APPROACHES TO THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

David F. Maas, Ed.D.

Edited by Benjamin Boyer

Ambassador College Pasadena, California

copyright 1990 David Maas revised edition All rights reserved Printed in the USA

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is made to the following students, who contributed to this project. The texts with an asterisk next to them were critiqued by the author in the original survey. The two-letter abbreviation is used to identify texts where used in charts throughout. Abbreviation
BA BL

Text Bambas *Baugh Berndt *Bloomfield Bolton Bradley *Brook *Bryant Burchfield Cannon Claiborne Clark *Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald * Francis * Gordon Groom *Hook *Marckwardt

Contributor Susan Gathers David F. Maas Dennis Tse David F. Maas Julie E. Anderson David F. Maas David F. Maas Paul Forester Kathryn Carson Cheryl Studer Matt Feakes David F. Maas Philip Aust Tonya Cookman Debbie Aitchison David F. Maas David F. Maas; Gina Caldwell Shannon McKenzie David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas Kim Kundert David Sorenson David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas David F. Maas Dan Reedy

BK BT

CK

FR
GN HK

MT MS

* Martin
McCrum McKnight *McLaughlin * Myers *Nist * Peters *Pyles * Robertson *Stevick *Strang *WiIliams Wrenn

MC MY
NI

PE
PY

RN
SV

SG WI

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Grateful acknowledgement must be given to Ruth Muench for her monumental effort of keying the original project from typewritten form to the electronic format. Her editorial assistance of adding the new contributions from the students' papers is greatly appreciated. She was assisted in this pioneering project by Paula Johnson. Thanks must also be given for the typing and editorial assistance of Vicki Fuessel, Sondra Peters, and Dianne Seelhoff.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Table of Contents
Introduction General Description of Textbooks Surveyed Analysis of Selected Descriptors Language (Origin and Nature) Germanic Characteristics Grimm's Law Indo-European Family Divisions Scandinavian Influence and the Danelaw Grammatical Gender Inflection in Old English Caxton and Printing Inflectional Decay in Middle English Factors In Middle English Inflectional Decay The Great Vowel Shift Diagrams of the Great Vowel Shift Borrowing: Enrichment The English Academy Prescriptive Grammar Semantics American and British Compared American Dialects Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Selected Bibliography v 1 13 15 19 25 33 39 43 48 56 60 68 69 74 79 87 91 96 101 105 109 112 116 147

111

Introduction
The purpose of this project is to provide materials for a judicious selection of a textbook for an undergraduate course in the history of the English language. The original impetus for this study was a pressing need to prepare for my doctoral qualifying exams, coupled with a responsibility to develop a syllabus for such a course I would be teaching the following year. The data were collected and processed in seven distinct stages: 1. Determining the list of textbooks to compare. 2. Determining criteria for screening and elimination. 3. Determining the major components for the structure of the discipline. 4. Determining specific descriptors (general descriptions of recurring concepts) which would be used to analyze the contents of specific textbooks. 5. Determining the penetration given to each descriptor as determined by the number of pages devoted to each topic. 6. Collecting pagination data from 20 textbooks for each of the 71 descriptors decided upon. 7. Collecting specific data from nine textbooks for more detailed descriptive analysis. The first stage was accomplished by perusing the bibliographies of a large assortment of textbooks on the history of the English language, taken from the stacks at the libraries of East Texas State University, the University of Minnesota, and Mankato State University. Further advice in the selection of texts was given by Dr. John B. Foster, of Mankato State University; Dr. David Harrington, of Gustavus Adolphus College, in St. Peter, Minnesota; Dr. Edith Hols, of the University of Minnesota; and Dr. Norman F. Christensen, of the University of Wisconsin. The scope of this study would include any textbook which could be considered the major textbook for an undergraduate course in the history of the English language. One of the main difficulties with this criterion is that courses on the history of the English language are being absorbed into introductory linguistics or general linguistics courses at an increasing rate. Moreover, the increasing discoveries in linguistic science are continually changing the content and configuration of such courses. Consequently, the 20 texts selected for initial comparison were not exactly homogenous. Eleven were specifically designed as histories of the English language, four were primarily introductions to linguistics, two were grammar texts with a historical orientation, and the remaining two were anthologies of readings on the history of the language. Some were straight expository treatments, others were inductive treatments, and some were a combination of the two. Traditional historical and modern linguistic approaches compete for dominance in the field. The first phase of determining the proper criteria for selection and elimination was to discover the most favored topics of discussion. To find these most favored topics, the tables of contents were placed in alphabetical order on a set of charts—one arranged alphabetically and one arranged

chronologically. The frequency with which a topic appeared was carefully noted, both in terms of a single descriptor and as a part of a cluster. The alphabetical arrangement of topics teased out clusters of related topics which would have been more difficult to discover otherwise. For example, "sounds and sound change," "sounds of English," "sounds of language," and "sounds of speech" could all be grouped and counted under one cluster. When this cluster could be combined with "phonology" and "phonological change," new relationships could be identified. The alphabetical lists of tables of contents are found in Appendix A. When the major topics for the history of the English language were first determined, textbooks which highlighted most of these topics were selected for further analysis of specific topics. Albert Baugh's outline appeared to be the most practical blend of all the components of the history of the language. Consequently, Baugh's outline was used to estimate the proportion of emphasis devoted to each area. A modified form of this outline is found in Appendix B. Determining the specific descriptors to examine was one of the most difficult parts of this study. The difficulties could be explained as follows: 1. Synonym proliferation: Authors are sensitive about pirating each other's terminology. Consequently, "Old English" can also be rendered "Early English"; "outer history" can also be rendered "external history"; "Latinist-Nativist" could also be rendered "Classicist-Purist." 2. Abstraction levels: By changing levels of specificity, authors have been able to increase the number of subunits. Consequently, the following units can be generated:

Grammar /
Nouns Adjectives Adverbs Etc. 3. Arbitrary sub-categories: Just when the student feels that he has mastered the main classifications, such as Old English, Middle English, and Modern English, the author subdivides one or more of the categories into smaller units, such as Early Modern and Mature Modern or Authoritarian and Renaissance. After perusing the list of topics, 71 selected descriptors were placed on data collection cards keyed to 19 of the 20 textbooks. The Martin and Steinberg text had no index to aid in the collection and was not, therefore, used in this phase. Alternate forms of the descriptor were placed on the cards, as well as some other identifying terms in case the index did not contain the main descriptor. Consequently, the "Classicist-Purist Debate" card had in brackets "Latinist-Nativist," "Inkhorn terms," "Cheke," and so on. The list of descriptors and the number of pages devoted to each by the authors are placed in Appendix C, a ready-reference list for 34 textbooks.
vi

