Language contact has been pivotal throughout English history, shaping its evolution and diversity. From the early influence of Old Norse (ON) during the Viking Age to the influx of French after the Norman Conquest, contact-induced changes have continually enriched the lexicon, grammar and phonology of English. Colonial expansion and globalisation further intensified language contact, leading to the emergence of diverse varieties of English around the world. The present volume focuses primarily on lexicon, covering a wide scope of linguistic history – from codeswitches in Old English (OE) to lexical innovation and stratification in post-1945 North American varieties – and an equally wide array of languages: Latin, French and Anglo-Norman (AN), Italian, ON and modern Scandinavian languages, German, Chinookan languages, along with pidgins, creoles, and regional and extraterritorial Englishes. This comprehensive examination underscores the enduring importance of language contact in shaping the lexical landscape of English over time. The introduction of the book is commendable for its adept summary of the recent trends and turns in contemporary research on language contact in the history of English. Likewise, the individual chapters are to be commended for expanding scholarly horizons to new contact settings, outcomes and varieties, as well as innovative theoretical frameworks. For the present reviewer, it is a special pleasure to assess the volume, as I had the privilege of attending the conference underlying its publication and the honour of contributing to the peer-review process for one of the chapters. Despite some criticism that is offered below, it is evident that this volume represents a significant contribution to the field of English contact linguistics, and I am grateful for the opportunity to engage with its content.
The first three chapters are grouped under ‘Systemic effects of lexical contact’. Herbert Schendl's chapter (pp. 23–47) presents a comprehensive critique of traditional approaches to lexical borrowing in early English, particularly those written from a monolingual perspective and relying on lists of loanwords as data. Instead, Schendl advocates for a shift towards understanding mixed-language phenomena and including them in lexicographic discussions of borrowing. The chosen framework is aligned with Thomason (Reference Thomason, Joseph and Janda2003) and Matras (Reference Matras2009), in adopting a continuum between code-switching and borrowing and emphasising the role of individual speech or writing in initiating lexical innovations, which later on may (or may not) spread through a speech community. Schendl engages with primary data from OE and Middle English (ME), drawing examples from sermons, chronicles, scientific treatises and letters. The chapter conducts detailed analyses of specific instances where code-switching leads to lexical innovation from Latin into OE (paradisus > paradise, punctus > punct) and to semantic extension from French to ME (rebel ‘a person who resists divine or spiritual authority’ > ‘a person who resists secular authority’) and from English to medieval Anglo-Latin (clockum ‘bell’ > ‘clock’). This nuanced analysis culminates in a call for historical dictionaries to incorporate code-switching as a distinct category in etymological discussions. Throughout the study, Schendl demonstrates astute engagement with the latest developments in historical language-contact literature and meticulous analysis of individual case studies illustrating the complex dynamics of the initial stages of lexical innovation. Given the high scholarly quality of this contribution, it is regrettable to note some oversights in layout: the anglicisation of Latin code-switches in glosses (p. 29), the poor setup of pp. 30–1 with table 1, and the seemingly unintended change of font size and indentation on p. 42. Additionally, the omission of discussions on relevant examples, such as Wulfstan and Lk (WSCp), despite their inclusion in tables, represents missed opportunities for deeper analysis.
Medieval multilingualism is also the background of Philip Durkin's chapter (pp. 49–68), whose key questions revolve around criteria for identifying lexical borrowings from AN and approaches to measuring its impact on English. Durkin traces the trajectory of AN from its introduction as the language of the ruling elite post-1066 to its decline as L1 in the early thirteenth century and from its emergence as L2 and lingua franca in business to a rapid collapse in the late fourteenth to early fifteenth century, possibly linked to the long-term effects of the Black Death. The exponential increase in lexical borrowing from AN in the second half of the fourteenth century is attributed to the second decline period. Durkin highlights the blurred distinction between vernaculars in mixed-language business writing as well as the role of AN as an intermediary for the transfer of lexis from other languages. Along with historical and linguistic ties between AN, Continental French and Latin, these aspects make it particularly challenging to establish the etymologies of ME words of Romance origin, the default premise of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) at present being to assume input from all three languages in such words, particularly when formal and/or semantic indicators of AN etymology are missing or ambiguous. Durkin goes on to survey approaches to measuring the impact of AN on the English lexicon. Estimates drawn from the Middle English Dictionary (MED) and the OED show that AN contributed about a third of all new lexis in the ME period. Analysing the frequency of French and/or Latin words among the 1,000 most common English words in the British National Corpus, Durkin finds that they constitute about 43 per cent of the listed items. Among them some common words like case, figure, general, natural contribute to creating stylistic layering within the English lexicon, while others like arrive, enter, sure, very do not (p. 59). Durkin also proposes using lists of basic vocabulary, i.e. words with basic meanings that are known to resist borrowing cross-linguistically, such as the Leipzig-Jakarta List, to measure the impact of AN, which demonstrates a 4 per cent contribution among 100 basic words (carry, cry, soil, crush) but a 27 per cent contribution among 1,460 basic words (p. 60). A short overview of projects focused on specific semantic domains demonstrates that in everyday lexis AN generally occupies superordinate semantic levels, while English is used at the more specific levels. AN is also a major player in the development of distinct vocabulary registers. While the impact of AN is vast, widespread and multi-layered, the levels and areas of the lexicon mutually affected by AN, Latin and ME are still work in progress.
