Hubbry Logo
Stratum (linguistics)Stratum (linguistics)Main
Open search
Stratum (linguistics)
Community hub
Stratum (linguistics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Stratum (linguistics)
Stratum (linguistics)
Stratum (linguistics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In linguistics, a stratum (Latin for 'layer') or strate is a historical layer of language that influences or is influenced by another language through contact. The notion of "strata" was first developed by the Italian linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, and became known in the English-speaking world through the work of two different authors in 1932.[1]

Both concepts apply to a situation where an intrusive language establishes itself in the territory of another, typically as the result of migration. Whether the superstratum case (the local language persists and the intrusive language disappears) or the substratum one (the local language disappears and the intrusive language persists) applies will normally only be evident after several generations, during which the intrusive language exists within a diaspora culture.

In order for the intrusive language to persist, the substratum case, the immigrant population will either need to take the position of a political elite or immigrate in significant numbers relative to the local population, i.e., the intrusion qualifies as an invasion or colonisation. An example would be the Roman Empire giving rise to Romance languages outside Italy, displacing Gaulish and many other Indo-European languages.

The superstratum case refers to elite invading populations that eventually adopt the language of the native lower classes. Examples of this would be the Burgundians and Franks in France, who eventually abandoned their Germanic dialects in favor of other Indo-European languages of the Romance branch, profoundly influencing the local speech in the process, and the Anglo-Normans in England.

Substratum

[edit]

A substratum (plural: substrata) or substrate is a language that an intrusive language influences, which may or may not ultimately change it to become a new language. The term is also used of substrate interference, i.e. the influence the substratum language exerts on the replacing language. According to some classifications, this is one of three main types of linguistic interference: substratum interference differs from both adstratum, which involves no language replacement but rather mutual borrowing between languages of equal "value", and superstratum, which refers to the influence a socially dominating language has on another, receding language that might eventually be relegated to the status of a substratum language.

In a typical case of substrate interference, a Language A occupies a given territory and another Language B arrives in the same territory, brought, for example, with migrations of population. Language B then begins to supplant language A: the speakers of Language A abandon their own language in favor of the other language, generally because they believe that it will help them achieve certain goals within government, the workplace, and in social settings. During the language shift, the receding language A still influences language B, for example, through the transfer of loanwords, place names, or grammatical patterns from A to B.

In most cases, the ability to identify substrate influence in a language requires knowledge of the structure of the substrate language. This can be acquired in numerous ways:[2]

  • The substrate language, or some later descendant of it, still survives in a part of its former range;
  • Written records of the substrate language may exist to various degrees;
  • The substrate language itself may be unknown entirely, but it may have surviving close relatives that can be used as a base of comparison.

One of the first-identified cases of substrate influence is an example of a substrate language of the second type: Gaulish, from the ancient Celtic people the Gauls. The Gauls lived in the modern French-speaking territory before the arrival of the Romans, namely the invasion of Julius Caesar's army. Given the cultural, economic and political advantages that came with being a Latin speaker, the Gauls eventually abandoned their language in favor of the language brought to them by the Romans, which evolved in this region, until eventually it took the form of the French language that is known today. The Gaulish speech disappeared in the late Roman era, but remnants of its vocabulary survive in some French words, approximately 200, as well as place-names of Gaulish origin.[3]

It is posited that some structural changes in French were shaped at least in part by Gaulish influence[3] including diachronic sound changes and sandhi phenomena due to the retention of Gaulish phonetic patterns after the adoption of Latin,[4][5][6] calques such as aveugle ("blind", literally without eyes, from Latin ab oculis, which was a calque on the Gaulish word exsops with the same semantic construction as modern French)[7] with other Celtic calques possibly including "oui", the word for yes,[8] while syntactic and morphological effects are also posited.[8][9][10]

Other examples of substrate languages are the influence of the now extinct North Germanic Norn language on the Scots dialects of the Shetland and Orkney islands. In the Arab Middle East and North Africa, colloquial Arabic dialects, most especially Levantine, Egyptian, and Maghreb dialects, often exhibit significant substrata from other regional Semitic (especially Aramaic) and Berber languages. Yemeni Arabic has Modern South Arabian, Old South Arabian and Himyaritic substrata.

Typically, Creole languages have multiple substrata, with the actual influence of such languages being indeterminate.

Unattested substrata

[edit]

In the absence of all three lines of evidence mentioned above, linguistic substrata may be difficult to detect. Substantial indirect evidence is needed to infer the former existence of a substrate. The nonexistence of a substrate is difficult to show,[11] and to avoid digressing into speculation, burden of proof must lie on the side of the scholar claiming the influence of a substrate. The principle of uniformitarianism[12] and results from the study of human genetics suggest that many languages have formerly existed that have since then been replaced under expansive language families, such as Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic or Bantu. However, it is not a given that such expansive languages would have acquired substratum influence from the languages they have replaced.

Several examples of this type of substratum have still been claimed. For example, the earliest form of the Germanic languages may have been influenced by a non-Indo-European language, purportedly the source of about one quarter of the most ancient Germanic vocabulary. There are similar arguments for a Sanskrit substrate, a Greek one, and a substrate underlying the Sami languages. Relatively clear examples are the Finno-Ugric languages of the Chude and the "Volga Finns" (Merya, Muromian, and Meshcheran): while unattested, their existence has been noted in medieval chronicles, and one or more of them have left substantial influence in the Northern Russian dialects.

By contrast, more contentious cases are the Vasconic substratum theory and Old European hydronymy, which hypothesize large families of substrate languages across western Europe. Some smaller-scale unattested substrates that remain under debate involve alleged extinct branches of the Indo-European family, such as "Nordwestblock" substrate in the Germanic languages, and a "Temematic" substrate in Balto-Slavic, proposed by Georg Holzer.[11] The name Temematic is an abbreviation of "tenuis, media, media aspirata, tenuis", referencing a sound shift presumed common to the group.

