room for the borrowing of some native place names, as occurred in both Anglo-Saxon England and North America." Padel also notes that "probably most, if not all, of the indicators which have been claimed to demonstrate British continuity in England can also be observed in North America, even though the net result has been an effective replacement of the native population." (Oliver J. Padel, "Place Names and the Saxon Conquest of Devon and Cornwall," in Britons in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Nick Higham, Boydell and Brewer, 2007, pp. 215-230)

- Frederik Kortlandt has posited a multi-wave theory of migration from the continent. In this theory, the earlier “Saxon” migration involved Germanic mercenaries in the southeast of Britain who “rebelled against their employers, resulting in ethnically divided communities and regions, with limited mixing and intermarriage between immigrants and natives.” The second “Anglian” one, “which attracted incomers from other Germanic tribes, offers a different picture for Northumbria, and more specifically Bernicia, where there was a noticeable Celtic contribution to art, culture, and possibly socio-military organization.” He then argues for “a second wave of migration to Kent, where the new settlers adjusted to the earlier immigrants.” He suggests that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Wessex was a later development after this second Kentish migration. (Frederik Kortlandt, “Relative chronology,” 2018)

- Rebecca Colleran argues that the genetic similarities observed between the Frisians and the English in various studies (Weale 2002 in particular) demonstrates that the same groups settled both areas, as part of her broader argument in favor of an Anglo-Frisian linguistic group. (Rebecca Colleran, “Keeping it in the Family” (thesis, 2017) and “Leveraging Grammaticalization: The Origins of Old Frisian and Old English,” 2019)

- Donka Minkova asserts that while “the demographic balance after the Germanic invasion was originally in favor of the indigenous Celts who outnumbered the conquerors by a considerable measure ... [they] had limited military experience and lacked the organization to resist the incursions for more than half a century and by c. 550 larger and larger groups of Germanic-speaking people moved in, pushing the Celts away--those whom they did not kill or enslave--from the central part of the country west and south towards Cornwall and Wales, and north to the Lothian region.” (Donka Minkova, A Historical Phonology of English, 2014, p. 3)

- Regarding Bede’s use of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes specifically, John Baker and Jayne Carroll note in their study of English toponyms using “Angle,” “Saxon,” or “Jute” elements that “it is hard to imagine an uncontrolled, early medieval mass migration with such a neat outcome,” and point out that other Germanic-speaking groups took part in the migration as well. (John Baker and Jayne Carroll, “The Afterlives of Bede’s Tribal Names in English Place Names,” 2019)

- John Insley has argued that “morphological misinterpretation [of British names] is again an indication that the Anglo-Saxons general did not learn British or Welsh.” (John Insley, “Britons and Anglo-Saxons,” in Kulturelle Integration und Personnenamen im Mittelalter, 2018) His interpretation is generally close to that of Coates and Padel.

(Coates and Padel are of course cited here already but I've added several more sources.)

Another thing is that the examples given here of comparable situations seem more demonstrative of substantial demographic shift than a small number of elite migrants. As far as I know, it’s generally accepted--apart from among hardcore Balkan nationalists--that a large scale migration of Slavic speakers into southeastern Europe took place. The situation with Germanic speakers in formerly Slavic areas of central/eastern Europe also demonstrates substantial migration (over a longer period than it took for the majority of southern Britain to become English-speaking). Admittedly the Gaelic/Pictish situation is less clear, given that we have so little information on it.

Interestingly, multiple sources written in the last ten years have said that there is a move in scholarly thought back towards a large migration. Heinrich Härke wrote in 2011 that “the pendulum appears to be swinging back towards more ‘migrationist’ ideas,” (Heinrich Härke, “Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis,” 2011) and Catherine Hills echoed this almost to the word in 2015, writing that “now the pendulum has swung back to argue for more migrants in the past, maybe because we see so many migrants today.” (Catherine Hills, “The Anglo-Saxon Migration: An Archaeological Case Study of Disruption,” in Migrations and Disruptions, ed. Brenda J. Baker and Takeyuki Tsuda, 2015, p. 37) Rebecca Colleran, whom I’ve cited here, has also written that “doubting the evidence of early medieval writers is falling out of favor with modern historians.” (Rebecca Colleran, “Keeping it in the Family,” 2017)

Anyway, in light of this, I am hoping to change the section "Debate: why is there so little Brittonic influence on English?" to include references to these sources, and to update the header with regards to this. I would of course run any changes by you before putting the edits into effect. Thanks for your time. CelticBrain (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

Hello! Just to say that I've been feeling a bit guilty in recent weeks for not being in touch, and I am quite tied up at the moment, but I look forward to reading and responding to this post, and hopefuly we can improve this article (and thereafter the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain one). Alarichall (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

CelticBrain do these sources suggest numbers for the migrants? Donka Minkova gives a range between 10.000 and 200,000 on the page you quoted, while Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Estimating continental migrants' numbers mentions similar numbers (between 5,000 and 200.000). TSventon (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

TSventon I don't think most of them give any specifics in that regard; however, neither do many of the sources already listed. CelticBrain (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