Gisle Andersen's study (pp. 69–88) provides an analysis of Anglo-Scandinavian contact, particularly focusing on the period from 1750 to the present day, and its impact on the English lexicon within this timeframe. It categorises Scandinavian loanwords based on their semantic attributes and frequency, utilising a range of contemporary and historical corpora. The primary data source is the OED, comprising 1,271 words from such domains as Sciences, Sport and leisure, Agriculture and horticulture, Crafts and trades, and Transport, with 324 borrowed between 1750 and today. The data are divided into two broad categories: words that remain culturally and/or geographically restricted to Scandinavia and the North, and those that come to denote generic phenomena. The results are summarised in a table and as select lists of words. Criteria for the categorisation are given only in the case studies, in which it becomes clear that absolute frequencies (or their absence) in the corpora are interpreted as clues to categorising the individual words as Scandinavian-specific vs. generic. For instance, (1.a) langeleik ‘an early Norwegian string instrument’ is culturally restricted, because it lacks attestations outside dictionaries; (1.b) slalom is originally a ‘Scandinavian ski technique’, which nowadays is used by athletes universally regardless of their background. In essence, both categories are types of gap-fillers, loans triggered by need to name new (exotic) concepts. Category (2.a), exemplified by hygge ‘cosiness, snugness’, is different because the concept and equivalent words exist in English. It is well represented in American web genres and seems to carry some prestige associated with Scandinavian design. The final subcategory (2.b) includes words like moped, which is considered a generic word for ‘a light motorcycle’ with no Scandinavian associations. Synonymous words like motorcycle or scooter are not considered. While this chapter presents some valuable insights, it may not quite match the depth set by its predecessors. The historical segment falls short of referencing and contextualisation, failing to engage with significant scholarship by Richard Dance and the Gersum Project. The absence of discussion regarding the period between 1450 and 1750 can be perceived as a notable omission. Despite the title hinting at a socio-pragmatic perspective, this aspect remains obscure, leaving the reader without a clear understanding of its relevance or application. The data and methodology only become apparent in the case studies. The analysis of results would have benefited from a deeper exploration of why certain loans become generic, what triggers their borrowing in the first place, and where these loans originate geographically, socially or pragmatically.
With chapter 4, we move to the second part, ‘Borrowing and ideology’. Valeria di Clemente presents a concise examination of the orthography of the personal name Henry in the Peterborough Chronicle (pp. 91–105). The manuscript containing the chronicle (Bodleian Library, misc. Laud 636) and the two hands responsible for the Continuations added in 1131 and c.1155 are described, underscoring the text's exceptional status as a historical and linguistic source in the transitional period between OE and ME. Di Clemente then tracks the etymology of the name from the reconstructed Continental Germanic *Haima-rīkaz ‘home-wealthy’ to the Old French Henri. It is assumed that the name was ‘non-native’ in England (p. 93), although we are not given sufficient evidence to understand the background of this statement, and the references to individuals named Haimericus in Anglo-Saxon documentary sources are overlooked. The name Henry starts disseminating in England during the reign of Henry I (1100–35). Analysing the orthographic variation in the Peterborough annals pertaining to historical figures such as Henry I, Henry II, Bishop Henry of Blois, among others, di Clemente identifies three groupings of spellings: (1) Heanric/Henric are the most assimilated to the OE name system and are most common in the annals before 1121; (2) Heanrig/Henrig can display both late OE and Old French phonological developments, and are also common before 1121; (3) Heanri/Henri prevail in the two Continuations and are interpreted as representing Norman spelling and pronunciation, and as deliberate choices of scribes no longer working within an OE tradition. Di Clemente observes that all variants of the name are spelt almost without exception in full and are morphologically integrated into the masculine a-declension. Overall, while di Clemente's insights are interesting in themselves, the present reviewer found a historical and sociolinguistic contextualisation for her observations largely underexplored. The study does not address how Old French names could disseminate among the English-speaking populace. Does the Peterborough Chronicle provide any clues to possible diffusion? What other onomastic sources may be used as evidence? Here, citations of seminal work by Cecily Clark and Fran Colman could have been illuminating. The bibliography contains numerous uncited items, particularly studies by Alexander Bergs and Janne Skaffari, representing a potential oversight in engaging with research pertinent to the Peterborough Chronicle.