When a substrate language or its close relatives cannot be directly studied, their investigation is rooted in the study of etymology and linguistic typology. The study of unattested substrata often begins from the study of substrate words, which lack a clear etymology.[13] Such words can in principle still be native inheritance, lost everywhere else in the language family, but they might in principle also originate from a substrate.[14] The sound structure of words of unknown origin — their phonology and morphology — can often suggest hints in either direction.[11][15]

So can their meaning: words referring to the natural landscape, in particular indigenous fauna and flora, have often been found especially likely to derive from substrate languages.[11][13][14] None of these conditions is sufficient by itself to claim any one word as originating from an unknown substratum.[11] Occasionally words that have been proposed to be of substrate origin will be found out to have cognates in more distantly related languages after all, and therefore likely native: an example is Proto-Indo-European *mori 'sea', found widely in the northern and western Indo-European languages, but in more eastern Indo-European languages only in Ossetic.[14]

Concept history

[edit]

Although the influence of the prior language when a community speaks, and adopts, a new one may have been informally acknowledged beforehand, the concept was formalized and popularized initially in the late 19th century. As historical phonology emerged as a discipline, the initial dominant viewpoint was that influences from language contact on phonology and grammar should be assumed to be marginal, and an internal explanation should always be favored if possible. As articulated by Max Mueller in 1870, Es gibt keine Mischsprache ("there are no mixed languages").[16] In the 1880s, dissent began to crystallize against this viewpoint. Within Romance language linguistics, the 1881 Lettere glottologiche of Graziadio Isaia Ascoli argued that the early phonological development of French and other Gallo-Romance languages was shaped by the retention by Celts of their "oral dispositions" even after they had switched to Latin.[17]

In 1884, Hugo Schuchardt's related but distinct concept of creole languages was used to counter Mueller's view. In modern historical linguistics, debate persists on the details of how language contact may induce structural changes. The respective extremes of "all change is contact" and "there are no structural changes ever" have largely been abandoned in favor of a set of conventions on how to demonstrate contact induced structural changes. These include adequate knowledge of the two languages in question, a historical explanation, and evidence that the contact-induced phenomenon did not exist in the recipient language before contact, among other guidelines.

Superstratum

[edit]

A superstratum (plural: superstrata) or superstrate offers the counterpart to a substratum. When a different language influences a base language to result in a new language, linguists label the influencing language a superstratum and the influenced language a substratum.

A superstrate may also represent an imposed linguistic element akin to what occurred with English and Norman after the Norman Conquest of 1066 when use of the English language carried low prestige. The international scientific vocabulary coinages from Greek and Latin roots adopted by European languages (and subsequently by other languages) to describe scientific topics (sociology, zoology, philosophy, botany, medicine, all "-logy" words, etc.) can also be termed a superstratum,[citation needed] although for this last case, "adstratum" might be a better designation (despite the prestige of science and of its language). In the case of French, for example, Latin is the superstrate and Gaulish the substrate.

Some linguists contend that Japanese (and Japonic languages in general) consists of an Altaic superstratum projected onto an Austronesian substratum.[18] Some scholars also argue for the existence of Altaic superstrate influences on varieties of Chinese spoken in Northern China.[19] In this case, however, the superstratum refers to influence, not language succession. Other views detect substrate effects.[20]

Adstratum

[edit]

An adstratum (plural: adstrata) or adstrate is a language that influences another language by virtue of geographic proximity, not by virtue of its relative prestige. For example, early in England's history, Old Norse served as an adstrate, contributing to the lexical structure of Old English.[21]

The phenomenon is less common today in standardized linguistic varieties and more common in colloquial forms of speech. Modern nations tend to favour a single linguistic variety, often corresponding to the dialect of the capital and other important regions, over others.

In India, where dozens of languages are widespread, many languages could be said to share an adstratal relationship, but Hindi is certainly a dominant adstrate in North India.

A different example would be the sociolinguistic situation in Belgium, where the French and Dutch languages have roughly the same status. They could justifiably be called adstrates to each other as each has provided a large set of lexical specifications to the other.

The term adstratum is also used to identify systematic influences or a layer of borrowings in a given language from another language, independently of whether the two languages continue coexisting as separate entities. Many modern languages have an appreciable adstratum from English, due both to the cultural influence and economic preponderance of the United States on international markets, and the earlier colonization by the British Empire that made English a global lingua franca. The Greek and Latin coinages adopted by European languages, including English and now languages worldwide, to describe scientific topics, sociology, medicine, anatomy, biology, all the '-logy' words, etc., are also justifiably called adstrata.

Another example is found in Spanish and Portuguese, which contain a heavy Semitic, particularly Arabic, adstratum. Yiddish is a linguistic variety of High German with adstrata from Hebrew and Aramaic, mostly in the sphere of religion. Slavic languages were linked geographically to Yiddish-speaking villages in Eastern Europe for centuries up until the Holocaust.

Swahili, spoken in East Africa, has a large amount of Arabic influence, with Arabic loanwords comprising a large part of its vocabulary due to centuries of trade and cultural exchange between Arab merchants and East African communities. It is estimated that 40% of the language's vocabulary is derived from Arabic loanwords.

Notable examples of possible substrate or superstrate influence

[edit]