\y

Syntax

General Description of Textbooks Surveyed
A History of the English Language, by Albert C. Baugh, is one of those reference points or bench marks from which other similar works in its field can be measured. This assertion can be supported by the number of times Baugh's name is mentioned in the acknowledgements or cited in bibliographies. Baugh's History has been for years the leading textbook on the subject, designed both for a graduate course in the history and development of the English language and for an upper division undergraduate course. In his preface Baugh states that he desires to maintain a blend of internal (structural) history and external (social, political, economic, etc.) history. The approach, consequently, is chronological by way of periods or stages in the development of the language. The scholarship is widely recognized. Roland G. Kent calls Baugh a "master of all the original sources" (72). Kent feels that the relationship between the French and English language after the Norman Conquest is given full and complete treatment. Bibliographies are partially annotated at the conclusion of each chapter. Specimens of Middle English dialects and English spelling are placed in his appendix. The English Language: Its Origin and History, by Rudolph Bambas, treats the subjects chronologically, with the oldest period first. This organizational system tends to cause some choppiness; for instance, one must search all over the book to find all the information on borrowing. The structural outline also seems choppy; its page headings and flow are not conducive to smooth transitions and easy understanding. On the positive side, Bambas uses many examples to make his case clear. He prefers clarity to pedantic language. His book is also interesting reading, especially the history contained in chapters 1 and 2. The several maps he has included are very helpful, as is the chart on the physiology of speech. Rolf Berndt's text, A History of the English Language, printed in the German Democratic Republic, is written with German-speaking students in mind. Other interested readers, however, will find it a source of valuable information. In the preface, the purpose of the book is stated: "to acquaint the student with some of the major aspects of the history of the language in order to widen his or her understanding of present-day English as a historically evolved social phenomenon" (3). Berndt's main approach in organizing his text is based on the three main sections in the study of language. Thus, the three main sections of the book are divided into lexical, morphological/syntactic, and phonological developments. In the beginning, Berndt also provides a historical background on the development of the English language. Among the merits of this text are the copious lists provided, giving examples in the original Old and Middle English. The book also traces in detail the many areas of development under the three

linguistic areas mentioned above. In the back of the book there is a very useful and comprehensive glossary of Old and Middle English words used in the text. The glossary covers 129 pages. One of the weaknesses of the text is a poor layout, with an ineffective use of white space. Lists, text, and diagrams all run together, one after the other, making the pages look cluttered and hard to read. Berndt's writing style, at times, seems cryptic, stringing out lengthy sentences by the use of commas. Overall, this text can provide in-depth information on the development of the English language in the three areas of lexis, morphology/syntax, and phonology. Bloomfield and Newmark's A Linguistic Introduction to the English Language is intended as an introductory text for linguistics, presumably at the undergraduate level. The authors are eclectic and steadfastly refuse to subscribe to any one linguistic position. The rationale for this approach is that students should be exposed to many different varieties of linguistic inquiry while studying the history of the language. One of the unique features of this eclectic approach is the generation of the Lord's Prayer through rules of transformational grammar. Some critics, including James Sledd, take issue with this approach, stating that the continuous "shifting of methods and points of view makes it impossible for the student to put together a connected account" (482). One of the special features besides the transformational grammar generation of the Lord's Prayer is a useful index of morphemes, words, and phrases. A special unit in the appendix treats the "evolution of root vowels in the first six classes of Old English strong verbs" (367). Arnold Bolton wrote his text, A Short History of Literary English, in order to give the reader a better understanding of how history has affected the English language. He breaks this analysis down into a brief yet somewhat comprehensive discussion of the internal components and changes from Old to Middle, then Early and Late Modern English. The external influences of history on the English language are also discussed, but in substantially less detail than the internal influences. It is written primarily from a historical perspective; topics such as dialectic differences and other important linguistic areas such as morphology and semantics are barely covered. This book would serve as the ideal introduction to a linguistic study, giving the necessary historical background to the development of the English language over time, while also giving a taste of other important areas of study within the field. However, the somewhat limited internal referencing makes this text difficult for classroom use. The stated purpose of The Making of English, by Henry Bradley, is "to give to educated readers unversed in philology some notion of the causes that have produced the excellences and defects of modern English." The introduction gives the format or "skeleton" of the book. He begins by describing the similarities and dissimilarities of German and English, then proceeds to sketch the character of Anglo-Saxon. His purpose thereon is "not to focus upon the changes that have taken place in chronological sequence but to give some idea of the causes by which the more remarkable changes were brought about, and to estimate the effect which these changes have had on the fitness of English as an

instrument for the expression of thought." Scattered throughout all of this are insights into the nature of language. Brook's History of the English Language is a general text written from a thematic orientation rather than a historical orientation. A unit on phonetic terms is included although the history of the vocabulary is not emphasized. The synchronic approach makes it possible for many of the chapters to be read out of sequence. Because of its low rating in the treatment of key descriptors, it was not chosen to be surveyed. Bryant's Modem English and Its Heritage is not primarily designed to be a major textbook for a course in the history of the language, although its detailed organization in the first part, "The Heritage of Modern English," makes it a most valuable reference book. This text is intended to be an introduction to the field of linguistics, with history, phonology, grammar, and vocabulary given equal treatment. The portion most useful for this study is the first part, which examines the historical development of the language from its Indo-European origins to the present. A very useful feature of this text is its chapter bibliographies, providing pagination for many leading authorities in the field discussed. The English Language, written by Robert Burchfleld, is a brief survey of the development of the English language. He stresses both the flexibility and the resilience of the language, giving special prominence to the recording of the language in dictionaries and grammars. He discusses the linguistic importance of migration from the homeland. Close attention is paid to particular areas such as pronunciation, dialect, slang, the formation of words, the language of literature, and the language of the English Bible. Burchfield also examines the methods of some modern scholars. He does not discuss to any degree the differences between American dialects and those of other English-speaking peoples. Burchfield shows us the beauty and full richness of our extraordinary language. Garland Cannon's A History of the English Language is a good introductory text for beginning students. Coverage of the various descriptors is not detailed, but the basic concepts are made clear and understandable, even to the novice. The aspect most stressed is the acquisition and development of words as the English language changed. The approach taken by the text is chronological, showing both internal and external influences. Cannon's book features exercises at the end of each chapter as well as a reasonably thorough glossary. The table of contents, however, does not cite very many page numbers. Moreover, there is no index, which makes finding material on a certain subject tedious and laborious, if not impossible, for the beginner. There is no bibliography. Overall, Cannon provides a good general introduction to the history of the English language, valuable as a bridge to other texts which assume a knowledge of the basic concepts. It is not surprising that Cannon's work has been a popular textbook in high schools. Claiborne's Our Marvelous Native Tounge is a general text which portrays the history of the ever-changing English Language. Claiborne begins his text with a chapter on the importance of speaking English. He refers to it as " . . . a most extraordinary language." In an interesting chapter