Letizia Vezzosi's chapter (pp. 107–43) explores how a literary message is achieved through lexical choices, focusing on borrowings from French and Latin in the ME alliterative poem Saint Erkenwald. It adopts the notions of defamiliarisation and literariness from the Russian Formalism to argue that Romance loanwords serve as literary devices to challenge reader expectations and create new meanings. The narrative of Saint Erkenwald centres on a historical figure, the seventh-century bishop of London, who discovers an incorrupt body of a pagan judge. Through Erkenwald's prayer the corpse is granted the gift of speech and laments his inability to enter paradise because he had been born before Christ. As the bishop's compassionate tears fall on the judge, he miraculously receives baptism, his soul ascends to heaven and his body disintegrates. The Romance loans in Saint Erkenwald (412 in total) bear close affinities to the lexical choices of the anonymous author of Pearl, Patience, Cleanness and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which Vezzosi interprets as an additional argument in favour of their common authorship. But what is the purpose of French and Latin words in Saint Erkenwald? Metrical considerations do not seem to play a role in their selection. Their distribution points to a concentration of Romance loans in binomial constructions (coordinated lexical pairs like pain and sorrow) and in passages that address religious and theological matters. Thus, defamiliarisation is achieved both at the phrasal and thematic levels. Interestingly, when the baptism miracle takes place, Romance words are used sparingly. This seems to suggest an intentional literary message that divine will transcends lexical complexity and, perhaps, that the mediation of the institutional church and her prelates is not that necessary to perform it. Vezzosi's chapter presents a rich tapestry of analysis, though it occasionally diverts into areas like genre debate and oral-formulaic theory, which, while interesting, seem peripheral to its main thesis. The detailed analysis of ON loans might have been more balanced with updated insights on post-1066 multilingualism and a deeper engagement with the concept of literariness. The absence of discussion of Sandra Mollin's (Reference Mollin2014) significant work on binomials is a missed opportunity for a fuller exploration of Romance loanwords. While the chapter is ambitious in scope, numerous typos as well the poor format of the examples, without indication of the lexical item under discussion, disrupt the reading.
Julia Landmann's chapter (pp. 145–63) investigates German loanwords in North American English (NAE) since 1801, utilising a dataset of 123 words extracted from the OED. It begins with a review of literature on German borrowings in the history of English, focusing on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The study diverges from previous research by exploring mixed etymologies (including local German varieties like Pennsylvanian German) and corroborating OED attestations with contemporary NAE corpora. German loanwords are analysed according to Carstensen's (Reference Carstensen, Brekle and Lipka1968) typology, including direct loans, adaptation, loan translation, hybrids and semantic loans. Various semantic domains in which German loanwords appear are identified, such as people and everyday life (pretzel), the natural sciences (Roentgen), leisure and pleasure (fest), government and civilisation (kindergarten), faith and religion (Amish), the fine arts and crafts (tusche). The chapter tracks semantic changes affecting borrowings in NAE, including semantic narrowing (spieler ‘player; gambler’ > ‘gambler; card-swindler’), metonymy (Flohbeutel > fleabag ‘an individual afflicted by fleas’ > ‘an ill-kept hotel’), metaphor (Schleimkugel > slimeball ‘a globular mass consisting of mucus’ > ‘a person regarded as sleazy or immoral’), pejoration (spiel ‘a play, game’ > ‘a story; a speech intended to persuade or advertise’). Landmann's categorisation also includes semantic broadening, but this term seems to be misapplied as the examples listed in the respective section (pp. 155–7) represent various types of semantic shifts but not broadening as such. Some of the examined semantic changes are localised to regional varieties of NAE or colloquial usage and slang. While Landmann's chapter demonstrates meticulous attention to detail, it could be enhanced by a deeper engagement with theoretical frameworks of language contact. As with the previous two chapters, its inclusion in the ‘Borrowing and ideology’ part of the volume remains unclear.