Substrate influence on superstrate

[edit]
Area Resultant language Substrate Superstrate Superstrate introduced by
Greece during the Early Helladic period Ancient Greek Pre-Greek substrate Proto-Greek Indo-European migrations into southern Europe
Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex Classical Sanskrit BMAC substrate Vedic Sanskrit Indo-European migrations into southern Central Asia
China (Baiyue), Northern Vietnam Yue (Viet), Min, Au, Wu Various Old Yue languages Old Chinese Sinicisation (Qin's campaign against the Yue tribes, Han campaigns against Minyue, and Southward expansion of the Han dynasty), between the first millennium BC and the first millennium AD
France Gallo-Romance Gaulish Vulgar Latin Romans who annexed it to the Roman Empire (1st century BC-7th century AD),
Portugal Ibero-Romance Paleohispanic languages
Spain
Romania Common Romanian Daco-Thracian
Levant Levantine Arabic Western Aramaic Pre-classical Arabic Arabs during the Muslim conquests
Egypt Egyptian Arabic Coptic
Mesopotamia Mesopotamian Arabic Eastern Aramaic
Maghreb (North Africa) Maghrebi Arabic Berber languages, Punic, Vandalic, and Vulgar Latin
Ethiopia Amharic Central Cushitic languages South Semitic languages Bronze Age Semitic expansion
Eritrea/Ethiopia Tigrinya, Tigré and Ge'ez Central Cushitic and North Cushitic languages
Japan Eastern Japanese Ainu and Emishi Old Japanese, Early Middle Japanese and Late Middle Japanese Japanization of indigenous Ainu and Emishi populations in eastern Honshu and later Hokkaido[22]
England Old English Common Brittonic and British Latin Ingvaeonic languages Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain
Cornwall Cornish English Cornish Early Modern English Anglicisation of Cornish people
Ireland Irish English Irish the English during the Plantations of Ireland in the 16th century
Scotland Scottish English Middle Scots and Scottish Gaelic the English during Scottish Reformation in the 16th century
Jamaica Jamaican Patois African languages of transported enslaved Africans the English during British colonial rule in Jamaica
Canary Islands Canarian Spanish Guanche Andalusian Spanish Andalusians during the incorporation of the Canary Islands into the Crown of Castile
Mexico Mexican Spanish Nahuatl and other indigenous languages of Mexico Spanish of the 15th century Spaniards during the Spanish Conquest
of the 15th century
Central Andes Andean Spanish Quechua, Aymaran languages
Paraguay Paraguayan Spanish Guaraní
Philippines Chavacano Tagalog, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Bangingi, Sama, Tausug, Yakan, and Malay
Brazil Brazilian Portuguese Tupi, Bantu languages[23] Portuguese of the 15th century the Portuguese during the colonial period
Angola Angolan Portuguese Umbundu, Kimbundu, and Kikongo the Portuguese during the colonial rule in Africa
Shetland and Orkney Insular Scots Norn Scots Acquisition by Scotland in the 15th century
Norway Bokmål Old Norwegian Danish Union with Danish crown, 1380–1814.
Argentina/Uruguay Rioplatense Spanish Neapolitan, various Italian Languages Spanish Italian immigration to Uruguay and Argentina
Belarus Belarusian Baltic languages Old East Slavic Assimilation of East Balts by East Slavs in the Middle Ages
Russia (Russian North) North Russian Finno-Ugric languages Russian Russification of the Chudes and Volga Finns
Israel Modern Hebrew German, Russian, Yiddish,
Judeo-Arabic dialects, and other Jewish languages and languages spoken by Jews		 Hebrew constructed from Biblical and mishnaic Hebrew European Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who modernized and reintroduced Hebrew as a vernacular
Singapore Singaporean Mandarin Southern Chinese varieties: Min Nan, Teochew, Cantonese, Hainanese Standard Mandarin Singapore Government during the Speak Mandarin Campaign

Superstrate influence on substrate

[edit]
Area Resultant language Substrate Superstrate Superstrate introduced by
Wales, Roman Britain Old Welsh Common Brittonic British Latin Roman conquest of Britain
France Old French Gallo-Romance Frankish Merovingians' dominance of Gaul around 500
England Middle English Old English Old Norman French Normans during the Norman Conquest
Greece Demotic Greek Medieval Greek Ottoman Turkish Ottoman Turks following the Fall of Constantinople and during the subsequent occupation of Greece
Spain Early Modern Spanish Old Spanish Arabic (by way of Mozarabic) Umayyads during the conquest of Hispania, and the Arabic and Mozarabic speakers in al-Andalus who were absorbed into Castille and other Christian kingdoms during the Reconquista
Korea Middle Korean Old Korean Middle Chinese Linguistic Sinicization of Korean elites during the Silla and Goryeo periods
Vietnam Middle Vietnamese Old Vietnamese Middle Chinese Linguistic Sinicization of Vietnamese elites during the Eras of Northern Domination and pre-1400 Đại Việt
Malta Maltese Siculo-Arabic Sicilian, later Italian and other Romance languages[24] Norman and Aragonese control, establishment of the Knights of St. John on the islands in the 16th century[25]
Romania, Moldova Modern Romanian Common Romanian, Old Romanian Slavic languages (first Proto-Slavic, then Old Church Slavonic, and later individual Slavic languages such as Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, and Bulgarian) Slavic migrations to the Balkans, rule by the Bulgarian, Polish-Lithuanian, and Russian Empires followed by Soviet domination
Poland (Kashubia) Kashubian Pomeranian Low German German immigration to Pomerania during the Ostsiedlung, and periods of Teutonic and Prussian rule
Poland (Upper Silesia) Silesian Old Polish Central German German immigration to Silesia during the Ostsiedlung, and periods of Austrian and Prussian rule
Indonesia Indonesian Classical Malay Dutch, to a lesser extent Portuguese Over three centuries of Dutch colonial rule in the archipelago from 1610 to 1949, and prior Portuguese colonial rule during the 1500s

See also

[edit]
Look up stratum, substratum, substrate, superstratum, or superstrate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stratum (linguistics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , a stratum (plural: strata) denotes a historical layer of linguistic influence arising from contact between , where one impacts another through borrowing or structural changes, often categorized as substratum, superstratum, or adstratum based on the relative prestige and dynamics of the interacting . These layers reflect how evolve under social, political, or geographical pressures, leaving detectable traces in , morphology, , or . A substratum occurs when a less prestigious or subordinate language (L1) influences a more dominant one (L2), typically as L1 speakers shift to L2 but carry over habits from their native tongue, resulting in the dominant language adopting features like phonological patterns or from the substratum. For instance, the Mon-Khmer substratum has shaped Burmese and sesquisyllabic word structures through . In contrast, a superstratum involves a higher-prestige language (L2) influencing a subordinate one (L1), often via , , or elite dominance, leading to borrowings in , , or other elements in the recipient language. An example is the impact of Norman French as a superstratum on , introducing extensive lexical items related to law, , and following the . An adstratum, by comparison, describes mutual influence between languages of roughly equal status in prolonged contact, without one dominating the other, often fostering shared typological features across a linguistic area known as a . This can occur in multilingual communities with stable bilingualism, as seen in the , where languages like Albanian, Greek, Romanian, and Slavic varieties have converged on traits such as postposed definite articles and evidential mood markers. Similarly, the Indian subcontinent's linguistic area illustrates adstratum effects, with Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and other languages sharing retroflex consonants and SOV . The study of strata is central to and contact linguistics, helping reconstruct past interactions and explain anomalies in language development that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance alone. Terms like substratum and superstratum emerged in the to analyze ' interactions with Celtic, Germanic, and other substrates, evolving into tools for broader cross-linguistic analysis. Identifying strata requires evidence from comparative reconstruction, as influences may be subtle and debated, but they underscore the role of sociolinguistic factors in shaping linguistic diversity.