called "Not Everybody's English," he provides some arresting information on dialects, both in the United States and abroad. Claiborne's is an engaging book on the history of English. It is good for someone who is interested in reading a brief, but fairly thorough synopsis of the chronology of English. main source of information is Albert Baugh's A History of the English Language. Cecily Clark's text, An Introduction to the History of the English Language, is an English adaptation of Georges Boarder's book by the same name. According to Clark, in her translator's note: "The basic concept behind this book remains that of Monsieur Bourcier. This English version is, however, an adaptation rather than a word-for-word translation . . . the purpose has been to interpret an essentially French book for readers to whom English ways of life and thought are more familiar than French ones." The book is a thematic study of the history of the English language and not a study by periods. It is meant to be an "introduction" to history and, secondarily, to linguistics; it is intended for the undergraduate. Perhaps because Bourcier realizes that his book is only an introduction, he provides an extensive list of further readings on many topics previously covered in each chapter. This section at the end of every chapter is quite useful. The book is weak in its coverage of early and recent history. He does not discuss the origin of language, nor does he cover American dialects, British and American dialects in comparison, or semantics. Albert Cook's Introduction to the English Language is designed for an undergraduate course introducing the student to the general field of linguistics. It could be used in an upper division undergraduate course if it could be supplemented by advanced resource works in the field. The orientation is both inductive and scientific, the student being given enough background information and data to discover the answers for himself. The chronology is presented in reverse order, the most recent historical events given first. Many of the inductive exercises involve studying passages of literature, a feature which should appeal to English majors with an orientation to literature. The organization is basically thematic, with theories of grammar, sentence patterns, and dialects given separate treatment. A unique feature of this text which should appeal to potential English teachers is a unit that discusses the place of linguistics in the English-teaching profession. Delia Donahue's Outline of the Growth and Development of the English Language is a linguist's historical approach to understanding the English language. The book begins with Donahue's citing the origin of English as coming from an Indo-European language; she then proceeds through succeeding important events which affected the language we know today as Present Modern English (5). Donahue includes such events as the Norman Conquest, Caxton's printing press, and many other highlights (6). She concludes by predicting that English will always change, and that the English vocabulary will continue to increase. Basing her speculations on past trends, she believes that English is increasing in appeal to all speakers and will undoubtedly become the scientific language of tomorrow (105). Claiborne's

The History of the English Language, by Oliver Farrar Emerson, is based on past lectures given at Cornell University. Throughout the text, the author emphasizes the development of the native element in English because he feels that other texts give undue emphasis to the foreign element. The purpose of Emerson's book is to serve as an introduction to the history of the English language. The book was designed as a handbook for college classes and English instructors, with the intent of stimulating more extended investigation of the philology of the English language. The author notes that the reader may want to supplement the book with readings to get more detailed explanations of the points (ix). In the text Emerson has placed special emphasis on two elements in English history: (1) the phonology of the language and (2) the native element in English. It is Emerson's belief that studies of the English language over-emphasize the foreign element, leaving an incorrect impression of the development of our mother tongue. Emerson treats the Middle English period with special fullness in order to show the effects of the Norman conquest upon the English language. James C. Fernald's Historic English is primarily a study into the history and origin of the English language. His purpose, as stated in the foreword, is to show that "the English language is what it is because of the way it came into being" (v). He does not spend much time on the development of the language itself. The first two chapters are designed to give the reader a synopsis of the historical background of the Anglo-Saxon people, of how they came to settle in England and how they transmitted their culture within the new country. The next part of the book deals with the transformation of the language through Anglo-Saxon usage. Fernald does not discuss the inner framework of the language at all, and he only mentions briefly other contributing factors. The English Language, by W. Nelson Francis, is intended to serve as a supplementary text in an English composition course, providing background material for writing. The portion of the text used for this study is the third chapter, the "History of English," which clearly blocks out the inner and outer history of Old, Middle, and Modern English. The descriptors were used for the table of contents analysis. The Changing English Language, by Brian Foster, is in many ways a story. Nevertheless, it is also a study of the etymology of the English Language. This book compares the language in Britain and the United States through a biographical narrative of Mary Baldwin, who entered a convent as a nun. Thirty years later, almost like Rip Van Winkle, she was shocked to see how the language had changed while she was confined. It contrasts British English with American English to the point of calling them two different languages. The book mainly compares British and American vocabulary. Also discussed are the prescriptive and descriptive grammars used before and after Mary Baldwin's years in the convent. It does not appear to be suitable for classroom instruction; hence, it has not been chosen to be further evaluated.

James Gordon, in his The English Language: An Historical Introduction, attempts to fulfill the two important needs of providing a textbook for an undergraduate history-of-the-English-language course, as well as bringing the student up-to-date on many of the new findings of structural linguistics. Gordon feels that the many processes of language change are exciting phenomena which should not be wasted on a handful of experts. He suggests that the high level of abstraction with which most linguistic findings are presented to students often "alienates the very students (potential English teachers with an orientation towards literature) whom we would be most eager to attract" (preface). Consequently, many concrete examples from literature are used to illustrate sophisticated linguistic concepts. The organization is chronological, with phonemic, grammatical, and lexical change treated in compartmentalized units, illustrating transition from one period to the next. There is an introductory unit on the general processes of linguistic change with semantical, phonological, and grammatical components examined separately. As the chronological-historical progression develops, the same components are examined independently. A Short History of English Words, by Bernard Groom, is exactly what the title suggests: a short history. The text is organized in a somewhat chronological manner. Chapters 1 and 2 are devoted to Old English words and foreign words which have been adopted by the English language. The last two chapters concentrate on the historical developments of the vocabulary from 1500 to 1934. The chapters in between deal with a variety of topics, including "Poetic Words" and "Changes of Meaning." Groom writes in his preface that A Short History was written as a "guide to the intelligent use of the English Dictionary." This explains his thoroughness in dealing with the topic of English words, as well as his lack of attention to the history of the English language in general. Another problem is the choppiness of the text. Instead of covering a subject discretely, he seems to intersperse bits and pieces throughout the whole book. J. N. Hook directs his textbook, History of the English Language, at prospective English teachers, both secondary and collegiate, providing suggestions for classroom activities which could be immediately used in the secondary classroom. Although moderate attention is given to phonology and syntax, the greatest emphasis is on words—etymology, vocabulary, and semantic change. Hook is sympathetic to the philosophy and contributions of general semanticists. One of the unique features of this text is its "Index of Words," which cross-references over 3,000 words. Because of the large number of descriptors treated, this text was chosen for more descriptive analysis. Albert Murkwardt's text, Introduction to the English Language, draws very heavily on the findings of historical and descriptive linguistics. The orientation is both inductive and scientific, giving the student enough data to generalize for himself. In the same format that Cook used, the chronology is presented in reverse order with the most recent historical events given first. The students for whom this text is intended are upper division undergraduate students.

Martin and Steinberg's Then and Now is not a history of the English language text in the usual sense of the word, but is primarily an anthology of readings, chronologically developed by historical periods, utilizing essays written by experts such as Albert Baugh, Margaret Bryant, Thomas Pyles, L. M. Myers, et al. Abundant literary passages are used to provide inductive exercises to help the student make generalizations about the nature and development of the English language. Since the anthology contains no index, individual descriptors could not be analyzed. The Story of English, by Robert McCrum and Robert MacNeil, covers the growth of English from its beginnings to its present status of being spoken by over one billion people. The book demonstrates how the earliest inhabitants of Britain influenced the English language. It also traces the development of English. While looking at Anglo-American, it also deals quite extensively with ScottishEnglish, Irish-English, Black-English, and other new forms of English, such as Caribbean-English and English in Africa and India. The authors of this book make the history of the English language full of color and drama by not looking at it scientifically, but more journalistically, as a "journey moving through time and space." They describe the varieties of English, rather than talk about the fine line between "accent, dialect, and language." In Modern English in the Making, McKnight truly executes the purpose he outlined for this book. In the preface he states that the book is an "attempt to show the principle changes that have taken place in the English language since the adoption, in the fourteenth century, of the East Midland dialect as the standard form of English" (v). Although McKnight does not cover the history of English, its relatives, or ancestors, the amount of thought, research, and insight that has gone into this vivid, readable book adequately covers the English language's history and formulation. Because it was published in 1928, this book lacks the linguistic knowledge of the English language that has been compiled since that time. Two texts which were not selected for more intense penetration because of the disproportionate amount of space devoted to developing transformational grammar models were Martin and Rulon's The English Language: Yesterday and Today, and McLaughlin's Aspects of the History of English. Martin and Rulon include transformational grammar models to illustrate a largely internal history. The overall aim of the text is to utilize the principles of transformational grammar in order to blend diachronic (changes through history) and synchronic (changes within the structure) viewpoints. McLaughlin also applies the branching tree diagrams of transformational grammar to Old English and Middle English. He utilizes findings from other branches of linguistics, including an array of semantic theories. Semantic fields and ranges, Osgood's substitution theory, and Ogden and Richards' triangle are given more attention than in most other histories. Neither of these texts is surveyed in the next section because of low rating in the descriptors for external history. In terms of a historical introduction to the English language, Myers, in his The Roots of Modern English, could be classified as a lightweight Baugh. Myers acknowledges his indebtedness to the