CelticBrain: I'm just apologising that I STILL haven't replied to you properly! It's just that I'm very busy IRL at the moment. I can see that the points you've made and citations you've presented could be used to slightly rebalance the way this article is pitched. If you want to get on with trying to weave those citations in that's fine with me, and I can always come back to you about changes I'm not convinced by later. Sorry I'm not discussing it better at the moment. Alarichall (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Alarichall, no worries at all. I'll go ahead and do that, and you can double-check everything later on. CelticBrain (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

Hi Alarichall, have you gotten a chance to look over some of my edits on this page? If everything seems all right I've put together a shorter version with which to update the Anglo-Saxon settlement page. I currently have it in my sandbox but I can paste it in here if you want. CelticBrain (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

Early modern use in England

This article completely overlooks the fact that indigenous Welsh was used in England into the modern period. I believe it survived into the twentieth century in some areas, maybe even survives in a few, but figures are hard to come by. These Celtic speaking areas would be near the Welsh border, but are certainly within the area which is officially England. Welsh was certainly spoken near Oswestry, and even to the east of Monmouthshire, where Llan- names can be found.

There is even good evidence that some parts of Wales stopped speaking Welsh before parts of England did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.230 (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting points, which I've only just seen. At this moment I don't have time to find scholarly material on this but it would be good to see it added. Alarichall (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This is mentioned with (19th century) references in Welsh language#The rest of the UK. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncritical readings of Gildas and Bede

@CelticBrain, Srnec has removed the word "uncritical" from "Debate: why is there so little Brittonic influence on English?" with the edit summary why call them "uncritical" readings if "a number of specialists have maintained support for this interpretation"?.

I think the wording goes back to your edit of 16:51, 20 June 2020. Do you think it needs clarification as I doubt that any of the scholars cited maintain support for uncritical readings of Gildas and Bede. TSventon (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing may originate with me. The point is that scholars (up to around the 1970s) once gave far more credence to the narratives of Bede and Gildas than they do now. From the point of view of research during the last half-century or so, these earlier scholars' understanding of their sources was uncritical. Alarichall (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added back "uncritical" and changed "this interpretation" to "similar interpretations". TSventon (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter that Gildas and Bede were treated uncritically in the past if a critical treatment today leads to the same conclusion? If it is important to note that the traditional explanation arose from uncritical readings of texts, then we should state that historical fact explicitly rather than imply that it is only or mainly supported by such uncritical readings today when our footnotes seem to indicate the opposite. Srnec (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Srnec The original version of the sentences under discussion (written by Alarichall) was copied from Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#The debate, in a much more frequently read article, so I have posted a notice there.

My opinion is that a phrase similar to "uncritical readings of Gildas and Bede" is a useful description of earlier scholarship and does not imply that contemporary scholars are uncritical. I believe "interpretations" refers back to explanations (for the lack of Celtic influence on English) in the previous sentence, not to readings (of Gildas and Bede), so the wording should be clarified to remove any inconsistency with the previous sentence. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Section headings need rewodring

See MOS:SECTIONSTYLE should:Not be phrased as a question, e.g. Languages, not What languages are spoken in Mexico?." --Doug Weller talk 19:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorted. Alarichall (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I rather preferred the questions myself. We can always ignore the MOS. –Srnec (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Jackson (1953)

Hi Alaric,
I have two questions:

• there is this part based on Jackson's research: ″In Area I, Celtic names are rare and confined to large and medium-sized rivers. This area corresponds to English language dominance up to c. 500–550. Area II shows English language dominance c. 600.″ In the light of recent research is it still valid?

• in 2012 you wrote an article on instability of place-names in Anglo-Saxon England. Shall we assume that there is a necessity to reassess Jackson's findings? Or everything should remain basically unchanged?

Thank you in advance. -- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Alarichall. TSventon (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have written a short note at his talk page. -- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to ignore this! Just very busy with other things. Basically people think Jackson is probably roughly right, but his map was always a guess and the evidence-base hasn't improved significantly since he made it, so it is still a guess! We would probably not imagine such a neatly moving frontier of language-change now, but as a trend his map still looks sensible. I included it in the article partly because it was historiographically influential and partly because it conveys a lot about the rough picture very conveniently. Alarichall (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Härke

And a separate one on the number of Anglo-Saxons.

In Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain we could find: ″Härke concluded that "most of the biological and cultural evidence points to a minority immigration on the scale of 10 to 20% of the native population. [...] The total immigrant population may have numbered somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 over about a century,″ What the recent research tells us about the scale of Anglo-Saxon migration?

-- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

OMG, this is just SUCH a complex area. I would actually really like to convene a collection of experts to try to rewrite that article and restructure the articles that it points to. The article is very carefully controlled by one particular editor too, who often does a lot of sensible work but also makes it a bit hard for other people to improve it too. In perhaps three decades, the archaeogenetic evidence that is just emerging will perhaps be well understood and we will be able to make sensible statements about the scale of migrations. For now, it's a bit of a mystery. This guy has a lot of useful and interesting things to say if you want to follow this up: https://hcommons.org/members/djmh500/ https://uni-bonn.academia.edu/JamesHarland/. Thanks for asking and sorry for not having a better reply! Alarichall (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)