Overview

Definition and Basic Concepts

The term in linguistics derives from the Latin strātum, meaning "layer" or "covering," originally denoting a spread-out bed or pavement. This metaphorical sense of layered influence was first applied to by Italian linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli in 1867, who introduced the concept to explain historical overlays of linguistic features arising from interactions between languages. A linguistic represents a historical layer in which one exerts influence on another through contact, without implying complete replacement, fusion, or the creation of a new language variety. Strata are categorized based on the social dynamics of contact: a substratum involves the underlying influence of a language spoken by a displaced or subordinate group (e.g., pre-Roman languages on Latin derivatives); a superstratum denotes the overlaying effect of a dominant language, often from conquerors or elites (e.g., Norman French on English); and an adstratum refers to lateral, bidirectional influence between neighboring languages of comparable prestige (e.g., mutual exchanges in the ). This concept differs from related contact phenomena such as pidgins and creoles, which arise in high-contact scenarios like or labor to form simplified or restructured new s from scratch, rather than layering influences onto an established one. Borrowing, by contrast, typically entails the adoption of isolated lexical items (loanwords) with minimal impact on core structure, whereas strata encompass broader, systemic effects without the recipient losing its genetic identity. The mechanics of stratum formation stem from sustained , often via bilingualism, where speakers imperfectly learn the target language and transfer elements from their , leading to shifts in (e.g., sound substitutions), (e.g., integrated loanwords), or (e.g., syntactic calques). The degree of influence depends on contact intensity—ranging from casual neighborhood interactions (favoring adstrata) to forced shifts during (favoring superstrata)—resulting in enduring hybrid traits that linguists reconstruct through comparative analysis.

Importance in Language Contact Studies

In historical linguistics, the concept of strata is essential for explaining deviations from regular sound changes and grammatical developments that arise from language contact rather than internal evolution alone. By identifying substratum and superstratum influences, linguists can trace how borrowed elements disrupt expected patterns, such as selective application of shifts in specific vocabulary layers, thereby enhancing the accuracy of language reconstruction and family tree models. Thomason and Kaufman (1988) argue that recognizing these contact-induced irregularities revitalizes genetic linguistics, allowing scholars to differentiate inherited features from those imposed by historical interactions like invasions or settlements. Within and , strata illuminate social dynamics underlying variation, including hierarchies of power, population migrations, and modes of cultural exchange such as versus . Substratum effects, for example, emerge when shifting speakers imperfectly acquire a dominant , imprinting native phonological or syntactic traits onto it, as observed in the Mon-Khmer influence on Burmese systems and word structures during migrations. Superstrata, conversely, reflect dominance, introducing lexical and structural innovations from a prestige , like Norman French's impact on English and vocabulary following the 1066 . Adstrata, arising from lateral contacts like commerce, promote convergent features across neighboring languages, revealing patterns of peaceful bilingualism and shared cultural spaces. LaPolla (2011) highlights how these influences encode sociolinguistic histories, distinguishing coercive shifts from voluntary exchanges. The study of strata extends to interdisciplinary collaborations with and , where linguistic layers provide complementary evidence for prehistoric migrations and admixture events. For instance, substratal remnants in European languages align with genetic signatures of farmer influxes and archaeological traces of diffusion, offering a triangulated of dispersal. In Eurasian contexts, superstratal impositions correlate with steppe pastoralist expansions documented in and burial sites. Such integrations validate or challenge hypotheses about contact intensity, enriching reconstructions of societal transformations. In modern settings, strata analysis remains vital for examining globalization's linguistic effects, particularly English's role as a superstratum in non-Western societies through , , and . This contact generates hybrid varieties, such as or , where English overlays impose calques and on local substrates, mirroring historical asymmetries but accelerated by technology. Onysko (2016) frames as products of dynamics, emphasizing the utility of contact models in tracking how global interconnectivity fosters both homogenization and resilient local adaptations.

Types of Linguistic Strata

Substratum

In linguistics, a substratum refers to the pre-existing of a local that subtly influences a subsequently dominant , typically introduced by invading, colonizing, or elite groups, through processes of and contact. This influence arises when speakers of the substratum adopt the new imperfectly, transferring structural and lexical elements from their native tongue into the recipient . Unlike mutual or balanced contact, substratum effects stem from hierarchical dynamics where the local holds lower prestige. The primary mechanisms of substratum influence involve interference via shift, where the substrate speakers, often in situations of social subordination, shift to the dominant language but carry over features due to incomplete acquisition. This results in "hidden" or subtle impacts, such as substrate interference in the recipient language's , , or (e.g., place names reflecting substrate origins), particularly when the shift is abrupt or the substrate speakers form a significant portion of the new language's user base. These effects are exacerbated by incomplete language shift, where elements of the substratum persist covertly without full replacement by the superstratum. Substratum influences are characteristically associated with low-prestige groups, such as indigenous or conquered populations, whose impacts the 's indirectly through demographic weight rather than prestige. Detection of these influences is challenging, especially for unattested substrata lacking written records, as the traces are often non-obvious and require comparative reconstruction to identify. In terms of general patterns, lexical borrowing from a substratum is limited, typically involving a small number of words—often under a few hundred—restricted to cultural, environmental, or everyday domains like , , or local practices, while effects are more pronounced in and due to imperfect learning of the dominant 's structures. This contrasts with superstratum influence, where the power dynamic is reversed and lexical transfers are more extensive from the elite downward.

