Early Contact with Celtic

doi:10.1017/9781009205702.009

6 - Early Contact with Celtic

from Part II - Contact and External Influences

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2025

Raymond Hickey

Edited by

Laura Wright and

Raymond Hickey

Show author details

Laura Wright: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Raymond Hickey: Affiliation:
University of Limerick

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The Celtic hypothesis is a cover term used to refer to a number of structural features of Old English (and later stages of English) which might have their origin in language contact and shift between the BrythonicBrittonic-speaking Celtic population and the Germanic invaders in the early Old English period. Among such features are the internal possessor construction, the isomorphy of intensifiers and reflexives, two forms of the verb be, the progressive and periphrastic do. This chapter reviews the literature on this area and considers the case to be made for contact and transfer during language shift but accords equal weight to internal factors in an attempt to reach a balanced appraisal of the Celtic hypothesis.

Keywords

language contact language shift grammatical transfer internal possessor intensifiers and reflexives periphrastic do two forms of be progressive

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Context, Contact and Development
, pp. 165 - 192

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009205702.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahlqvist, Anders. 2010. Early Celtic and English. Australian Celtic Journal 9: 41–71.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2019. Dative External Possessors in Early English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2023. What did(n’t) happen to English? A re-evaluation of some contact explanations in early English. SELIM. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature 28: 19–38.10.17811/selim.28.2023.19-38CrossRef Google Scholar

Ansaldo, Umberto. 2009. Contact Languages: Ecology and Evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. and Faulkner, Mark. 2020. Language contact in the history of English. In Grant (ed.), pp. 374–387.Google Scholar

Braaten, Björn. 1967. Notes on continuous tenses in English. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 21: 167–180.Google Scholar

Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 2020. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Fourth edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474463133CrossRef Google Scholar

Chadwick, Nora. 1963. The British or Celtic part in the population of England. In Lewis, Henry (ed.), Angles and Britons: The O’Donnell Lectures. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 111–147.Google Scholar

Coates, Richard. 2007. Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics. In Higham, Nicholas J. (ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 172–191.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dal, Ingerid. 1952. Zur Entstehung des Englischen Participium Praesentis auf -ing. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16: 5–116.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Dorian, Nancy C. 1993. Internally and externally motivated change in contact situations: doubts about dichotomy. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 131–155.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget. 2022. Populations in contact: linguistic, archaeological, and genomic evidence for Indo-European diffusion. In Mufwene and Escobar (eds.), Vol. I, pp. 122–151.Google Scholar

Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Evans, Simon D. 1976. A Grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku. 2003. The quest for the most ‘parsimonious’ explanations: endogeny vs. contact revisited. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–173.10.1017/CBO9780511486937.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku. 2009. The rise of it-clefting in English: areal-typological and contact-linguistic considerations. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis (ed. Filppula and Klemola), 267–293.Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku and Klemola, Juhani (eds.). 2009. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 13.2.Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani and Paulasto, Heli. 2008. English and Celtic in Contact. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203895009CrossRef Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani and Pitkänen, Heli (eds.). 2002. The Celtic Roots of English. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1995. Language Change under Contact Conditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2: 283–230.10.1017/S1360674300000897CrossRef Google Scholar

Gast, Volker. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

German, Gary D. 2000. Britons, Anglo-Saxons and scholars: nineteenth century attitudes towards the survival of Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. In Hildegard, L. C. Tristram (ed.), Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 347–374.Google Scholar

Grant, Anthony (ed.). 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945092.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Härke, Heinrich. 2002. Kings and warriors: population and landscape from Post-Roman to Norman Britain. In Slack, Paul and Ward, Ryk (eds.), The Peopling of Britain: The Shaping of a Human Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–175.Google Scholar

Harris, John. 1984. Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20: 303–327.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Wayne, Doris and Barshi, Immanuel (eds.), External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–135.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2.2. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1492–1510.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 1995. Early contact and parallels between English and Celtic. Vienna English Working Papers 4: 87–119.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2004. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English. History and Present-Day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010. Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781643CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2012a. Assessing the role of contact in the history of English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 485–496.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2012b. Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2020a. ‘The interplay of internal and external factors in varieties of English’. In Kytö, Merja and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2020b. Language contact and linguistic research. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–29.10.1002/9781119485094CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2020c. The Handbook of Language Contact. Second edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Higham, Nicholas J. 2007. Britons in Anglo-Saxon England: an introduction. In Higham, Nicholas J. (ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 1–15.10.1515/9781846155185CrossRef Google Scholar

