28.257, Review: Historical Ling; Socioling: Offord, Ryazanova-Clarke, Rjeoutski, Argent (2015)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-257. Thu Jan 12 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.257, Review: Historical Ling; Socioling: Offord, Ryazanova-Clarke, Rjeoutski, Argent (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Michael Czerniakowski <mike at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:15:39
From: Anders Ahlqvist [aahlqvist at usyd.edu.au]
Subject: French and Russian in Imperial Russia: Volume 1

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36124917


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-4022.html

EDITOR: Derek  Offord
EDITOR: Lara  Ryazanova-Clarke
EDITOR: Vladislav  Rjeoutski
EDITOR: Gesine  Argent
TITLE: French and Russian in Imperial Russia: Volume 1
SUBTITLE: Language Use among the Russian Elite
SERIES TITLE: Russian Language and Society
PUBLISHER: Edinburgh University Press
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Anders Ahlqvist, University of Sydney

Reviews Editor: Robert A. Cote

INTRODUCTION

“French and Russian in Imperial Russia” edited by Derek Offord, Lara
Ryazanova-Clarke, Vladislav Rjéoutski, and Gesine Argent is composed of two
volumes, “Language Use among the Russian Elite” and “Language Attitudes and
Identity”, which provide a detailed account of how, when, and why French came
to be adopted by many members of the Russian elite as a language for a number
of different special purposes during a period spanning roughly from the
seventeenth century until the end of the Russian Empire.

SUMMARY

Volume 1: Language Use among the Russian Elite

In the “Preface” (pp. [vii]–xii), the editors explain the reasoning behind
providing two separate volumes around their general topic. They also (p. ix)
inform readers about the two international events that took place in 2012 and
gave rise to this work, stressing that this publication has not been conceived
as conference proceedings.

The following section contains (pp. [xi]–xiv) a “Note on Dates,
Transliteration and Other Editorial Practices”. The Library of Congress system
of transliteration is given as that used in references etc.; it may be noted
that Russian words from the pre-Revolutionary period have been transliterated
from their modern form. Further (p. xiii), quotations in English and French
retain the spelling of the originals, whereas Russian ones have been
modernized in accordance with the 1918 reform.

In the “Introduction” (pp. [1]–24), the editors provide a setting through
information about the multilingual background of the Russian Empire. Among the
languages listed, one notes the German of the Baltic nobility, Peter the
Great’s enthusiasm for Dutch (p. 2), as well as Finnish, Tatar etc., as
languages of numerous minorities throughout the Empire, and how French,
particularly from Catherine the Great’s time and onwards, came to acquire a
special position. Historians of linguistics will be interested by (pp. 6–7)
the rise of scholarship on the use of French in Russia in the nineteenth
century and, with more “serious scholarly attention”, during the Soviet
period. Historical linguists will turn to “the linguistic influence of French
on Russian, particularly lexical borrowings from French” (p. 7). The
historical context of the use of “Russian Francophonie” is given (pp. 11–16) a
helpful summary, as is (pp. 16–19) the story of the “Westernization” of
Russia. “Notes” follow at p. 19, as do “References” at pp. 20–24.

In Chapter 1 (pp. [25]–44), Derek Offord, Gesine Argent and Vladislav
Rjéoutski deal with “French and Russian in Catherine’s Russia”. This includes
a section (pp. 27–32) on the “Spread of French” as well as another (pp. 32–40)
about the “Promotion of Russian”. A concluding remark (p. 40) sums up as
follows: “when a multi-ethnic empire was ruled by a francophone German
sovereign who positioned Russia within the European community, a bilingual or
multilingual identity was less discomfiting for Russian nobles, pace many of
Russia’s early satirical journalists and comic dramatists, than has often been
supposed.”

For his part, Georges Dulac, in Chapter 2 (pp. [45]–60), restricts himself to
a detailed examination of “The Use of French by Catherine II in her Letters to
Friedrich Melchior Grimm (1774–96)”. More or less at the outset, we are faced
with the complex paradox of being (p. 46) “bound to wonder what made two
Germans by birth choose a language other than their mother tongue to keep up
the sort of intimacy that characterised this relationship”. That intimacy is
highlighted in the discussion (p. 52) of the amusing “French expression ne pas
se moucher du pied (roughly equivalent to the English expression ‘to put on
airs and graces’; literally ‘not to wipe one’s nose with one’s foot’)”.

