Stigmatization and Celtic Influence

[iffr762 at utxvms.cc.utexas.edu]

	Some have objected 1) that the amount of Celtic borrowings in
English is too low, and 2) that the time that alledged Celticisms appear
is too late.  Actually a high level of stigmatization could well explain
both.  Apart from pragmatic consderations ("Do we have a word for this?"),
the main thing that controls borrowing is the reaction that the would-be
borrower expects:  will I get laughed at?, etc.  The higher the level of
stigmatization of a subject (i.e. conquered) language, the less likely a
would-be borrower is to think that the reaction he would get from using a
word from the subject language would be good.  Also, the higher the level
of stigmatization, the more resistance there will be to characteristic
features of a stigmatized dialect being accepted as standard, which is to
say the longer it will take.  (Of course these are both "ceteris paribus"
things, but that's life.)  So a high level of stigmatization (one may
compare how the Irish were called "white apes") can be said to predict (in
the atemporal sense of 'imply') both of the supposedly surprising things
that cause some to reject the notion that there has been significant
Celtic influence in English.

					DLW

P.S. I also take this opportunity to note that Norman (or Anglo-Norman)
French was for a time the high prestige language of Scotland.  Scottish
English did not really get on its feet there till the Stuarts, which is to
say that English became official and high prestige and all that in
Scotland at about the same time it did in England.  Thus the difference
that Joat alledges is a non-difference.