Superstratum

In , a superstratum refers to the spoken by a politically or socially dominant group, such as conquerors or elites, that influences the substrate of the subordinate population when the dominant speakers shift to the local as their (L2). This transfer occurs as the superstratum speakers imperfectly acquire the substrate (L1), carrying over phonological, syntactic, and conceptual features from their native superstratum . The primary mechanism driving superstratum influence is elite bilingualism, where members of the dominant group learn the substrate language for administrative, social, or practical purposes, often in colonial or contexts characterized by asymmetrical power dynamics. Unlike substratum influence, which arises from subordinate groups shifting to a dominant language, superstratum effects stem from top-down imposition, with the prestige of the superstratum facilitating adoption by substrate speakers through prolonged contact and cultural dominance. This process intensifies with the degree of bilingualism among the elites, leading to gradual integration of superstratum elements into the substrate. Characteristics of superstratum influences are most prominent in the , particularly in domains like administration, , and , where borrowed terms reflect the superstratum's prestige and . Phonological shifts can occur if contact is sustained, such as the introduction of new sounds or prosodic patterns, while grammatical impacts are rarer but possible in cases of intense bilingualism, potentially affecting or inflectional paradigms. In contrast to adstratum influences between linguistically equal groups, superstratum effects are asymmetrical, driven by prestige rather than mutual exchange. General patterns of borrowing in superstratum scenarios follow established hierarchies in , with nouns exhibiting the highest borrowability due to their in denoting cultural innovations, followed by verbs and then adjectives or function words. Core grammatical structures remain largely resistant unless contact is exceptionally prolonged, prioritizing lexical expansion over systemic restructuring. These patterns underscore the superstratum's in enriching the substrate's vocabulary while preserving its foundational .

Adstratum

In linguistics, an adstratum refers to a language that exerts influence on a neighboring language through geographic proximity and prolonged contact, without hierarchical dominance based on prestige or conquest, resulting in mutual and bidirectional effects. This contrasts with hierarchical strata such as substrata or superstrata, where one language imposes influence due to subordinate or dominant status. The primary mechanisms of adstratum influence involve sustained bilingualism among speakers of co-existing languages, facilitating the of linguistic features across lexical, , morphological, and domains. Bidirectional borrowing is common, particularly in vocabulary related to shared cultural or everyday domains, while extended contact may promote convergence in structural elements like or through the adoption of shared cognitive and behavioral habits. Adstratum effects are characteristic of multilingual regions where languages maintain equal prestige and coexist without one displacing the other, leading to balanced and ongoing exchanges rather than abrupt disruptions. These influences are typically symmetrical, with both languages retaining their core identities while incorporating diffused traits from the other. General patterns of adstratum interaction emphasize shared innovations, such as reciprocal loanwords and typological convergence, often forming linguistic areas where non-genetic features spread geographically among unrelated languages. Unlike conquest-driven changes, adstratum impacts cause minimal disruption to underlying grammatical structures, prioritizing lateral exchange through , migration, or proximity.

Historical Development

Origins and Key Figures

The concept of linguistic strata emerged in the 19th century as a response to the dominant Indo-European hypothesis, which posited a family tree model of language descent based on regular sound changes, but struggled to account for observed irregularities in Romance and other languages without invoking external influences. Linguists began emphasizing language contact as a key mechanism alongside genetic inheritance, allowing for explanations of phonetic, lexical, and morphological anomalies through interactions with pre-existing substrates rather than solely through internal evolution. This shift was particularly evident in studies of Romance languages, where deviations from expected Latin outcomes were attributed to non-Indo-European influences. The roots of stratum theory trace back to 18th-century debates on language mixture, where scholars explored how bilingualism and societal contact led to hybrid forms rather than pure lineages. Johann Christoph Adelung, a prominent German grammarian, contributed to these discussions in his analysis of Silesian as a , noting how speakers adopted Slavic elements while retaining Germanic religious terminology, thus highlighting contact-induced blending in regional varieties. Adelung's work in Mithridates (1806–1817), a comparative survey of world s, further underscored the prevalence of mixture in , influencing later 19th-century thinkers. A pivotal advancement came with Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, who formalized the substratum concept in his seminal 1873 essay "Saggi ladini," published in the inaugural issue of Archivio Glottologico Italiano, which he founded. In this work, Ascoli applied the term "substratum" to explain features in Italo-Dalmatian and other Romance dialects as residues of pre-Roman languages, such as Celtic or Italic substrates influencing pronunciation and vocabulary—for instance, accounting for patterns in northern Italian varieties. Ascoli's approach integrated with , arguing that substratal interference provided a systematic way to interpret divergences from , thereby bridging ethnographic observations with philological analysis. His emphasis on non-standard varieties challenged the focus on literary languages and established substratum as a core tool for contact studies. Complementing Ascoli's theoretical framework, Jules Gilliéron advanced the practical identification of strata through dialect geography in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As director of the Linguistic Atlas of (1902–1912), Gilliéron pioneered mapping techniques to trace lexical and phonetic distributions across regions, revealing contact zones where superstratal or adstratal influences overlaid substrates—such as Germanic loans in eastern French dialects. His method emphasized empirical fieldwork to detect layered influences, providing a spatial to that supported Ascoli's ideas by visualizing how pre-Roman substrates persisted amid later overlays. Gilliéron's contributions solidified dialect atlases as essential for verifying hypothetical strata in .