Chapter 3 (pp. [61]–83), “Language Use Among the Russian Aristocracy: The Case
of the Counts Stroganov”, by Vladislav Rjéoutski and Vladimir Somov, is a
circumstantial case study of language choice in one important and well-known
family. Russian and French were the most important ones, but (see p. 66)
German and Italian figured as well, as did English, albeit as a “new language”
(p. 71) occupying a “modest place” (p. 77). However, there is a salutary
reminder (p. 74) that “the idea that the upper Russian nobility were ignorant
of their native language should be recognized largely as a historiographical
myth.” The role of Latin in education is noted (p. 75) as an antidote to
French on the part of the authorities.

In Chapter 4 (pp. [84]–102) “The Francophone Press in Russia: A Cultural
Bridge and an Instrument of Propaganda”, Vladislav Rjéoutski and Natalia
Speranskaia start by explaining that the francophone press was a pan-European
phenomenon in the era of the Enlightenment, listing (p. 86) some countries
where it was even more important than in Russia. Also, in the Russian context,
the use is mentioned (p. 87) of other languages, mainly German, but also Latin
(for scholarly periodicals) and Italian (for a publication devoted to the
theatre). It may be noted (p. 94) that the authorities supported the
francophone press, for a number of interesting reasons.

Chapter 5 (pp. [103]–119), by Emilie Murphy, is entitled “Russian Noblewomen’s
Francophone Travel Narratives (1777–1848): The Limits of the Use of French”.
The author sets out (p. 104) to “comment on the women’s command of attitude
towards the use of English, German, Italian and Russian. It is interesting to
note that the use of French seems to require no comment from the women whereas
they draw attention to their use of other languages.” She also asserts (p.
106) that women used French more commonly than men, basing this on men’s need
to address themselves to officials and other matters that required attention
through the medium of Russian.

In Chapter 6 (pp. [120]–131), Rodolphe Baudin turns to a very specific case
study: “Russian or French? Bilingualism in Aleksandr Radishchev’s Letters from
Exile (1790–1800)”. The statistics given (pp. 122–123) are that of the
published letters: seventy-two are in French, twenty in Russian, and five in
both. As the author points out (p. 123), Radishchev must have been reluctant
to mix them, even if some code-switching can be observed and rules for it
implied. This also applies to how Russian words in an otherwise French context
might be in Latin characters. There is also an account of a specific case (p.
124) of “interference between languages”.

Code-switching is an even more prominent topic in Jessica Tipton’s Chapter 7
(pp. [132]–151): “Code-Switching in the Correspondence of the Vorontsov
Family”. The author states (p. 133) that “frequent code-switching was not the
rule but the exception”, adding that its “relative scarcity […] makes
code-switching all the more interesting from the socio-linguist’s point of
view”. She also refers (p. 135) to the difference between “intersentential”
and “intrasentential” code-switching, asserting, rather boldly (with Romaine
1989: 4, 112–113) that the latter type “is a sure indication that the writer
was subconsciously switching between languages”. The chapter contains detailed
information, based on significant examples, which do (see p. 145) “provide
some insight into the code-switching habits within a large and influential
aristocratic family.”

Liubov Sapchenko is the author of Chapter 8 (pp. [152]–171): “French and
Russian in Ego-Documents by Nikolai Karamzin”. As the author states at the end
of her initial paragraph, it shows “how the writer proceeds from the laws of
etiquette and genre to functionally differentiated authorial use of French and
Russian.” One such pattern is (see p. 154) that Karamzin used Russian when
writing to Emperor Alexander I. Also (p. 156), there is a reference to
switching from the respectful second-person vous to the familiar tu in the
process of getting married. The conclusion (pp. 166–167) gives a succinct and
lucid overview of the complex relationship between the two languages.