Hogg, Richard M. and Denison, David (eds.). 2006. A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791154CrossRef Google Scholar

Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Johanson, Lars. 2008. Remodeling grammar: copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization. In Siemund, Peter and Kintana, Noemi (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 61–79.10.1075/hsm.7.05johCrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, Mari and Esch, Edith (eds.). 2002. Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892598CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, Morris and Thomas, Alan R.. 1977. The Welsh Language: Studies in Its Syntax and Semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian. 2022. Language contact and historical linguistics. In Mufwene and Escobar (eds.), Vol. I, pp. 43–63.Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter and Mettinger, Arthur (eds.). 2001. Language Contact in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Keller, Wolfgang. 1925. Keltisches im englischen Verbum. In Anglica: Untersuchugen zur englischen Philologie. Vol. I: Sprache und Kulturgeschichte. Leipzig: Mayer und Müller, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2012. Old English-Late British language contact and the English progressive. In Stenroos, Merja, Mäkinen, Martti and Særheim, Inge (eds.), Language Contact and Development around the North Sea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117–140.Google Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2014. The development of the English be + V-ende/V-ing periphrasis: from emphatic to progressive marker? English Language and Linguistics 18.3: 361–386.CrossRef Google Scholar

Klemola, Juhani. 2000. The origins of the Northern Subject Rule: a case of early contact? In Hildegard, L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, pp. 329–346.Google Scholar

Klemola, Juhani. 2002. Periphrastic do: dialectal distributions and origins. In Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani and Pitkänen, Heli (eds.), The Celtic Roots of English. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, pp. 199–210.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2001. Internal and external possessors. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2.2. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 970–978.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2007. Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17: 39–84.10.1075/dia.17.1.04konCrossRef Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar, W. Schneider and Upton, Clive (eds.). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. I: Phonology; Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax. Repr. in 4 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008.Google Scholar

Laker, Stephen. 2008. Changing views about Anglo-Saxons and Britons. In Aertsen, Henk and Veldhoen, Bart (eds.), Six Papers from the 28th Symposium on Medieval Studies Held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on 15 December 2006. Leiden: Leiden University Department of English, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Laker, Stephen. 2017. Early changes of dental fricatives: English and Frisian compared. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 77.1–2: 243–265.CrossRef Google Scholar

Laker, Stephen. 2019. Celtic influence on Old English vowels: a review of the phonological and phonetic evidence. English Language and Linguistics 23.3: 591–620.10.1017/S1360674317000545CrossRef Google Scholar

Lange, Claudia. 2006. Reflexivity and intensification in Irish English and other New Englishes. In Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Englishes IV: The Interface between English and the Celtic Languages. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, pp. 259–282.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620928CrossRef Google Scholar

Lass, Roger and Wright, Susan. 1986. Endogeny vs. contact: Afrikaans influence on South African English. English World-Wide 7: 201–223.10.1075/eww.7.2.03lasCrossRef Google Scholar

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2016. The syntax of external and internal possessor cariation in German inalienable possession. Non-Central Usages of Datives (ed. Diewald, Gabriele ). Special issue of Language Typology and Universals 69.1: 113–129.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2020. External possessor constructions in Indo-European. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Gildea, Spike and Lujan, Eugenio R. (eds.), Reconstructing Syntax. Leiden: Brill, pp. 162–196.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lutz, Angelika. 2009. Celtic influence on Old English and West Germanic. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis (ed. Filppula, and Klemola, ), 227–249.Google Scholar

Lutz, Angelika. 2012. Language contact in the Scandinavian period. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 508–517.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0043CrossRef Google Scholar

Machan, Tim. 2012. Language contact and linguistic attitudes in the later Middle Ages. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 518–527.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0044CrossRef Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena and Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.. 2005. Reciprocal constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 430–433.Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809873CrossRef Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 2010. Contact, convergence and typology. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 66–85.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 2022. Structural outcomes of language contact. In Mufwene and Escobar (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 593–617.Google Scholar

McColl Millar, Robert. 2007. Trask’s Historical Linguistics. Revised second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McColl Millar, Robert. 2016. Contact: The Interaction of Closely Related Linguistic Varieties and the History of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166591CrossRef Google Scholar

McWhorter, John H. 2009. What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis (ed. Filppula and Klemola), 163–191.Google Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. 1999. Authority in Language. Third edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce and Robinson, Fred. 2007. A Guide to Old English. Seventh edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mittendorf, Ingo and Poppe, Erich. 2000. Celtic contacts of the English progressive? In Hildegard, L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, pp. 117–145.Google Scholar