The first study in part III, ‘Language contact and cultural contact’, is co-authored by Louise Sylvester, Megan Tiddeman and Richard Ingham (pp. 167–89). It presents an innovative approach to examining the lexical evolution during the ME period. A central question of the study is whether native terms and loanwords exhibit different long-term outcomes in terms of lexical replacement and retention, particularly in the context of the influx of French loanwords and their impact on existing vocabulary. Prior research, often based on small samples and select examples, has suggested that the arrival of French loanwords in ME led to a large-scale replacement of the native lexicon. Sylvester, Tiddeman and Ingham's project, The Technical Language and Semantic Shift in Middle English, distinguishes itself by employing a significantly larger dataset of 5,276 words and 2,307 senses from The Bilingual Thesaurus of Everyday Life in Medieval England, covering nine occupational domains. The methodology of the pilot study involves examining 208 lexical pairs across the domains, to understand the interaction between native and non-native terms. The outcomes of these interactions are classified into several types, including replacement, failed replacement, synonymy and various types of semantic shift. The results of the study are illuminating: replacement by new words occurs in only 21 per cent of pairs, while in 42 per cent the older term is retained and the new term dies out. Additionally, both terms persist as synonyms into Present-day English in 24 per cent of pairs. Semantic shift affects only 6 per cent. Thus, the older terms are always more likely to survive than to die out, while borrowed words are more likely to drop out than native ones. The study also demonstrates that the drop-out rate for all categories is highest in the fifteenth century, which mirrors the established view. Sylvester, Tiddeman and Ingham's research offers a ground-breaking perspective on the dynamics of lexical change in ME. By leveraging a vast dataset and a sophisticated methodological framework, the study not only challenges existing narratives about the impact of French loanwords but also contributes significantly to our understanding of lexical evolution.
Stefan Dollinger and Alexandra Doherty delve into the historical and linguistic significance of Chinook Jargon (CJ) in British Columbia (BC) over a span of about two hundred years (pp. 191–217), contextualising it within the broader narrative of settler identity and (post)colonial discourse and highlighting how linguistic practices are intertwined with the broader processes of colonisation and cultural appropriation. The article opens with a historical contextualisation of CJ. Originating in the 1770s, it emerged as a pidgin language, intermingling the Chinookan languages, English, French and other European languages amidst the colonisation of the West in the 1840s, and facilitating communication between settlers and the indigenous populations involved in the fur trade and gold mining. By the late nineteenth century, as the settler population surpassed that of the indigenous peoples, the vitality of CJ waned. Today its lexical legacy endures in contemporary BC English and in its creolised form as the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community in Oregon. The study particularly notes the presence of Chinook words in street and business names, indicating their entrenchment in local and cross-border (US–Canada) contexts. The internationally known term potlatch exemplifies CJ's lasting impact. For the next segment of the study, research data are sourced from the BC Historical Newspaper Database and divided into eight periods reflecting significant historical events affecting BC, Canada and the world in general. Analysis reveals that post-1945, three CJ terms surged in relative frequency, becoming symbols of BC identity. Applying Critical Discourse Analysis, the study traces the trajectory of CJ from being perceived as a cultural and linguistic threat by early settlers during the fur trade and gold rush eras to becoming an element of cultural appropriation by later, numerically superior settler generations. By the turn of the twentieth century, romanticised views of Chinook as emblematic of pioneer days became intertwined with Canadian identity. Critically, the study suggests adjustments to Schneider's Dynamic Model for the development of post-colonial Englishes, proposing new dates for the phases of koinéisation of BC and Canadian English and arguing for the possibility of these phases overlapping rather than occurring sequentially. The present reviewer observed that the study is marked by a tendency towards verbosity in its presentation of linguistic examples and discussion points. This, along with the absence of highlighting for key lexical items in the examples and less-than-ideal typesetting around figures, dilutes the article's conciseness, impacting the delivery of insights that this engaging topic richly merits.