“Pushkin’s Letters in French” are the subject-matter of Nina Dimitrieva’s
Chapter 9 (pp. [172]–192). Pushkin’s choice of language depended to some
extent on his relationship with correspondents. Thus, it appears (p. 174) that
he chose Russian when writing to “kindred spirits”, and that his choice of
French to his parents was due to the lack of “mutual understanding in the
Pushkin household.” It is also made evident (p. 179) that he was quite
strongly influenced by French literature. Like the preceding one, this chapter
makes reference (p. 187) to the tu/vous distinction, including an example of
switching from vous to tu, noting that such a change was not to be reversed.

In Chapter 10 (pp. [193]–208), Xénia Borderioux deals with “Instruction in
Eighteenth-Century Coquetry: Learning about Fashion and Speaking its
Language”. There are many examples here, starting (p. 194) with a document
that shows how much ceremonial dress terminology owed to French, also listing
(p. 195) a number of French publications that became available in Russia
during the latter part of the eighteenth century. However, it is also clear
(pp. 198–200) that at least one Russian fashion publication was based on a
German edition, rather than a French original, quite possibly for significant
ideological reasons. Nevertheless, particularly during the second half of the
eighteenth century, French was an important skill (p. 204), in spite of
certain reservations.

Chapter 11 (pp. [209]–227), “The Role of French in the Formation of
Professional Architectural Terminology in Eighteenth-Century Russia”, by
Sergei Klimenko and Iuliia Klimenko, provides insights into how the Russian
vocabulary of architecture came to be heavily influenced by French. Peter the
Great laid the foundation for this; see p. 211 (also pp. 215 and 221–222,
where some good examples of such terminology are mentioned). As in other cases
mentioned in this review, Russians seeking to modernize their language had
used German publications, but (p. 217) French remained the preferred language,
in spite of some exceptions (p. 218). Finally, it may be noted that much
present-day Russian architectural terminology remains French-derived (p. 224).

In Chapter 12 (pp. [228]–242), Nina Dimitrieva and Gesine Argent turn to
discussing “The Coexistence of Russian and French in the First Third of the
Nineteenth Century: Bilingualism with or without Diglossia?” After a short
introduction, they provide a section (pp. 229–231) that deals with some
theoretical consideration in respect of bilingualism and diglossia, turning
(pp. 232–233) to code-switching in writing and (pp. 233–235) differences
between men’s and women’s usages. There is an amusing example (p. 236) of the
type of playful language bilinguals often indulge in. The chapter comes to an
end (p. 239) on this note: “Thus from metadiscursive comments it becomes clear
that speakers consider that the various languages available to them have
different functions. This state of affairs suggests diglossia, but the system
is not rigid and is open to negotiation.”

Gesine Argent and Vladislav Rjéoutski are the authors of the “Conclusion” (pp.
[243]–249). This provides a handy analysis of the previous chapters, including
(p. 246) a warning against “arguing that Imperial Russia was a quite
exceptional case in the sphere of language use”, even if (p. 247) it is true
“that there were distinctive features in the Russian case”. There being no
“Notes”, the “References” are at pp. 248–249.

The “Notes on Contributors” (pp. [250]–253) supply useful and welcome
information. The “Index” (pp. [254]–270) lists names, languages, authorities
quoted, etc. It is a selective one; for instance, one may note the absence of
Romaine 1989 (as quoted p. 135), whereas Blommaert (1999: as quoted p. 243) is
listed.

Volume 2: Language Attitudes and Identity

In the “Preface” etc. (pp. [vii]–[xvii]), one finds much the same material as
in the corresponding pages ([vii]–[xviii]) of Volume 1.

In the “Introduction” (pp. [1]–15), the editors begin by returning to details
in respect of the difference between the two separate volumes. They also offer
pertinent remarks (p. 4) about “national identity” and “social identity”, and
(p. 5) the crucial importance of German Romanticism.

Chapter 1 (pp. [16]–30) “The Pan-European Justification of a Multilingual
Russian Society in the Late Eighteenth Century”, by Stephen Bruce, starts with
a mention of the fact that the very first words in Tolstoy’s War and Peace are
in French. Other languages also played a role, notably (p. 18) German.
Catherine the Great was herself German, but chose to use French in much of her
correspondence with the world outside Russia, which is the main topic of the
chapter. 