Evolution in Linguistic Theory

In the early , the concept of linguistic strata was integrated into primarily through the influence of and his followers, who emphasized the synchronic analysis of language systems while acknowledging historical layers of contact as explanatory factors for phonetic and structural variations. Saussure himself posited the role of a "linguistic substratum" in causing phonetic changes, such as when an indigenous population is absorbed by newcomers, leading to shifts in the conquering language's sound system. This framework was applied by structuralists to account for divergences in language families, including how pre-Roman Celtic and other indigenous substrata influenced the evolution of from , and how non-Indo-European substrates contributed to phonological peculiarities in , such as the First Germanic Sound Shift. These developments marked a shift from purely diachronic toward viewing strata as embedded components within structured language systems. By the mid-20th century, refinements to the stratum model emerged in contact linguistics, most notably through Weinreich's seminal 1953 work Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems, which formalized the distinctions between substratum (influence from a replaced language), superstratum (from a replacing language), and adstratum (from neighboring languages in ongoing contact). Weinreich's analysis, based on empirical studies of multilingual , provided a systematic framework for interference phenomena, emphasizing bilingualism's role in stratum formation while critiquing earlier tendencies to overemphasize substratal influences as exceptions to regular sound laws in . This critique highlighted how invoking unattested substrates often served as explanations for irregularities, urging a more balanced integration of social and descriptive factors in diachronic accounts. In the late , the stratum concept faced significant shifts through its intersection with creolistics and , particularly in debates over substrate roles in and creole genesis. Bickerton's bioprogram (1981) challenged heavy reliance on substrates by arguing that creoles' structural similarities—such as tense-marking systems—stem from innate activated in children exposed to unstable pidgins, rather than direct inheritance from diverse African or other substrates. This sparked ongoing controversies, with critics like Salikoko Mufwene countering that sociohistorical contact dynamics, including substrate convergence, better explain creole variability. Concurrently, William Labov's variationist incorporated strata into studies of , viewing contact-induced layers as outcomes of and community networks, thus bridging individual variation with broader historical influences. Post-2000 developments have further evolved the stratum model by embedding it within areal linguistics and computational approaches to contact effects, emphasizing dynamic layers in multilingual ecologies shaped by . Areal linguistics, as explored in comprehensive handbooks, treats strata as manifestations of prolonged horizontal across linguistic areas, beyond vertical . Computational models, including phylogenetic simulations and algorithms for inferring contact-induced borrowings, have enabled quantitative detection of substratal signals in unrecorded histories, enhancing predictive power in diachronic reconstruction. Recent scholarship underscores in globalized contexts as fostering emergent strata through hybrid practices, where digital and migratory flows create layered repertoires that challenge traditional binary models of dominance and subordination.

Analysis and Identification

Methods for Detecting Strata

Linguists employ comparative reconstruction to identify stratum influences by analyzing irregular sound correspondences that deviate from expected patterns of within a . These irregularities often signal substrate or adstratum effects, where phonemes from a contact are adapted inconsistently into the recipient , as seen in the Leiden substrate school's approach to explaining phonetic vacillations as foreign adaptations. For instance, in , substrate words exhibit such correspondences when compared to known loan patterns, allowing detection of pre-Ugric influences. Lexicostatistics aids in loanword detection by quantifying lexical similarities and identifying outliers in basic vocabulary lists, where borrowed terms cluster in specific semantic domains like , , or , indicating contact strata. This method distinguishes borrowings from cognates by assessing deviation from family-wide retention rates, often revealing superstratum impacts in elite or trade-related . Syntactic calquing further detects strata through structural copies, such as replicated phrase orders or grammatical patterns without direct lexical borrowing, as in loan translations that mirror contact language constructions. Philological approaches examine toponyms and personal names for substrate traces, focusing on recurrent endings tied to (e.g., or terms) that resist regular etymologization within the dominant . Archaisms in historical texts, preserved in fossilized forms, also provide evidence of adstratum or superstratum layers, integrated with vocabulary analysis for consistency. Quantitative tools like model evolution to quantify contact versus vertical , inferring horizontal transfer events (borrowings) that disrupt tree-like phylogenies. Software such as LingPy automates borrowing detection in multilingual datasets by aligning sound correspondences and scoring potential loans against phylogenetic expectations. Interdisciplinary methods correlate linguistic strata with archaeological migration patterns, such as population movements evidenced by shifts, to validate contact scenarios. Genetic data, including Y-chromosome haplogroups, link shifts to demographic expansions, supporting detection of substrate replacements during conquests or migrations.

Challenges with Unattested and Hypothetical Strata

One major challenge in stratum analysis arises from unattested substrata, particularly those from pre-literate societies where no written records exist, such as the languages spoken in Europe prior to the arrival of Indo-European speakers around 4500–2500 BCE. Without direct textual evidence, linguists must rely on indirect traces, including anomalous phonological patterns, lexical borrowings, and areal features resembling sprachbund phenomena, to infer substrate influences on Indo-European languages. For instance, the so-called Old European hydronymy—river names that do not fit standard Indo-European roots—has been proposed as evidence of pre-Indo-European substrates, yet their interpretation remains speculative due to the absence of comparable attested languages. Distinguishing hypothetical strata from proven ones is fraught with debates over over-attribution, where scholars risk projecting unsubstantiated influences onto linguistic data without rigorous criteria. A prominent example is the , which posits Basque-related languages as a widespread pre-Indo-European layer influencing Celtic and Germanic tongues across , evidenced by toponyms, loanwords, and structural parallels like vigesimal numeral systems. However, critics argue this overextends the evidence, as proposed etymologies often lack phonetic consistency and fail to account for alternative sources, such as independent developments or other unidentified substrates; plausibility requires geographic coherence, systematic correspondences, and exclusion of simpler explanations. In modern contexts, such as the global spread of English, challenges persist in differentiating adstratum from superstratum effects amid complex and shifting prestige dynamics. For example, in postcolonial varieties like , local substrate languages contribute phonological and syntactic features (e.g., tense-aspect systems), while acts as a superstratum through lexical dominance, but adstratum influences from neighboring languages blur these boundaries due to overlapping contact zones and incomplete . Additionally, exacerbates the issue, as dying indigenous tongues leave faint, obscured traces in dominant languages, complicating reconstruction without contemporary documentation. Postcolonial linguistics has critiqued traditional models for inherent Eurocentric biases, which prioritize Indo-European expansions while marginalizing non-Western contact scenarios and viewing substrates primarily through a lens of and replacement. These models often overlook in colonial settings, where power imbalances foster unequal influences not neatly fitting substratum-superstratum binaries. Furthermore, integrating analysis with recent genetic studies reveals significant gaps, as linguistic divergence lacks a direct "DNA equivalent" for precise correlation; while shared ancestry signals population movements influencing , discrepancies arise from sex-biased migrations and cultural barriers that decouple genetic and linguistic phylogenies.