scholarship of A. C. Baugh and G. L. Brooks. Except for two special units on language theory and phonology, the text is organized chronologically by periods following the pattern of Baugh. Although he claims to have omitted many details on phonology, Myers provides an excellent introduction to phone mics and phonemic transcription-essential tools for understanding a highly important part of language and language change. Also treated with brevity, but with concentrated thoroughness and clarity, are his explanations and descriptions of structural linguistics, generative-transformational grammar, and other current developments in language study. In the descriptor analysis, Myers ranked near the top in terms of items discussed although the pages devoted to each item are far fewer than in Baugh or Pyles. Of all the texts surveyed in this study, John Nist's A Structural History of English leads the field in terms of organization and proportion. In many ways it combines the best features of the chronological and the thematic approaches to the history of the English language. Even though Mist includes the tools and techniques of modern linguistic analysis, he does not cast aside the external history (political, social, economic, and geographical factors) so vital to the understanding of the complete picture of language change. The attention to linguistic symmetry is seen in Nist's division of the text into twelve equally proportioned units. The organization is basically chronological although the work begins with the present status of English and ends with the future status of English. The units are carefully and proportionally compartmentalized, with the external history treated first, followed by a systematic investigation of the phonological, morphological, syntactical, and formal aspects of the language structure. To aid in the understanding of the phonology of English, Nist has included a pronunciation key with a complete phonemic inventory, including descriptive key words. Suprasegmental phonemes and other linguistic symbols follow the inventory. To aid in the comprehension of external history, a summary of important dates, persons, and characteristics of the language begins each unit. At the end of each chapter, Nist not only includes an annotated bibliography but provides specific pagination information for certain texts. Immediately preceding the helpful bibliography is a list of questions for research and discussion which directs the student to materials both inside and outside the text. A glossary of terms at the conclusion of the text provides ready information for some of the more technical terms introduced. After surveying the tables of contents in the textbooks in this section, I have concluded that Nist's organizational pattern is by far the most carefully organized in terms of chronology, theme, and structure. Consequently, the model outline which is placed in the appendix denoting areas from which descriptors were taken is largely derived and patterned after Nisl's. A course outline based on Nist's categories would ensure adequate penetration into the historical and structural aspects of what might be covered in a semester course entitled "The History and Development of the English Language."

Robert Peters designed A Linguistic History of English as an introductory undergraduate course in the history of the English language for "English and secondary education majors" (vii). Peters realized that English majors are ill-informed about developments in linguistic science; he consequently feels a need to present a very elementary introduction to modern linguistic approaches. The internal history of the language is terribly slighted, as one can see from the number of descriptors treated. Plotkin, in his review of this text, suggests that the discussion of grammar is biased against all but the generative-transformational grammarians. The historical treatment of the morphology and syntax differs from most other comparable texts. While Nist uses the historical periods to compartmentalize external and structural history (further subdivided into phonology, morphology, and syntax), Peters starts with minor units, such as morphology and syntax, further subdividing them into even smaller units on "historical verbs, adverbs, etc.," illustrating Old, Middle, Early Modern, and Late Modern English varieties within these subunits. Consequently, while Nist is able to compress his units into 12 compartments, Peters requires 28. Thus, materials which ideally should be studied together (that is, phonology, morphology, and syntax) are studied separately. In a course based on the outline of the text, the instructor would be tempted to spend one day on "historical nouns" and one day on "historical pronouns" while earlier in the semester, he might spend two days on "Old English phonemes" and two days on "Middle English phonemes." If one is in the habit of eating his meals one portion at a time-vegetables first, meat next, garnish later-this text would probably be a fine arrangement. I would, however, have to concur with V. J. Plotkin that although it is "undoubtedly an innovation among manuals of the history of English, it cannot be regarded as an improvement" (89). In a critical review of Pyles' The Origins and Development of the English Language, Rupert Palmer refers to Pyles' orientation as thoroughly pre-Bloomfieldian, despite Pyles' claim of having examined current linguistic scholarship. Pyles, in the preface to his second edition, answers this charge and makes clear the real rationale of his text. He states, "This is not a book about current linguistic theories, and it employs no polemics. Its primary concern, as is implicit in its title, is the internal history of our language, presented in a chronological treatment of its phonological-grammatical development from prehistoric times to the present" (vi). Although treated with limited penetration, the external history is not excluded in Pyles' work as it has been in many of the post-Bloomfieldian texts. In Palmer's review of Pyles, the most negative remarks are made against the perfunctory aspect of the phonetics chapter, which is only 13 pages long. In addition to its brevity, the chapter is criticized for its rejection of the Trager-Smith concept that the vowel nucleus sounds in bait, boat, and boot are diphthongs rather than monophthongs. Many of the other items criticized by Palmer, such as the lack of a vowel quadrangle and lack of a diagram of the vocal organs, are rectified by Pyles in the second edition.

One of the strong points of Pyles' text is its emphasis on the writing system, vocabulary, and semantics. Many of the texts utilizing the tools and techniques of modern linguistic research slight these aspects. An extensive index of Modern English words, affixes, and phrases follows a selected bibliography. The organization consists largely of chronological periods, with the modern period broken into two chapters-one for sounds and spelling and one for forms and syntax. Three chapters are devoted to the vocabulary of the language-one emphasizing borrowing, one emphasizing adaptation, and one emphasizing meaning change. Because of the high number of descriptors treated, Pyles' text was rated as one of the texts to receive a more detailed descriptive analysis in the next section. When Frederick G. Cassidy revised Stuart Robertson's text in 1954, he did so with the view of retaining the essential scholarship of the original 1934 text, rejecting or altering, however, those portions which had not withstood the test of time. Consequently, the Robertson text to this day ranks up near the top of the list in its historical treatment of the English language. Robertson and Cassidy treat 67 out of the 71 descriptors, placing this text at the top of the list of the 20 texts surveyed. Cassidy's thorough scholarship has made this text a formidable competitor in the field. Balance and proportion are two of the reasons the Robertson and Cassidy text has achieved this high numerical rating. In his original preface, Stuart Robertson claimed to desire a "just balance among the topics . . . and not to allow the greater attention that is paid to some of them today (phonetics, for instance) to dictate that an undue amount of space be given to these" (vii). Neither Robertson nor his successor, Frederick Cassidy, loses his sense of proportion when new facts and theories seem to jar and jolt the rest of the linguistic field. Both Cassidy and Robertson have remained steadfast in their objective to treat fact as fact and theory as theory. An example of this sense of proportion is Cassidy's treatment of the study of general semantics, a movement he treats neither as the lunatic fringe nor as the panacea to all linguistic ailments. Realizing that a full treatment is outside the scope of the study, significant attention is nevertheless given in a major footnote. It would be refreshing to see such a sense of proportion in many of the post-Bloomfieldian, post-Chomsky textbooks. In his preface to English and Its History, Robert Stevick claims that his text is going to dispose of many areas which are commonly studied in other comparable texts, such as the Indo-European family, lexicography, and a capsule history of England. Stevick refuses to endorse any specific linguistic school. He also refuses to engage in any competitive polemics. The text is written without footnotes (considered by Stevick as an inconvenience for the student) although a complete bibliography is included at the end of the text. The orientation is almost totally internal or structural, excluding large blocks of external history. Phonology is treated in chapters 3 through 10, in which "consonant systems" and "vocalic units" are some of the subunits. Chapters 11 through 16 treat sub-groups of morphology, with nouns, adjectives, and verbs treated separately. The third group, chapters 17 through 21, deals with the lexicon. Separate units are devoted to spelling, syntax, and meaning change.