The title of Michelle Lamarche Marrese’s contribution (pp. [31]–47) in Chapter
2 of the volume is “Princess Dashkova and the Politics of Language in
Eighteenth-Century Russia”. French was Dashkova’s main language, but her
command of other ones, including English (p. 36), is also given consideration.
One piece of linguistic information may be noted (p. 41): when writing in
French and English—but not in Russian—Dashkova could refer to herself in the
masculine gender.

Chapter 3 (pp. [48]–63), Svetlana Skomorokhova’s “Plating ‘Russian Gold’ with
‘French Copper’: Aleksandr Sumarokov and Eighteenth-Century Franco-Russian
Translation” has a title that gives a clear insight into the contents of the
chapter. The matter of “Russian self-validation […] within the context of
European discourse about centre–periphery prestige positions” (p. 53) occupies
a central place in the contribution.

For her part, Carole Chapin, in Chapter 4, deals (pp. [64]–78) with
“Francophone Culture in Russia Seen through the Russian and French Periodical
Press”. The central position of French comes out clearly, showing (see for
instance pp. 72–73) how “the use of French in elite writing and social
interaction was considered unexceptionable, even de rigueur in many
situations”. Moreover, it is clear (p. 76) that French periodicals saw Russia
as a “fashionable topic”.

However strong the position of French may have been, it was not without
detractors, as Derek Offord shows (pp. [79]–99), in Chapter 5: “Linguistic
Gallophobia in Russian Comedy”. The most important work of that kind was Denis
Ivanovich Fonvizin’s 1769 “Brigadier”, which is given (pp. 87–91) extensive
treatment, as are some other dramatists pertaining to the period of
Catherine’s reign. The complexity of situation is demonstrated at the end (p.
95), which mentions how the “dilemma of Westernisation” reflects the
opposition between using “French […] didactic poetry” and being “forerunners
of an intelligentsia that in the nineteenth century would view language use,
and in particular the bilingualism of the Russian nobility, in nationalistic
terms”.

Gesine Argent is the author of Chapter 6: “The Linguistic Debate between
Karamzin and Shishkov: Evaluating Russian–French Language Contact” (pp.
[100]–117). These two influential debaters of linguistic matters provide many
insights into contemporary attitudes. As Argent notes (p. 104), they held many
views in common. Given their conservative political backgrounds, this is
understandable. Also, a number of other commentators are introduced (p. 105).
The most notable difference between Karamzin and Shishkov appears (p. 106) to
have been that Shishkov saw “the connection between languages and nations as
much stronger, linking a language inextricably to a particular nation.” The
possibility of Herder having influenced these views is mentioned even it
remains unclear how directly that may have happened. It follows (pp. 111–112)
that they pursued different strategies to solve the problems they felt
affected Russian: Karamzin looked at the spoken language for inspiration,
whereas Shishkov preferred to concentrate on the Slavonic language.

G. M. Hamburg’s Chapter 7 (pp. [118]–138) deals with “Language and
Conservative Politics in Alexandrine Russia”. Aleksandr Shishkov (1754–1841),
Fedor Rostopchin (1763–1826) and Sergei Glinka (1776–1847) are the leading
names being introduced at the outset of the chapter. The role of Mikhail
Lomonosov is given special consideration (pp. 120–121), as is the awareness
among Russian conservatives “of the general European discussion about
language, culture and politics launched in the late 1760s by Johann Georg
Hamann and Johann Gottfried Herder.” (p. 121) There is further mention (p.
123) of the lack of direct evidence for Shishkov and Rostopchin having read
Hamann or Herder; on the other hand, indirect influence was likely. Hamburg
concludes (p. 135) that the “differences among the three conservatives were
real, but [that] they were largely matters of emphasis.”

Chapter 8 (pp. [139]–155): “Seduction, Subterfuge, Subversion: Ivan Krylov’s
Rewriting of Molière”, is by D. Brian Kim. It tells (see p. 140) of how
Krylov’s one-act play “Lessons for Daughters”, although a critique of
Gallomania, relied on Molière’s 1659 play “Les précieuses ridicules”. It is
worth noting the treatment (p. 145) of “the etymological relationship of the
words ‘educate’ and ‘seduce’—both stem from the Latin dūcere, (to lead), but
whereas to educate is to lead out of ignorance, to seduce is to lead astray.”
Likewise, the etymological connotations (p. 147) of the name (Glagol’) of the
play’s false French marquis are of interest, as is the discussion (p. 148) of
his fake accent. Kim concludes (p. 152) by describing Krylov’s play “as an
example of what can be achieved by a culture at war that imports ideas in the
land of the enemy”.
 
