This book takes its place in the distinguished Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics series, which offers up‑to‑date surveys of original research in a variety of topics pertaining to the study of language and languages. It both summarizes existing research trends and points in the direction of promising areas of investigation in the future for scholars and advanced students of Irish English alike. In his brief Preface, the editor of the present volume contextualizes the book succinctly in relation to research directions in linguistics in general, and in Irish English in particular. The study of Irish English has traditionally incorporated issues of phonology, lexicon and grammar, as well as the historic shift in language from Irish to English; we now have the perspectives of ever more sophisticated models of language shift in general, as well as evolving methodologies in sociolinguistics and pragmatics. In addition, advances in technology have facilitated the study through corpus linguistics of greatly expanded databases. All of these elements are well represented in the book.

Part I: A Framework for Irish English presents the current linguistic situation in Ireland and the historical contexts which have given rise to it. The shift from Irish to English after 1600, instigated by conquest and colonization, obviously shapes the character of Irish English and differentiates it from English elsewhere. This historical context has also resulted in a broad differentiation within Ireland itself, between the Ulster English (henceforth UE) of the north on the one hand, and the Southern Irish English (henceforth SIrE) spoken in the rest of the country. UE largely takes its character from the greater extent of Scottish and English settlement in the province of Ulster, and can be subdivided further into varieties more influenced by the former (Ulster Scots henceforth USc) and those more affected by the latter (Mid‑Ulster English, henceforth MUE). Outside Ulster, the oldest established dialect area in the south of the country is in the east, centered around Dublin and Waterford, a core area of Anglo‑Norman settlement in the twelfth century and subsequently. Further west and southwest lie what until the nineteenth century were largely core Irish‑speaking areas, especially in the rural parts, but which then, in many cases precipitously, shifted to English. Finally, between MUE and SIrE, there is a transitional area of varieties known collectively as Southern Ulster English (henceforth SUE), from South Donegal and Sligo in the west, to Co. Louth in the east. Further linguistic complexity arises from differences in speech between urban and rural areas, the latter generally more conservative than the former, as well as the development of more standardized and supra‑regional varieties both in the Republic of Ireland (henceforth ROI) and in Northern Ireland (henceforth NI), whereby local dialect variation has been increasingly elided. Finally, more recent immigration has increased the number of second‑language English speakers in Ireland.

Most of Part I is historical in focus, examining first the relationship between Irish, the island’s oldest attested vernacular, and the languages with which it came into close contact in the medieval period: Latin, Old Norse, Norman French and English, in the process highlighting the success with which Irish maintained its dominant status until the 17^th century. We are given an outline of the development of English in Ireland from 1200 up to the beginning of the 19^th century, by which time it was establishing itself as the dominant vernacular. It is argued that many of the defining morphosyntactic features of Irish English (for example, the after‑perfect, 2^nd plural pronoun youse and the expression of habitual aspect) emerge from the increasing momentum of language shift after 1800. Further 19^th‑century themes include the increasingly colloquial character of written Irish English, as well as the growth of supra‑regional varieties of it. The language shift from Irish to English is discussed both in terms of the development of a functional bilingualism as its precursor, and of the characteristics of the type of language contact which it involves, characterized here as unguided second‑language acquisition in a non‑prescriptive environment allowing the speech practices of the old language to be transferred to the new. It is interesting to note in this context that instances of transfer, e.g., in the habitual aspect (Irish bím ‘I am customarily’ > Irish English I do be) can also involve earlier convergence with older English dialect forms (in this case, the use of the auxiliary do in the dialects of SW England for the same purpose).

Part II: Investigating Irish English initially focusses on the fundamentals of Irish English, its phonology, morphosyntax and lexicon. The pronunciation of English in Ireland has always had its distinguishing features, notably due to the slow and incomplete nature of the Great Vowel Shift, resulting, for example, in the characteristic Irish retention of the original unraised long E in words like speak (which can still be pronounced spake in Ireland). Later developments discussed include the evolution of a supra‑regional Irish English after independence in the south in 1922 and the Dublin Vowel Shift of the 1990s and 2000s. The main features that differentiate Irish English grammar from other varieties are then presented, including the second plural pronouns ye and youse; the more generalized use of the definite article; the absence of the modal shall and, especially, the more extensive and complex coding of tense‑aspect distinctions largely based on Irish. Based largely on existing dictionaries, the traditional vocabulary of Irish English is analyzed, taking account of the input of English, Scots as well as the Irish language in the creation of regional variation. There follows a particular focus on Ulster, both in terms both of the relationship between USc and MUE, and of the sociolinguistic research that has been done on the English of three major urban centers – mostly Belfast, but also Derry and Coleraine. Interesting differences emerge in both Belfast and Derry along confessional lines, e.g., palatalization of /k/ and /g/ before /a/ (e.g., the pronunciation of car as kyar) and dentalization of intervocalic /t/ before unstressed /r/ in words like butter. These are features characteristic of rural MUE and are more likely to be found in Catholic West Belfast than in the Protestant east of the city, where rural influence is more from the USc‑influenced areas of neighboring North Down. The remainder of this section investigates the use of corpus linguistics to explore variation within Irish English; the linguistic ideology of the use of Irish English, as opposed to other varieties, in advertising, as well as the use of Irish English in a variety of media: press (including its use of Irish‑language loanwords), radio, television, cinema and social media. Finally, we learn of the historical‑linguistic value of emigrant letters from the 19^th century for understanding the development of Irish English.