Notable Examples

Substrate Influences

Substrate influences occur when elements of a displaced local (substratum) subtly shape the , vocabulary, and of a dominant incoming language (superstratum), often leaving traces that are difficult to detect without detailed comparative analysis. These effects are particularly evident in scenarios of or migration where the substratum speakers adopt the superstratum but retain linguistic features in their speech, leading to "hidden impacts" such as loanwords, calques, or syntactic patterns that persist in the descendant languages. One prominent example is the Gaulish substratum's impact on Latin in Gaul, which evolved into Old French. Gaulish, a Continental Celtic language, contributed approximately 150–200 loanwords to French, primarily related to rural life, agriculture, and daily activities; notable instances include chemin ('path' or 'road'), derived from Gaulish camminos or semīnā, reflecting pre-Roman local terminology for pathways. Beyond lexicon, the substratum influenced phonological shifts, such as the lenition of intervocalic consonants in Gallo-Romance, and possibly grammatical features, including traces of verb-subject-object (VSO) order in early interrogative constructions, though these are debated and often mediated through Vulgar Latin adaptations. This substrate effect arose during the Roman conquest (1st century BCE), when Gaulish speakers shifted to Latin, embedding Celtic elements into the emerging Romance vernacular. In ancient Greece, a non-Indo-European pre-Greek substratum left indelible marks on Mycenaean Greek, as attested in Linear B tablets from the 15th–12th centuries BCE. This substratum, likely spoken by pre-Indo-European populations in the Aegean, introduced vocabulary items unrelated to Proto-Indo-European roots, such as labyrinthos (from pre-Greek laburinthos, linked to the Minoan double-axe symbol labrys), denoting complex structures or mazes. Phonological features, including unusual consonant clusters (e.g., pt, bd) and labialized or palatalized sounds represented in Linear B syllabary, suggest substrate interference that persisted into Classical Greek, altering its sound system and enriching its lexicon with terms for flora, topography, and mythology. These influences highlight how Bronze Age migrations integrated local Anatolian or Aegean languages into incoming Indo-European Greek. The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC, ca. 2300–1700 BCE) represents a hypothetical substratum in , particularly , during the migration of Indo-Aryan speakers into and around 2000–1500 BCE. This non-Indo-European substratum, possibly related to ancient Near Eastern or lost local tongues, contributed terms like aṃśu- ('soma plant' or 'ray'), borrowed as BMAC *anću-, and influenced divine nomenclature, such as the -daiva dichotomy, where the inversion of values (demonic asuras in vs. benevolent in ) may reflect cultural-linguistic accommodation to BMAC beliefs. These traces underscore the role of sedentary BMAC populations in shaping nomadic Indo-Iranian speech during synthesis in the region, though phonological influences like retroflex consonants are more typically attributed to later contacts in . In the Northern Isles of Scotland, the Norn language—a North Germanic tongue descended from Old Norse—served as a substratum influencing Scots dialects, especially in Shetland, following Norse settlement (8th–15th centuries CE) and the shift to Scots after Scottish annexation in 1472. Norn contributed hundreds of loanwords to Shetland Scots, particularly in maritime, pastoral, and weather-related domains; examples include peerie ('small', from Old Norse piri), preserving Viking-era lexicon amid language shift. Prosodically, Norn imparted a distinctive intonation pattern, characterized by melodic rises and pitch accents akin to Scandinavian contours, as evidenced in acoustical analyses of Shetland speech, which retain a "sing-song" lilt differing from mainland Scots. This substrate persistence reflects prolonged bilingualism in isolated communities, where Norn elements endured in folklore, place names, and oral traditions.

Superstrate Influences

In superstrate scenarios, a dominant language overlays its lexical and structural elements onto a subordinate one, often through prestige, administration, or colonization, leading to significant borrowing in high-status domains. The Norman Conquest of 1066 introduced Norman French as a superstrate to Middle English, resulting in approximately 10,000 loanwords that enriched the lexicon, particularly in legal, administrative, and governmental spheres. These borrowings often replaced or coexisted with native terms, as seen in the semantic distinction where the French-derived beef (from Old French bœf) refers to the cooked meat, while the Germanic cow (from Old English cū) denotes the live animal. Such influences dominated elite registers, with French terms like justice, court, and parliament becoming integral to English legal vocabulary, reflecting the Norman aristocracy's control over institutions. Frankish served as a Germanic superstrate to Old French following the Franks' conquest of Gaul in the 5th century, contributing hundreds of loanwords related to warfare, governance, and daily life. A prominent example is guerre ('war'), borrowed from Frankish werra, which entered Old French around the 11th century and spread to other Romance languages. Additionally, Frankish influence is evident in phonological shifts in northern French dialects, where Germanic elements interacted with Vulgar Latin sounds to produce affricates and fricatives in words like cheval (from Latin caballus). During the Roman occupation of Britain (43–410 CE), Latin acted as a superstrate to , imposing vocabulary through military, urban, and trade interactions, with lasting effects in like Welsh. In Welsh, this is illustrated by ffenestr (''), directly adapted from Latin , a term for glazed openings introduced in Roman villas and forts that persisted in post-Roman Celtic speech. Such loans, numbering in the hundreds, primarily affected domains like , , and , with Latin words for concepts like pont ('bridge', from ) embedding Roman infrastructural legacy into the . English emerged as a colonial superstrate to Irish Gaelic from the onward, particularly intensifying during the 16th–19th centuries, introducing loanwords and syntactic patterns into , the English variety spoken in Ireland. This influence is seen in Gaelic borrowings of English terms for modern administration and , such as páipéar ('paper', from English paper), while incorporates Gaelic-inspired syntax like the after-perfect construction (I'm after eating, calquing Irish tá mé tar éis ithe). In , English lexical dominance overlays Irish structures, yielding hybrid forms in rural dialects where English nouns blend with Gaelic verbs, reflecting centuries of anglicization policies.