Chapter 9 (pp. [156]–178), “The French Language of Fashion in Early
Nineteenth-Century Russia”, is by Olga Vassilieva-Codognet. It starts out by
referring to the debates initiated by Karamzin and Shishkov and how (p. 156,
see also p. 160) “these language polemics frequently had recourse to clothing
metaphors which also contrasted Russian and French practices.” The chapter
gives details (p. 164) about French words in Russian journals: “the French
word would appear in one of three different forms: in brackets after the
Russian term that translated it; in its French form with no translation; or in
transliteration in Cyrillic.” Examples follow (pp. 164–166), as do (pp.
168–173) pictures that serve to add clarity. Towards the end of the chapter,
there is (p. 174) an entertaining account of the consequences of a bad
transliteration of French gris-poussière.

Sara Dickinson is the author of Chapter 10 (pp. [179]–196): “[Otechestvo,
otchizna, rodina]: Russian ‘Translations’ of Patrie in the Napoleonic Period”.
[In the volume, the three Russian words in the title are printed in Cyrillic.]
The texts examined are mostly by Aleksandr Radishchev, Nikolai Karamzin,
Vasilii Zhukovskii and Fedor Glinka. Apart from the different nuances conveyed
by the Russian words, the French term patrie also underwent changes of
meaning. (See p. 180 and cp. p. 184) The chapter looks at this in some detail.
It may be noted that, during most of the eighteenth-century, otechestvo was
unproblematically (p. 181) the equivalent of patrie, whereas the (later)
evolution of rodina was characterized (p. 192) by an increasing emotional
component.

In Chapter 11 (pp. [197]–213), Derek Offord looks at the “Treatment of
Francophonie in Pushkin’s Prose Fiction”. He starts from the premise that
“multilingualism has often served not only as a stimulus for a nation’s
cultural development but also for the formation of its national identity.”
Whereas Germans and their language figure strongly in Pushkin’s work, French
is clearly the foreign language that features most prominently. (See pp.
199–200.) This is illustrated through a range of quotations, leading to the
conclusion (p. 210) that “assimilation of foreign languages and the foreign
cultures they bore had been a crucial step in the creation of a culture that
would eventually be conceived as authentically Russian.”

Victor Zhivov has contributed Chapter 11 (pp. [214]–241): “Love à la mode:
Russian Words and French Sources”. The story begins with Paul Tallement’s 1663
novel “Voyage de l’île d’amour” and Vasilii Trediakovskii’s 1730 Russian
translation. It contains a number of interesting inventions, to render French
terms that had not had Russian equivalents before. (See pp. 216–220.) It
continues with an account (pp. 221–225) of Aleksandr Khrapovitskii’s reworking
of Jean-François Dreux du Radier’s 1741 “Dictionnaire d’amour”. Then there
follows (pp. 225–228 a comparison between Trediatovskii and Khrapovitskii and
some critical remarks (pp. 228–232), concerning how incomplete and fragmentary
the “Russian vocabulary of love” had remained, compared to that of French.

Gesine Argent and Derek Offord are the authors of the “Conclusion” (pp.
[242]–247). Among other things, they examine the tension between French and
Russian, stating (p. 243, cp. also p. 246) that, “[c]rucially, it was
infatuation with the French language that came under attack, rather than the
language itself.”

There are (pp. [248]–250) some “Notes on Contributors” and (pp. [251]–266) an
“Index”, which, like the one in the first volume, is a selective one; note the
absence of Milroy and Milroy (1999, as quoted p. 101) as against the inclusion
of Aaltonen (2000, as quoted p. 150).