10

Barbara Strong's A History of the English Language is a new arrangement of the English language, treating the subject in the traditional mode and making no excursions into current linguistic theory. After an introductory section, in which she discusses the processes of linguistic change (lexical, phonological, and grammatical), under the section heading "synchronic variation and diachronic change," Strang launches into a historical treatment. Like Cook's arrangement, the chronology is presented in reverse order with the most recent historical events given first. She does not use the traditional periods outlined by Baugh and others, attempting, rather, to break the time segments into 200-year divisions. In each of these periods, Strang discusses lexical, grammatical, and phonological changes as well as some demographic material about the size and composition of the speech community. These nine 200-year periods do not have as clearly divided compartments as does Nist's text, and consequently, a sense of continuity is difficult to maintain. Strang believes that a sense of unity can be attained by rejecting quasi-scientific classifications made by many historical linguists, focusing instead on the continuing process of language change. Although Strang has cut through the "corsetted manageable chunks," her alternative arrangement makes it more difficult to see the "peaks and the valleys." The arrangement instead presents the reader with a "ceaselessly, oceanic, heaving, swelling" mass (xv). Consequently, although the scholarship is impeccable, the arrangement creates a certain degree of cognitive strain. When one tries to retrieve this mass of information, he grasps handfuls of disjointed data. Joseph M. Williams' text, Origins of the English language, is perhaps the most truly inductive text found within this particular group. Williams' goal, to make the course as teacher-proof as possible, is stated in his preface in which he claims, "a single student can teach himself the history of English if he merely reads the text and turns in the problems to be checked by an instructor" (vii). A plethora of inductive exercises is placed within each unit. These problems are structured so that the student makes specific generalizations about a huge mass of data, usually in the form of lists of words or phrases. In addition to the inductive approach, this text far outstrips all others in the number and kind of diagrams, models, paradigms, and theoretical constructs. Although it has clearly delved into current linguistic practice, it has retained enough information from the traditional mode to give it a high descriptor rating in the quantitative analysis. Although I would hesitate to use it as the major text, since I am conditioned to a more expository approach, I would highly recommend this text to any student who is earnest about thoroughly saturating himself in the material. C. L. Wrenn's English Language is a general text, as the title suggests, and is intended for home study. This book was written in 1949 by an Oxford Anglo-Saxon professor in London. Although very small, it is, nevertheless, helpful, with a good table of contents and a thorough index. Little or no depth is reached in the areas of semantics, English Academy, and Grimm's Law. However, it is strong in the realm of history and development, with numerous examples for each contribution to the progressive stages of English vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, and syntax.

11

Completely separate units are devoted to the impact of prominent individual authors on language, modern day usage analysis, and a final section on "aims and methods of study." Throughout the text, emphasis from an Englishman's point of view is evident. The effectiveness of the text could be improved with a more "user-oriented" layout. Although there is a thorough index, the addition of subheadings throughout each section would greatly enhance and make more readily available the material he has to offer.

12

Analysis of Selected Descriptors
The following section is a comparative description of the method and intensity of treatment given to 19 selected descriptors (from a list of 71) from nine English language history textbooks (from a field of 20). The textbooks were selected on the basis of their having touched upon a large proportion of the original list of 71 terms. The nine textbooks compared in this section all have no fewer than 50 of the 71 descriptors and identifiers. A numerical table of the specific numbers of descriptors with the intensity of penetration given by each textbook is provided at the conclusion of the study. The nine textbooks with their numerical scores are the following: Number of descriptors treated (out of 71) 64

Abbr. BA

Textbooks (with author) Baugh, Albert C. A History of the English Language. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957. Bloomfield, Morton W., and Leonard Newmark. A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. Bryant, Margaret M. Modem English and Its Heritage. New York: MacMillan, 1948. Hook, J. N. History of the English Language. New York: Ronald, 1975. Myers, L. M. The Roots of Modem English. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Nist, John. A Structural History of English. New York: Saint Martin's Press, 1966. Pyles, Thomas. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 2nd. ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1971. Robertson, Stuart, and F. G. Cassidy. The Development of Modem English. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Williams, Joseph M. Origins of the English Language. New York: Macmillan, 1975.

BL

61

BT HK MY NI PY

59 63 58 60 58

RN

67

WI

59

13

If one were to judge the worth of a text by quantitative data only, Robertson and Cassidy's text examines more topics than any of the others compared. If logic and organization are chief criteria, however, John Nist's structural history is most conveniently arranged in terms of chronology, thematic compartmentalization, and a sensible blending of inner and outer history. If the criterion is the number of inductive exercises and the number of linguistic theories and models, Joseph Williams' text would be judged the best. If readability and ability to hold interest are the chief criteria, L. M Myers' text would win the popularity contest. If originality of scholarship is the criterion, Albert Baugh would be the undisputed leader. If thoroughness of scholarship is the criterion, Pyles would probably win most of the votes. If eclecticism is the criterion, Bloomfield and Mardkwardt would probably emerge as the most acceptable. If accuracy and conciseness are the criteria, Margaret Bryant leads the field. If transferability and usefulness to English teachers are the criteria, J. N. Hook's text would prove the most valuable. One could say that all of these textbooks mutually excel each other. The following analysis will be arranged both chronologically and alphabetically. The chronological arrangement will follow the "historical periods" pattern found in most textbooks of English language history. The textbooks will be examined in alphabetical order although specific comparisons between two or more texts are subject to arbitrary considerations. (Baugh's text, being regarded as the seminal work among the books examined in this study, is listed first in each of the sections that follow.) In some cases, certain textbooks have given no treatment whatsoever to the descriptors under consideration. This factor in itself might play a significant role in textbook selection. The two-letter author abbreviation will be used to identify works in the charts and appendices throughout. In the following sections, a brief synopsis of the descriptor is followed by representative approaches of the 34 selected English language historians.