Adstratum Effects

Adstratum effects occur when languages in close geographic proximity exert mutual influences without a dominant hierarchical relationship, often resulting in bidirectional borrowing of , phonological features, and syntactic patterns. This type of contact is characterized by symmetric exchange driven by sustained interaction among communities of roughly equal status, leading to shared linguistic innovations that enhance . A prominent historical example of adstratum effects is the bidirectional influence between and during the settlements in , particularly in the region from the late 8th to 11th centuries. Viking communities integrated into Anglo-Saxon society, fostering extensive lexical exchange; Old English adopted numerous Old Norse words related to everyday life, navigation, and governance, such as sky (from Old Norse ský) and window (from Old Norse vindr 'wind' + auga 'eye'). While the flow was predominantly from Norse to English due to the scale of settlements, evidence of reverse borrowing includes Old Norse adoption of Old English terms for local flora and administrative concepts, reflecting the symbiotic coexistence of speakers in mixed communities. During the period (711–1492 CE), and the spoken in the , particularly Mozarabic dialects, engaged in profound adstratum contact under Muslim rule, yielding approximately 4,000 loanwords in modern Spanish, many in domains like science, agriculture, and architecture—exemplified by álgebra (from al-jabr). This lexical influx was reciprocal, as dialects incorporated Romance elements, including substrate vocabulary for local customs and phonological adaptations such as simplified consonant clusters influenced by Ibero-Romance patterns, evident in preserved texts like the Muqtabas. The mutual enrichment arose from intermarriage, trade, and cultural synthesis in multicultural urban centers like and . In contemporary settings, English and French exhibit ongoing adstratum effects in , , where bilingualism in the province promotes and calquing (loan translations) as speakers navigate daily interactions. frequently incorporates English lexical items and syntactic structures, such as (à quoi tu penses? mirroring English "what are you thinking about?"), while adopts French terms for regional culture and administration, like poutine or dépanneur. This symmetric convergence is facilitated by official bilingual policies and urban proximity, resulting in hybrid varieties that blend phonological traits, such as French's aspiration of /t/ and /d/ under English influence, without one language supplanting the other. The Baltic region provides another case of adstratum-driven phonological convergence between Finnic and Germanic languages, spanning millennia of proximity among speakers of Estonian, Finnish, and Low German or Swedish varieties. Mutual influences include Finnic vowel harmony—a system where vowels in a word must agree in frontness or backness—affecting Germanic borrowings in Finnic languages, leading to adapted forms like Swedish skola ('school') as Finnish koulu. Conversely, Germanic languages in the area show traces of Finnic-like vowel alternations in dialects, such as reduced harmony in Livonian under Swedish contact, highlighting shared areal features from trade and migration without dominance.

References

  1. https://omnika.org/component/html5flippingbook/?task=convert.getpdf&id=185&filename=GHL.pdf
  2. https://minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2575/files/SES75_015.pdf
  3. https://www.etymonline.com/word/stratum
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237461298_Causes_and_Effects_of_Substratum_Superstratum_and_Adstratum_Influence_with_reference_to_Tibeto-Burman_languages
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-language-contact/language-contact-and-genetic-linguistics/39D94C4204AF268A4D1E556BBAC0D190
  6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/weng.12191
  7. https://linguistics.osu.edu/jpcl/resources/glossary/terms-sz
  8. https://kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2008/issue_2/ling-2008-2-81-96.pdf
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279973916_Lexical_borrowing_concepts_and_issues
  10. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/GLLO/SIM-056962.xml?language=en
  11. https://yaronmatras.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/matras-y.-2007-the-borrowability-of-structural-categories.pdf
  12. https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_Chapter/0631212507/Winford-001.pdf
  13. https://uol.de/fileadmin/presse/EINBLICKE/66/en/slavic-studies-languages-provide-a-piece-of-home-gert-hentschel.pdf
  14. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=kent1437053857&disposition=attachment
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dialectology
  16. https://ia600204.us.archive.org/0/items/SaussureFerdinandDeCourseInGeneralLinguistics1959/Saussure_Ferdinand_de_Course_in_General_Linguistics_1959.pdf
  17. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/exceptionstosoundlaws.pdf
  18. https://mufwene.uchicago.edu/publications/CREOLES-LGEVOLUTION-Revisions-1.pdf
  19. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-051216-040225
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229817054_Computational_Models_and_Language_Contact
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233667869_Calquing_and_Metatypy
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376059983_Evidence_and_Methods_for_Investigating_Substratal_Languages
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01211-7
  24. https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/1-79
  25. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-puzzle-revisited/retheorizing-interdisciplinarity-and-the-relation-between-archaeology-linguistics-and-genetics/0FAB61E10049FE39A9FA500CFADEF893
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10379071/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371102474_In_Pursuit_of_Origins_The_Challenges_of_Tracing_the_Indo-European_Homeland
  28. https://vernaculum.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rebecca-5.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384105000690
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228006873_Linguistics_in_a_Colonial_World_A_Story_of_Language_Meaning_and_Power
  31. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/5/1809/6108106
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283837792_Genetics_linguistics_and_prehistory_Thinking_big_and_thinking_straight
  33. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp129_prehistoric_central_asia_linguistics.pdf
  34. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/ofrol
  35. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37432
  36. https://www.academia.edu/32731598/The_Pre_Greek_substrate_and_its_origins
  37. https://pergamos.lib.uoa.gr/uoa/dl/object/3242440/file.pdf
  38. http://michaelwitzel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ejvs0501article.pdf
  39. https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/ejvs/article/download/830/808/1652
  40. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sll/documents/Heddle-The-Norse-element-in-the-Orkney-dialect.pdf
  41. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_0805.pdf
  42. https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/16295/1/Shetlandic_Final_draft_23_08_2013.pdf
  43. https://tigerweb.towson.edu/duncan/brmideng.html
  44. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/download/9526/7843
  45. https://academic.oup.com/book/55329/book-pdf/57461665/9780198888963_web.pdf
  46. https://production.cbts.edu/Textbook/35g3qn/897192/Language_Of_The_Franks.pdf
  47. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00365006v1/file/vaissiere_1996_from_latin_to_modern_French.pdf
  48. https://journals.openedition.org/lbl/pdf/3418
  49. http://thos.english.unaux.com/Hiberno.pdf
  50. https://www.academia.edu/26231953/Substrate_superstrate_and_universals_Perfect_constructions_in_Irish_English
  51. https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/article/il-tolomeo/2020/1/art-10.14277-Tol-2499-5975-2020-01-035.pdf
  52. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0010/html
  53. https://www.lifeinnorway.net/viking-words/
  54. https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/22084ad7-77c1-51fa-8547-4a2473dcfe2e/content
  55. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=senior_theses
  56. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/235/1813/1839-1
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-language-contact/french-and-english-in-contact-in-north-america/EC3FA248E303E61D0AC2D7AAFA4B7963
  58. https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/3624
  59. https://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/slavistik-slavische-sprachwissenschaft/Aufsaetze__Serzant_/Serzant2025_Circum-Baltic-Convergence-Area.pdf
  60. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-048365.xml
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.