EVALUATION

The far too sparse “notes de lecture” provided above cannot give an adequate
impression of the sheer wonderful richness of all that is contained within the
covers of the two volumes here reviewed. This work is a major milestone in
historical sociolinguistics: it demonstrates very clearly how a true and
complete understanding of the many functions of human language, throughout its
long history, must be based on much more than what is provided by most
manifestations of theoretical linguistics. These books provide a
circumstantial and objective account of the interaction, over at least two
centuries, of two important European languages, in a social setting that most
fortunately happens to be well documented. The complexity of this particular
situation is given the prominence it deserves, and there are cogent and
logical arguments against some simplistic notions. It is also good to note
that all contributions are written in a lucid and easily accessed style, free
of unnecessary jargon. This means that this work can be read not only by
professional linguists, but also by historians, literary critics and
sociologists, all of whom will find much of great value.

Some of the contributions have been translated from French or Russian; this
appears to have been done quite flawlessly. Most of the numerous quotations
are aptly chosen and serve to develop the arguments presented in a logical
fashion. This work will doubtlessly serve as a model for future research into
similar linguistic situations to be located elsewhere, in respect of both
place and time. I am thinking of the place of French in other European
countries, such as for instance Sweden, during the period in question, but
also of that of English in India, to name but one potentially very interesting
case. I have no doubt but that “French and Russian in Imperial Russia” will be
a choice item on reading lists for sociolinguistics classes in good
universities all over the world. Students taking such classes will take note
of the fact that quite a few of the contributors are early-career scholars,
whose work is of the same high standard as that of their more experienced
colleagues.

Naturally, no work is totally perfect; this is no exception. However, it must
be clearly understood the remarks that follow are not directed at the contents
of the work, but rather at certain not very user-friendly aspects of book
production that have come to my notice. The most glaring one concerns the
choice of endnotes instead of either footnotes or no notes at all. This
feature is particularly irritating when one reads a quotation in Russian or
French and finds that the English translation is in a note several pages away.
A better policy would have been to print the translation either immediately
after the quotation or in a footnote on the same page. After all, the choice
of publishing this particular work in English implies a desire to reach
readers that are not necessarily proficient in French or Russian; they are not
helped by being forced, for no good reason, to keep flicking from one page to
another.

The transliteration and translation policy is reasonably consistent: titles
and references are transliterated, but not quotations. On the other hand,
quotations are translated (albeit in inconvenient endnotes) but references are
not. Another possible procedure might have been to keep Russian titles and
references in Cyrillic, but provide translations of the references, so as to
help readers who do not have Russian to find out what the references are
about. To be sure, problems are bound to remain, particularly in respect of
Russian personal names; I note one case in point (vol. 1, p. 101): the surname
of one of the editors is given both as Rjéoutski and Rzheutskii, but not in
Cyrillic. Finally, I may mention one further query. It concerns the decision
to publish the work as two separate volumes. The arguments provided by the
editors here and there are cogent ones. Nevertheless, I wonder whether
collecting everything in one single volume might not have been a better
choice, given how well some of the chapters mesh in together. I am for
instance thinking of Chapter 10 in Volume 1 and Chapter 9 in Volume 2: reading
one without the other would have caused one to miss out on much that is of
great interest. This is also very true of many other chapters in the entire
work. 

In conclusion, then, I commend both these two volumes, which together make up
“French and Russian in Imperial Russia”, very warmly indeed to all kinds of
possible readers, adding a particular plea for them to make sure that they
read both books; I have no doubt but that they will find them as instructive,
interesting, readable and scholarly as I have.

REFERENCES

Aaltonen, Sirkku. 2000. Time-Sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre
and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Blommaert, Jan (ed.). 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Cohen, Michèle. 2016. Review. Language & History 59,2:131–134.

Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating
Standard English. London: Routledge.

Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Anders Ahlqvist holds a 1974 Edinburgh PhD. From 1977 to 2005, he was,
successively, Statutory Lecturer, Associate Professor and Personal Professor
of early Irish and Celtic philology at Galway, Ireland. From 2008 to 2013 he
was the Foundation Sir Warwick Fairfax Professor of Celtic at Sydney. He has
been Chairman of the Governing Board of the School of Celtic Studies in the
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies since 2005 and an editor of the
Australian Celtic Journal since 2008. He is a past President of the Henry
Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas and the Societas Linguistica
Europaea.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

        Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-257	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/