14

Language (Origin and Nature)
Perhaps no question is more disputed than the question of where to begin studying the history of the English language. Sterne, in Tristram Shandy, states that the proper place to begin Tristram's biography is well before his conception. While some historical linguists feel that the appropriate beginning of the history of the English language is with the far-fetched bow-wow, pooh-pooh, or yo-he-ho theories, others feel that the Indo-European family is the appropriate place to begin. Others prefer to plunge right in at the point at which cleavage occurred between Anglo-Saxon and German. Others feel that the most appropriate place to begin is with a systematic abstract definition of language. No two works agree on the appropriate starting point. Baugh devotes little time to definitions of language although he recognizes the process of change which makes language analogous to a living organism. Extending the living organism analogy, Baugh suggests that "when a language ceases to change," it dies (2). The scope of this text excludes theories of the origin of language. Instead, the student is almost immediately called upon to speculate about the future possibilities for the English language. Expounding on his statement that language is actually a matter of speech, not writing, Bambas attempts to explain that the only thing known about language origin is that "somehow, at various times and places, a man realized that he could make a variety of sounds with his vocal organs. He then made combinations of sounds and assigned meanings to various combinations. Eventually, combinations were strung together into sentences, and man was able to communicate complex messages . . . by means of speech." Bambas says that these prehistoric events were unrecorded and therefore cannot be analyzed (37-38). Berndt does not treat the origin and nature of language in general, but specifically treats the origin and nature of the English language quite thoroughly, devoting 31 pages to the topic. He divides this subject into two sections. In the first section, he discusses the history of the British Isles, relating conquests and movements of peoples that influenced the language's development. First, he devotes a short paragraph to the Celts and to the Romans, then he continues with more information on the Anglo-Saxons, the Viking invasion, and the Norman Conquest. In the second section, Berndt shows how the English language evolved from the time before Old English to Modern English, emphasizing in detail its Germanic origin. He divides Old, Middle, and Modern English into readable sections. With Middle English, Berndt presents a map of southern Britain, showing the geographical distribution of four late Middle English variants of the word that became "they" in Modern English (36). Bloom field and Newmark acknowledge definitions of language which encompass "languages of science, of animals, of gesture, of music and art, as well as 'natural' languages," but for the purpose of

15

their study, they delimit the definition to a "socially learned, orally transmitted system of communication" (9). They describe English as a "natural language"--one out of 3,000. Bolton clearly indicates that there has been Germanic influence on the English language, yet he concludes that there is little evidence as to the origin before the first Germanic settlers. A possible reason given is that our knowledge (of a particular dialect) is "limited to the linguistic forms common to a few inscriptions, some glosses (interlinear translations of Latin texts), and a few poems" (1). acknowledges that the "comparative method" enables students to draw further conclusions. beyond this purely speculatory indication are lacking. Bounder does not cover the origin and nature of language. Bradley does not directly address this subject, but, as stated, his insights on the nature of language are scattered throughout the text. He does not discuss the origin of language as such; rather, he deals with the history as far as it bears significance on the special topics which he addresses. Bryant describes language as the "preponderance of likeness in the speech habits of persons inhabiting a particular region at a certain period" (5). Beyond a short paragraph in the brief subunit "What Constitutes a Language," there is neither a systematic definition of language nor the speculations about the origins of language typical of many introductory history texts. Burchfield says in his book, The English Language, that the origin of language is unknown. He says that there has never been a languageless society. The faculty of speech precedes recorded history. Burchfield asserts that the doctrine of Hobbes, which states that the language of Adam and Eve was lost at the tower of Babel by a divine act of God, is engaging but unacceptable (4). Cannon begins his discussion of this topic by explaining the more widely known theories of lingual origins, man's possession of language, and the definition of language. In the second chapter, he discusses dialects and the causes for dialects and reconstructs a "linguistic genealogy." He also explains linguistics, the divisions of linguistics, and four basic differences among many languages. Chapter three is devoted to an explanation of the Indo-European language family-its origin and influence. Grimm's and Verner's Laws are also introduced. After presenting some linguistic terminology in the fourth chapter, Cannon uses these terms to analyze the nature of English from its beginning to the present. Richard Claiborne speaks of English as being more than a system of communication. He states that " . . . it enables us to convey to others what we think, feel and want" (8). He also describes language as " . . . the prime means for organizing the cooperative activities that enable us as groups to accomplish things we could not possibly do as individuals" (8). Donahue does not cover the origin of language in general but concentrates on the origin of the English language. She feels that English originated with the West Germanic peoples, who spoke IndoEuropean languages. This Indo-European language was highly inflected, yet its structural patterns have been retained until today (10). More effective than examining written records is a linguistic comparison of the four original dialects. He later Hypotheses

16

These early pastureland peoples were simple in language, "borrowing only those words which their barbarian minds could appreciate-not ideas, but homely instruments, useful plants and methods of cultivation" (14). Donahue focuses on the Teutonic tribes, from which the Anglo-Saxons originated (11). Emerson devotes no time to the definition of language; instead, he focuses on the origin and nature of the English language itself. The author states that the English language stems from the Teutonic branch of the Indo-European family. He continues, showing that as the family members began to separate themselves, changes began to become apparent in the spoken language, "which in time resulted in different dialects" (1). Fernald does not discuss the origin of language in general. He does, however, provide an analysis of the background of English and its origins. He devotes most of his text to the contributions of the Anglo-Saxons, with a short chapter referring to the Norman transformation of the language. Gordon feels that the student must think like a historian in order to understand the history of language. He believes that language has two histories-one in the life of the individual and one in the life of the speech community. He cites several reasons why the system of written language is not the most important aspect of a language. He asserts that the relationship between a language and its written form is arbitrary and that the relationship between the written language and the spoken is less than perfect since there are many more sounds in our language than there are letters in our alphabet. The family tree of English, according to Gordon, follows these stages: Proto-Indo-European, Proto- or Primitive Germanic, West Germanic, Low West Germanic, Old English, Middle English, Modern English. Gordon gives a thorough description of the origin and nature of language. Although Groom does not discuss the origin of language in general, he does trace the source of the English language. The roots go back to the West Aryan tribes who spoke Primitive Teutonic (16). These tribes settled in Greece, Italy, France, and Britain. Their language is the foundation of the English language (15). Hook devotes considerable attention to theories of the origins of language. Hypotheses under examination include the Genesis account, the echoic "bow-wow" theory, the interjectional "pooh-pooh" theory, Revesz's Hypothesis-the formulation of a hierarchy of simple to highly complex vocal sounds ending in the single word-and Wilson's Hypothesis, which explains language as a "conventionalizing of sounds" (15). Hook observes that none of these hypotheses can explain language behavior much beyond the development of a single word. He borrows the fictional story of Og from Charlton Laird's The Miracle of Language as a hypothesis to illustrate how mankind has developed increasingly more sophisticated syntactical patterns. McCrum begins his discussion of English without defining language or its origin and nature, other than describing that "we live in and by language" (14). In the preface to his book, McKnight stresses the wealth of language by using the analogy of a plant. He writes that it is not a "wayside tree that has grown up wild; it is, rather, a highly cultivated 17

plant" (v). McKnight explains the main cultivated changes that have brought the English language from the adoption of the East Midland dialect to the present. Very little time is spent on language origins although the fact that these origins would trace back to the common Teutonic language, and still further back to the Indo-European language, is briefly mentioned (3). No discussion of formal language description or definition is made. Myers devotes slightly more than a page to theories of language origin, concluding with an observation that none of them explains very much. What he considers useful in the description of language is a hierarchy of the structural levels of language, which he develops in outline form immediately following the perfunctory treatment of various language origin hypotheses. Pyles apparently feels it pointless to give any more than passing recognition to the language origin theories. Instead, he provides a definition of language along with descriptions of several language systems. Excluding paralinguistic phenomena, such as gestures and facial expressions, he defines language as a "systematized combination of sounds which have meaning for all persons in a given cultural community" (5). Robertson, in his discussion of the nature of language, notes the yawning chasm which separates the communication capabilities of human beings from animals. At some point, he suggests, the human being is to have discovered the "symbolic process," making it possible to conventionalize and combine sounds (4). Social necessity is listed as the chief impetus for language production. Joseph Williams produces a rather detailed list of what he considers to be "crucial design features of human language, many of which incorporate features of recent communications modes." Some of the characteristics which he considers crucial are "broadcast transmission, rapid fading, complete feedback, displacement, crossmodel communication, sign change, etc." (16). The 24 crucial features are given short descriptions. Wrenn believes that distinction between speech and language is intrinsic to his definition of language, which is "the natural, normal, and enduring method of expressing the human mind" (1). Wrenn refers to language as the general and particular uses of words, apart from speaker or situation, while speech refers to the words used in a precisely known context or situation. He admits, however, that no book can pretend to treat this subject without confining itself to a comparatively small number of the many facets of language.