Part III: Irish English in Use treats of aspects of the contemporary usage of Irish English from various sociolinguistic and pragmatic perspectives. Variation in three major urban areas in the ROI – Dublin, Galway and Cork – is investigated. Previous research (mostly of a phonological nature) into the relationship between social dynamics and language variation in these cities is presented; in addition, however, the possibilities of applying ‘third‑wave’ sociolinguistics to future research areas are broached. This is a developing approach that emphasizes the role that individual speaker agency can play in manipulating variation in order to construct a particular social meaning or identity, rather than variation simply reflecting already existing social factors. An intriguing aspect of this is ‘language perception’, or how people perceive and evaluate their own language variety in relation to that of others in social and cultural terms, e.g., Dublin speakers’ perceptions of northside and southside Dublin English respectively, perceptions that can be relatively independent of actual language production. In this way, sociolinguistics evolves further in the direction of a sociocultural linguistics, whereby the cultural implications of language variation can be explored. Variational pragmatics is also concerned with the relationship between language use and social context, explaining variation in terms of factors like age, gender and region. This is exemplified here through a case study in the expression of requests based on gender difference, comparing Irish English to Canadian English. Various discourse‑pragmatic markers, or linguistic devices that help structure the conversational flow of discourse, are also discussed, including traditional Irish English markers like sure and clause‑final like, as well the newer grand and now used as a mitigating strategy. This emphasis on markers that strengthen speaker‑hearer solidarity and pay attention to saving participants’ ‘face’ leads to the discussion of the pragmatics of politeness across various interactional contexts in Irish English. This encompasses both positive expressions of endearment to increase solidarity and negative hedging strategies to mitigate against giving offence. Part III concludes with an examination of the role that literary texts between the 16^th and 20^th centuries, from the satirical depictions of English colonialism to the emergence of a genuine literature in Irish English, can play in our understanding of the emergence of the dialectal features of Irish English. These features are usefully tabulated as they emerge from the literature over time.

Part IV: Language and the Irish Diaspora addresses the possible impact of varieties of Irish English on other types of English around the world, resulting from widespread emigration in the 18^th century and thereafter. The discussion begins with an overview incorporating Britain (Scotland is given a separate section here because of its historical closeness to Ulster), the United States, Canada and the Caribbean; subsequently, there are more detailed separate treatments of Australia and New Zealand. The general conclusion from all these discussions is the same, that Irish linguistic influence on English outside Ireland is not commensurate with the number of emigrants involved, largely because of the lower socio‑economic status of the Irish in the societies to which they emigrated. Entirely different here is the discussion of Newfoundland Irish English in eastern Canada. Because of its linguistically conservative nature, this variety is especially interesting for the potential light it sheds on earlier stages of southeastern Irish English when emigration occurred in the 18^th century. For example, it would suggest that the habitual present form bees ‘is (customarily)’ was not simply a northern form in Ireland but occurred beside the more general does be in southeastern dialects as well.

Part V: The Wider Context is diverse in content. It returns us to the general area of a subjective sociolinguistics, in this case perceptual dialectology, how non‑linguists perceive and evaluate linguistic variation and how they judge other varieties against their own. In this instance, coming from the SUE area myself, I found the perceptions that speakers of Irish English on either side of the political border between North and South have of their own varieties and those of others especially interesting. (I will say a little more about this before the end of the review.) Part V continues with a discussion of the acquisition of Irish English by recent immigrants from the perspectives of lexicon, phonology and discourse marking, as well as from the standpoint of immigrants’ attitudes towards Irish English and how these can affect their acquisition of it. Linguistic research on the Irish Traveller community is reviewed, and corpus pragmatics is used as a basis for the comparative sociolinguistic analysis of family‑based discourse in both that community and the settled population. The relevant items of analysis include personal pronouns, vocatives, and discourse‑pragmatic markers. Finally, we are given a history of Irish Sign Language (ISL, recognized as the third official language of the ROI in 2017), since the early 19^th century which treats of various linguistic‑ideological issues surrounding its development, including oralism vs signing. It discusses various influences on ISL (e.g., French and English), the development of gendered variants within ISL, as well as questions of typology and contact with ambient spoken language.

