Linguistics 1100

Linguistics 1100, Long Assignment 3 - Sample answer

Part A

Expectations

In order to evaluate the hypothesis under discussion, we need to track the attestations of the Germanic and the French words separately for the 'animal' and the 'meat' senses. This gives four logical possibilities, each associated with a particular expectation under the hypothesis. The colors refer to the cells in the spreadsheet with the results. Green and red indicate attestations that are consistent or inconsistent, respectively, with the hypothesis. Gray indicates cells where the French loanwords couldn't have been borrowed yet.

'animal' 'meat'
Germanic Expected from OE to present (light green). Expected up to the Norman Conquest (light green), but not afterwards (light red).
French Not expected (dark red). Not part of the language before the Norman Conquest (gray). Expected afterwards (dark green).

	'animal'	'meat'
Germanic	Expected from OE to present (light green).	Expected up to the Norman Conquest (light green), but not afterwards (light red).
French	Not expected (dark red).	Not part of the language before the Norman Conquest (gray). Expected afterwards (dark green).

Spreadsheet (see the sheet "Solution for Assignment 3 2024")

Results

Germanic, 'animal'

This combination occurs throughout the history of English, as expected. The gaps for some of the words in the 1100s can be attributed to the spotty nature of the written record right after the Conquest along with the fact that official language had become French.

Germanic, 'meat'

This combination is expected before the Norman Conquest. Only swine turns out to be possibly attested in this sense; the relevant OED sense is ambiguous between the 'animal' and 'meat' senses. The absence of (firm) evidence for this combination is consistent with the hypothesis under the reasonable assumption that cookery was not a topic of Old English literature. And indeed, the earliest English cookbooks date to the 1300s, well after Old English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookbook).

After the Norman Conquest, the combination occurs with three words, contrary to expectation: continuously and starting relatively early with pig and swine, and sporadically and starting late with lamb.

French, 'animal'

This combination occurs in some cases from the 1300s on, and in all cases from the 1400s on. The evidence thus clearly contradicts the hypothesis as it stands.

French, 'meat'

This combination is attested from the 1300s on, as expected. The absence of evidence between 1066 and the first attestations can reasonably be attributed to the fact that the official language was French.

Interim conclusion

Taking the evidence at face value, the hypothesis can't be maintained. At the very least, we need to review the (apparent) counterexamples more carefully.

Part B

Discussion

Unexpected Germanic 'meat' sense for lamb: Just like English, French distinguishes mouton 'sheep' from agneau 'lamb'. Only mouton was borrowed, so there was nothing to prevent speakers to continue to use lamb in both the 'animal' and 'meat' senses, especially if they needed to distinguish between the meat of the older vs. younger animal (greasy and relatively tough vs. tender).
The contemporary use of lamb for the meat (for instance, at Trader Joe's) is probably related to the fact that modern shoppers either have unpleasant associations with the term mutton or don't even know the term.
Unexpected Germanic 'meat' sense for pig, swine: The unexpected attestations are listed under an OED heading that is ambiguous or vague between the 'animal' and the 'meat' sense. This considerably weakens their status as counterevidence to the hypothesis.
Unexpected French 'animal' sense for all of the French terms: To judge from the usage notes provided by the OED, the 'animal' sense is unusual, at least in modern usage (whether archaic, humourous, rare, regionally restricted, or technical). It is also noteworthy that for mutton and veal the 'animal' sense is qualified by the note 'especially intended to be eaten'. The qualification doesn't extend to all of the attestations for the remaining terms, but the line between the senses is likely to be fuzzy in many cases, just as in the case of the unexpected Germanic 'meat' sense of pig and swine.

Possible modifications to the hypothesis

Putting aside the unexpected Germanic 'meat' attestations on the grounds just discussed, we are left with the unexpected French 'animal' attestations. Two possible modifications of the original hypothesis come to mind.

First, we might revise the 'animal' vs. 'meat' distinction to draw the line between a "pure" 'animal' sense and an "extended" 'meat' sense that refers to an animal intended to be eaten. However, we would still have to explain how this distinction evolved into the sharper distinction in ordinary modern usage.

A second and more satisfactory hypothesis is that the French words were borrowed not with the 'meat' sense, but rather with the original French meaning, which included both the 'animal' and 'meat' senses, just as the Germanic words did. The borrowing would be compatible with the Principle of Contrast on the reasonable assumption that the French word was "fancy" and thus contrasted with the "plain" word (analogous to the availabilty of, say, luncheon, dinner alongside lunch, supper). It is natural to assume that the fancy and plain words would have tended to be used in fancy vs. plain contexts like dining rooms vs. barns and that these difference in use would have driven the words in the direction of the 'meat' vs. 'animal' senses that they have in ordinary usage today. In other words, contrary to the original hypothesis, the semantic differentiation would have arisen gradually over time, rather than suddenly at the moment of borrowing.