18

Germanic Characteristics
No discussion of the prehistory of the English language would be complete without a discussion of the features which distinguish the Germanic group from the rest of the Indo-European family. The languages which make up the Germanic family are distinguished from the rest of the Indo-European family by the following four characteristics: 1. Germanic languages, following the great consonant shift, otherwise known as Grimm's Law (described on page 23), regularly substitute an entire class of consonant sounds, differentiating the Germanic branch from the other branches of the Indo-European family. For example, when the Latinate or Romance languages (French, Spanish, and Italian) use a /p/, as in padre or pater, the Germanic branch of the family (including English, German, and Swedish) uses the HI sound (father or Vatef). When the Latinate language uses a /d/ (as in dentio), the Germanic language uses a A/ (as in tooth). A fuller explanation is found in the section which discusses Grimm's

Law.
2. Germanic languages divide verbs into two classes-regular (or weak) and irregular (or strong). Strong verbs change tense by changing the vowel within the verb (sing, sang, sung), and weak verbs change tense by adding an ending (walk, walked, walked). 3. Germanic languages all (at one time) possessed the double declension of adjectives. Modern English no longer has this characteristic as it once did before the inflectional decay. Modern German still has this characteristic to a limited degree: Modern High German Der gute Mann Ein guter Mann Old English Se gode Mann En goder Mann

The adjective endings depend upon whether the definite or the indefinite article is used. 4. Germanic languages usually accent the first syllable of the word, even loan words from other languages. For example, while the original French loan word (plumage) accents the second syllable, Germanic speakers (including English) accent the first syllable (p/wmage). Exceptions may occur in the case of a few compounded prefixes (uninteresting, insincere) and loan words which have resisted the pressure to conform. Baugh lists the Germanic branch as the Teutonic group. He does not group together specific characteristics of the Germanic family, as Bloomfield, Bryant, and others have done. The effect of Jacob Grimm*s Law is treated with more penetration than the other features, such as the fixed stress and the double declension of adjectives. Baugh suggests that the sound changes as illustrated by Grimm's Law "[are] the most distinctive feature[s] marking off the Germanic languages from the languages to which they are related" (21).

19

Bambas treats the Germanic influence on our language as one of nine principal branches of the Indo-European family of languages. More specifically, he mentions in the beginning of his section that English is a member of the Germanic Indo-European branch. After giving a historical outline of the Germanic peoples, Bambas briefly explains the forms of Germanic which have been recorded over time. As does Bryant, Bambas gives four changes which Proto-Germanic speakers induced and which set Germanic apart from other Indo-European languages: (1) a simplification of the morphology of the verb system, (2) the provision of a "weak" adjective declension, (3) the fixing of the Indo-European stress on the base syllable of a word, and (4) a consonant shift known as Grimm's Law. Following the list is a thorough explanation of each of the four points (28-35). It is not surprising that Berndt discusses the different aspects of Germanic characteristics throughout his book since it was written with the German student in mind. He devotes one section to the "importance of the inherited Germanic lexical material in present-day English" (69). Here he presents a table which compares the frequency of usage of Modern English words to Old English and "loans." The table illustrates the importance of inherited Germanic vocabulary, much of which is still in use today. In a later section, Berndt touches on another aspect of the Germanic characteristics. He traces the progress of the Germanic diphthongs /au/ and /eu/ (177). In another area, he examines the nonweakening of the German phonemes /p/ and A/ in English (192). Bloomfield enumerates five characteristics which he identifies (with a brief explanation and one or two examples) as "a unique set of vocabulary items, a special kind of verb inflection (strong-weak distinctions), two sets of adjective forms (one set for those following 'particularizing adjective* and one set for adjectives which stand alone), and the fixed stress," in which the accent is placed on the root syllable (113). Bolton fails to enumerate any of the distinguishing characteristics of the Germanic group; rather, he settles for a summary statement about the influence of German on English by means of inflected "word endings." In addition, he minimizes the importance of stress levels. This limited discussion is surprisingly summed up by the author when he boldly states, "These features underlie many of [English's] most literary techniques, both in prose and in poetry." This statement, unfortunately, is not backed up by any substantial evidence.

20

Bourcier identifies four distinguishing characteristics in a small four-page section of his introductory chapter. Of the four points, only the effects of Grimm's Law are given more than a halfpage explanation (iv). The four points are as follows (23): 1. The creation of the so-called "weak" verbs. 2. Use of a double system of adjectival inflection, also called "strong" and "weak." 3. Replacement of the mobile pitch-accent by a stress-accent fixed on the root syllable of each word, 4. Particular developments of the stop consonants. Bradley stresses the resemblances between English and German in his first chapter. Some of the similarities he finds are as follows: stock of words (vocabulary), grammar, formation of genitives, formation of comparatives and superlatives of adjectives through the addition of -er and -est, and the conjugation of verbs. Bradley provides an example or two to illustrate each of these findings. Bradley's thoughts on English and German are as such: ". . . not that English is derived from German or German from English, but that both have descended, with gradual divergent changes, from a prehistoric language which scholars have called Primitive Germanic or Primitive Teutonic. Low German or Plattdeutsch, the dialect spoken (now only by the common people) in 'Low' or Northern Germany, is much more like English than literary High German is." Bryant identifies four characteristics in a short unit entitled "Common Features of the Germanic Language." This unit is concise, thorough, and logically organized. Bryant includes all but the "unique vocabulary." His four features include (21): 1. A simpler conjugation of the verb than in other Indo-European languages. 2. A two-fold adjective declension. 3. A fixed stress accent. 4. Grimm's Law (also called the Great Consonant Shift). Burchfield says that the English language was a richly endowed language of the Germanic family. He maintains that it is faithful to its Germanic roots in that its vocabulary is almost entirely Germanic. The English language has remained a recognizable branch of the Germanic family, but by the 1470's, it had been severed from its Western European analogues (19). Cannon stresses the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family, concentrating mainly on the sound shifts illustrated by Grimm's and Verner's Laws. He also traces briefly some of the dialects resulting from Germanic differentiations. Donahue writes that the earliest nomadic tribes bore eight distinct language groups and that Primitive Germanic was one of these divisions (5). She divides the Germanic peoples in Britain into three dialects, as opposed to three separate languages (20). Donahue notes that the Old English chief word formation processes came from suffixes and compounding (23-24). Donahue parallels Old English and German in an effort to demonstrate the similar characteristics of the two languages. The Old English vocabulary was more complicated than the 21