I want to conclude this brief review with two observations. The first is of a utilitarian nature. There is a pretty full‑looking index, but locating the discussion of particular lexical, grammatical and phonological features can be challenging in the formidable range of detail presented. One advantage that the online edition has over the printed one lies in its more detailed tabulation of contents. So, what is presented in the printed version, for example, simply as ‘7. The Pronunciation of English in Ireland’, is expanded in the online contents into eight sub‑sections (7.1. to 7.8), each of which can be expanded further as needed, giving a more comprehensive overview. Let me give a practical example. I was especially interested in finding a discussion of ‘uvular R’, the guttural realization (like in French) still found in various parts of Ireland. In the printed version, reliant on the Index, this seemed a bit like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. (Eventually, I found it, but only after doing an electronic search of a PDF of the Index; when I did find it, it was only in relation to Newfoundland and not Ireland.) In the online contents, on the other hand, there is a subsection ‘7.5. Supraregional Irish English’ that unpacks easily into ‘7.5.2. Consonants’, further into ‘7.5.2.3. Types of R’ and finally into ‘7.5.2.3.2. Uvular R’. I realize that presented in this fashion, this may seem fussy and cumbersome, but in my experience of linguistic textbooks and handbooks of this kind, it is a very useful, indeed indispensable, complement to an index, saving the reader a lot of time and trouble. I would suggest that future editions of the print version might incorporate this arrangement.

The second observation has a more personal slant. I would like to return to the idea of perceptual dialectology referred to above. This essentially bridges the divide between the linguist’s study of language variation and more popular understandings of it, in social, cultural and (we can say potentially) political terms. (For Irish English, see further Garnett and Lucek Reference Garnett, Lucek, Lucek and Amador–Moreno2022, 199–216). Interesting cultural and political aspects are brought into focus here by the SUE area and the way in which it is bisected by the political border between NI (South Armagh, South Fermanagh) and the ROI (North Louth, Mid‑Monaghan, North Cavan, Northeast Leitrim). I am minded here of an RTÉ documentary that appeared in 1976 on the town of Crossmaglen in South Armagh. I recently came across a five‑minute clip from it on YouTube, and was immediately struck by the following excerpts from two local speakers. In what follows, bear in mind that both Crossmaglen and Newry are on the NI side, Dundalk and Castleblayney on the ROI side of the border in counties Louth and Monaghan respectively:

I grew up in Dundalk myself and thus have always been aware of the close ties between my home town and Crossmaglen, as well as the similarity of our speech (both SUE), which is indeed clearly differentiated from that of Newry. The latter is in Co Down, also close to the border, but its variety of UE is MUE. Hence the perception of Newry speakers that Crossmaglen people are from the ROI because to their ears they sound like they could be from Dundalk, for example. Politically, this is maybe noteworthy too. Crossmaglen and Newry are two strongly nationalist areas on the wrong (from the nationalist point of view) side of the border and therefore would have much in common politically, yet for linguistic reasons South Armagh speakers identify more strongly with Dundalk (and Castleblayney) across the ROI border because when they stay in NI and go to Newry, they do not feel ‘local’. (None of the towns mentioned here is more than 20 miles from Crossmaglen.)

Admittedly, this clip is nearly 50 years old and much can have changed in over half a century due to supra‑regionalization and standardization on both sides of the border. But it would surely be worth investigating whether or not these attitudes and perceptions are still in place. Speaker 1, however, also adverts to a cultural‑linguistic longue durée that predates the establishment of English as the everyday vernacular in the area. S Armagh, N Louth and SE Monaghan, as part of the hinterland of Dundalk, form the core of an area historically known as Oriel (Irish Oirialla), in which the Irish language, its literature and its culture persisted for longer than in areas to its north and south (for the Irish‑language song culture of Oriel, see Ní Uallacháin Reference Ní Uallacháin2003). I feel that these various considerations make this region an ideal ‘laboratory’ for the investigation of the dynamic around the non‑alignment of political and linguistic borders that influence language perceptions on all sides of them. Alluded to in the book is a comparison that has already been made between language use and attitudes in Armagh city on the NI and Monaghan town on the ROI side of the border (Zwickl Reference Zwickl2002). Both of these urban areas, however, speak a variety of MUE; in the present instance, a comparison between Castleblayney‑Crossmaglen‑Dundalk on the one hand, and Newry on the other, would involve a SUE‑MUE linguistic boundary, which adds a further dimension.

An additional benefit for the discipline, apart my own personal point of view, could also be the rehabilitation of SUE in general, as it appears to be an understudied area (I have to say here that although I speak a type of it, Irish English is not my specialism, rather Irish language is.) SUE has been identified mostly on phonological criteria; in terms of the more traditional type of dialect studies on lexicon and morphosyntax, given the degree of supra‑regionalization and standardization that has occurred everywhere, it is no doubt too late to do much of anything about this. However, the new directions being taken in relation to language perception and perceptual dialectology (not to mention third‑wave sociolinguistics) should, I think, offer interesting possibilities for the more detailed investigation of this, and indeed other, regions in the future.

To conclude: this book can definitely be recommended as a valuable, multi‑faceted reference point for the study of the forms of English that are spoken in Ireland today.