Mossé, Ferdinand. 1952. A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801804786CrossRef Google Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko and Escobar, Anna Maria (eds.). 2022. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact. Vol. I: Population Movement and Language Change. Vol. II: Multilingualism in Language Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.). 2006. The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Pahta, Päivi. 2012. Code-switching in English of the Middle Ages. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 528–537.CrossRef Google Scholar

Parina, Elena. 2007. Reflexivpronomina im Mittelkymrischen. In Birkhan, Helmut (ed.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachiger Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 389–396.Google Scholar

Pons-Sanz, Sara M. and Sylvester, Louise (eds.) 2023. Medieval English in a Multilingual Context. Current Methodologies and Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-031-30947-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Poppe, Erich. 2009. Standard Average European and the Celticity of English intensifiers and reflexives: some considerations and implications. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis (ed. Filppula and Klemola), 251–266.Google Scholar

Poussa, Patricia. 1990. A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of OE–Celtic contact. In Adamson, Sylvia, Law, Vivien, Vincent, Nigel and Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 407–434.10.1075/cilt.65.23pouCrossRef Google Scholar

Preußler, Walter. 1938. Keltischer Einfluß im Englischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 56: 178–191.Google Scholar

Schendl, Herbert and Wright, Laura (eds.). 2011. Code-Switching in Early English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. and Buschfeld, Sarah. 2022. The geographical and demographic expansion of English. In Mufwene and Escobar (eds.), Vol. I, pp. 583–610.Google Scholar

Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne (eds.). 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511740060CrossRef Google Scholar

Schrijver, Peter. 2006. What Britons spoke around 400 AD. In Higham, Nick J. (ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 165–171.Google Scholar

Schrijver, Peter. 2009. Celtic influence on Old English: phonological and phonetic evidence. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis (ed. Filppula, and Klemola, ), 193–211.Google Scholar

Sellar, A. M. 1907. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England: A Revised Translation with Introduction, Life, and Notes. London: George Bell and Sons.Google Scholar

Sims-Williams, Patrick. 1983. The settlement of England and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Anglo-Saxon England 12: 1–41.10.1017/S0263675100003331CrossRef Google Scholar

Stalmaszczyk, Piotr. 1997. Celtic elements in English vocabulary: a critical reassessment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 32. 77–87.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Tolkien, J. R. R. 1963. English and Welsh. In Lewis, Henry (ed.), Angles and Britons: The O’Donnell Lectures. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar

Townend, Matthew. 2002. Language and History in Viking Age England: Linguistic Relations between Speakers of Old Norse and Old English. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.10.1484/M.SEM-EB.5.106296CrossRef Google Scholar

Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 1997. Do-periphrasis in contact? In Ramisch, Heinrich and Wynne, Kenneth J. (eds.), Language in Time and Space: Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, pp. 401–417.Google Scholar

Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 1999. How Celtic Is Standard English? St Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2010. Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan and Genee, Inge. 2002. English do: on the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics 6: 283–307.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 2001. Atlantis Semitica: structural contact features in Celtic and English. In Laurel, J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–369.10.1075/cilt.215.24venCrossRef Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 2002. On the rise of ‘Celtic’ syntax in Middle English. In Peter, J. and Lucas, Angela M. (eds.), Middle English from Tongue to Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 203–234.Google Scholar

Visser, Federicus Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Wagner, Heinrich. 1959. Das Verbum in den Sprachen der britischen Inseln. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard and Trudgill, Peter (eds.). 1999. Alternative Histories of English. Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: classification and processes. Diachronica 22: 373–427.10.1075/dia.22.2.05winCrossRef Google Scholar

Winford, Donald. 2009. The interplay of ‘universals’ and contact-induced change in the emergence of New Englishes. In Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani and Paulasto, Heli (eds.), Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London: Routledge, pp. 206–230.Google Scholar

Winterbottom, Michael (ed. and trans.) 1978. The Ruin of Britain, and Other Works. London: Phillimore.Google Scholar

Wright, Laura. 2005. Medieval mixed-language business texts and the rise of Standard English. In Skaffari, Janne, Peikola, Matti, Carroll, Ruth, Hiltunen, Risto and Wårvik, Brita (eds.), Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 381–399.Google Scholar

Wright, Laura (ed.). 2020. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110687545CrossRef Google Scholar

Vezzosi, Letizia. 2005. The development of himself in Middle English: a ‘Celtic’ hypothesis. In Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and Literary Approaches. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 228–243.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.