In chapter 9 (pp. 219–34), Giovanni Iamartino and Lucia Berti focus on Giuseppe Baretti's bilingual dictionary, Dizionario delle lingue italiana ed inglese (1760), particularly examining his treatment of Italian borrowings into English. Baretti revised slightly earlier dictionaries by Ferdinando Altieri and Evangelist Palermo, also incorporating insights from Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755). Based on the etymologies provided by the OED, the authors identify over 200 Italian loanwords, dating to the eighteenth century and before, and categorise them by semantic domains (music, architecture, art, military equipment, food and drink, textiles) and by the level of assimilation into English (unadapted borrowings, loans with adapted orthography and pronunciation, coexisting and competing spellings, calques and culture-bound words). The methodology for distinguishing these categories is not clearly defined, with some guiding principles emerging within the sections. For instance, the authors equate spelling and morphological changes with assimilation, exemplifying it with words like battaglia > bat(t)alia or stanco > stank (pp. 224–5). ‘Coexisting and competing spellings’ turn out to be lexemes of mixed origin, e.g. carnaval/carnival borrowed from French and Italian or from Italian via French (p. 227). Further analysis reveals Baretti's focus on Italian learners of English (rather than English learners of Italian), evidenced by reduced commentary on Italian culture-specific words. Comparisons between Baretti, Altieri and Johnson uncover Baretti's musical expertise and connections, explaining his emphasis on musical terms. Overall, while the study sheds light on Baretti's dictionary and Italian borrowings in English up to the late eighteenth century, its lack of methodological clarity and its sporadic insights into Baretti's motivations (e.g. passing remarks on his preface to the Dizionario) and personal ties to Johnson and friends at the Haymarket opera house in London detract from its comprehensiveness and structural coherence.
The volume closes with Gabriella Mazzon's chapter (pp. 235–51) on the impact of loan vocabulary and lexical change originating in colonial settings and Extraterritorial Englishes (ETEs) on both those varieties and general English. Typological, phonological and morphological factors are considered in the assimilation process, employing Schneider's Dynamic Model to reconstruct diachronic stages of assimilation. Lexical innovation is proposed to occur as early as Phase 1 in settlers’ communities but to become entrenched by Phase 3 with the onset of nativisation. Lexical data derived from the OED are described according to their origin in first- and second-language ETEs and according to their innovation in English itself versus via other European languages. The examples are presented as lists, from which select lexemes are discussed in detail. In section 3, a novel by an Indian author Vikram Seth, A Suitable Boy (1993), is analysed for its use of Hindi words and phrases. Some of them are not commented on by Seth, and Mazzon assumes that they are therefore established loans. Others are flagged by explanatory comments or periphrasis. It is not clear why the latter are considered to be loanwords rather than codeswitches. The significance of post-colonial literature in shaping ETEs is underscored, yet sociolinguistic insights into the dissemination of these innovations remain underexplored, such as whether books need to be bestsellers like Seth's to exert influence. Further analysis includes words undergoing grammatical and semantic change in ETEs and their potential to contribute to lexical stratification in general English. Despite thorough examination of some words, the chapter does not generally go beyond cataloguing and describing lexical phenomena. Its engagement with theoretical literature on language contact, formation of post-colonial extraterritorial varieties and the status of nonce words versus established loans remains relatively minimal.
A few general critical notes are in place here. Notably, the present reviewer found that the absence of cross-references and an index results in each chapter existing in isolation, limiting the reader's ability to navigate the content and compare similar lexical phenomena across regions and periods, e.g. codeswitches in OE and present-day Indian English, assimilation and diffusion of loanwords from German varieties and CJ, to name just a few possibilities. The relevance of dividing the chapters into three groups has been raised above, and one wonders whether an alternative approach to the order of chapters might have facilitated a more seamless reading experience. As already pointed out, the presence of numerous typos and layout issues in some chapters disrupts the reading considerably. Despite these criticisms, the collection enriches scholarly discourse and expands our understanding of lexical evolution in contact settings. The insightful analysis and forward-thinking approach of many chapters significantly contribute to advancing this field of linguistics, making the volume as a whole a valuable resource for researchers and students alike.