German, yet both were similar in their "elaborate system of genders." Both languages also had the adjectives in agreement with the nouns (26). Both languages were also highly inflected. Old English adjectives were "strong and weak according to their function and position," this being a German characteristic as well (38). Emerson, in a unit entitled "The Teutonic Languages: Common Characteristics," identifies four characteristics of the Germanic language in its relationship to the other Teutonic languages. These four features are: 1) a great consonant change, or shifting of consonants, 2) the accent of words, 3) a twofold declension of adjectives, and 4) the verbal system. Emerson describes the Western Germanic language as having a two-part division: Low German and High German. The English language stems from the Low Germanic branch, with an example of this further illustrated by Emerson on page 13. In the remainder of the chapter, the author proceeds to discuss the effects of Grimm's Law and the second consonant shift on the Indo-European languages. Fernald does not refer to Germanic characteristics as such. He simply states that German is among the many tongues from which English has borrowed freely (45). Gordon compares 12 common German words with their English counterparts to show similarities (207). He refers to two phenomena that occurred in Proto-Germanic. One was the first sound shift, or Grimm's Law, and the other was the fixing of the stress or accent on the first syllable of all words except verbs. "This is carried over into the Modern English language and accounts for contrasting stress patterns, the noun conduct and the verb conduct, or the adjective perfect and the verb perfect" (90). Groom does not compare English with German. Instead, he concentrates on the words of English that have been adopted from German. Mawan (to mow) is an example of an Aryan word adopted into Anglo-Saxon (15). A modern illustration is the German word Larche, which was converted to the English larch (211). Hook identifies five features of the Germanic languages although he does not enumerate them as do Bryant and Bloomfield. Hook presents as one characteristic the "common vocabulary," as do Bryant and Bloomfield, although the points are not presented with cardinal numbers; the paragraphs are begun with ordinal numbers to introduce the discrete characteristics. McCrum writes in story form of the influence of the invasion of the Germanic tribes on the English language. He says that the extent to which the Anglo-Saxons "overwhelmed the native Britons is illustrated in their vocabulary" (62). He describes how the most common words in English are all of Anglo-Saxon origin, and that since the Anglo-Saxons had an oral culture, their oral traditions were highly developed. However, McCrum does not give lists of specific characteristics or examples, other than a few words in English that originally came from Old English.

22

McKnight dwells little on the characteristics that distinguish English, along with other Germanic languages, from the rest of the Indo-European family. There is a brief appendix entitled "The Near Relations of English," which compares English to the kindred Teutonic languages. It lists various versions of the Lord's Prayer, including Old High German, Gothic, Icelandic, Old English, and Modern Welsh. Grimm's Law is not even mentioned. Myers does not provide a systematic list of characteristics although he gives both Grimm's Law and the heavy Germanic stress considerable penetration. Nist discusses strong and weak adjective declensions, providing three separate paradigms to illustrate the feature. He provides a compact but thorough table of the seven classes of strong irregular verbs (83). On page 79, he lists eight characteristics of Old English, five of which have been designated as distinct Germanic characteristics: 1. Germanic vocabulary 2. Participation in the Great Consonant Shift 3. Weak and strong verb conjugation 4. Two-fold declension of adjectives 5. Fixed stress on root syllables 6. Full inflectional system 7. Gender determined grammatically 8. Resourcefulness in morphological processes Only the last three items are not included in the other lists of characteristics. Nist hardly ever makes a major point without thoroughly illustrating it by list, paradigm, or table. Pyles enumerates and illustrates seven principal characteristics, which he identifies with cardinal numbers. Each point is defined, sometimes restated and illustrated with comparative lists—Latin and Greek on one side, Germanic on the other. Two items that Pyles reviews which seldom appear in other texts are: 1. The Germanic language developed a simple preterit tense using the dental suffix d or t (103). 2. The Germanic languages altered the Indo-European vowels (a became o) (105). Robertson and Cassidy enumerate four characteristics, group them together on a single list, and then systematically describe and illustrate each characteristic. The four features are identical to the list found in Bryant. Williams does not list Germanic characteristics as such, but he discusses Jacob Grimm's Law and provides an extensive list of cognates found only in Germanic languages (320). Wrenn draws the distinction from two points which must have been strong in "Primitive" or "Common" German. First, there was a strong tendency to fix the stress (weight or emphasis) of a word on its root syllable or as near to its beginning as possible. Second, it involved the development of a "two-tense" system in the verb (15). Consequently, the nine textbooks originally surveyed have the following items in common: 23

TOPICS 1. Grimm's Law 2. Vocabulary 3. Simplified verb inflection 4. Two-fold adjective declension 5. Fixed stress

BA
X

BL
X X X X X

BT
X

HK
X X

MY
X

NI
X
X X X

PY
X X

RN
X

WI
X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X
X

X

24

Grimm's Law
Grimm's Law concerns a predictable shift in the consonant sounds from Latin to Germanic languages. Grimm looked at a number of words in Latin and English and noticed a regular pattern. Wherever an / occurred in English (or German) a p occurred in Latin. Grimm and Verner suggested that "the consonants have moved about in an orderly way, taking each other's place in accordance with linguistic principles" (Laird 126). Laird provides this simplified diagram of Grimm's and Veraer's Laws:

Voiceless Stops

Voiced Stops

Voiceless Fricatives

Voiced Fricatives Grimm's Law is one significant item no language textbook would dare to slight. Historical linguists, however, treat this subject with different degrees of penetration; some thoroughly illustrate the concept with elaborate diagrams while others provide a short comparative list of Latinate-Germanic pairs. Although Baugh provides no diagrams, his explanation is adequate and concise. He states, "original voiceless stops (p, t, k) were changed to spirants (f, p [th], h). Thus, the Latin tres becomes in English three, and the Latin centum is the English hundred* (21). With that short explanation he accomplishes his objective of exposing the reader to the concept. He places a more detailed description of the other consonants in a footnote. Bambas introduces a short treatment of Grimm's Law by stating, "Proto-Germanic underwent a shift in its system of consonants." He finds it unacceptable to believe that similarities between pairs of Latin and Germanic words were due to common origin. Grimm's explanation of the shift is written as: "the Indo-European voiced stops (b, d, g) shifted in Germanic to their voiceless equivalents (p, t, k)

25

respectively.

Indo-European p, t, k, shifted in turn in Germanic to f, th, h, the corresponding voiceless

spirants." The following chart is given: labials Indo-European Germanic Indo-European Germanic b P P f dentals d t t velars g k Voiced stops Voiceless stops Voiceless stops Voiceless spirants

k h

e

Bambas goes on to list and explain some Germanic/Indo-European cognates. He also explains that after word borrowing began, Grimm's Law had already taken effect and had ceased functioning, therefore, borrowed words do not follow the shift (33). Surprisingly, Berndt does not consider Grimm's Law noteworthy. The only consonantal treatment Berndt has relates to the " 'split' of the Germanic velar stops /k/ and /g/ into velar and palatal variants" (188). Bloomfield and Newmark pay tribute to the work of Rasmus Rask, the Danish linguist, recognizing that it was Rask who originally identified the sound changes. Bloomfield describes the Great Consonant Shift as "a regular system of parallel sound changes which set off Germanic languages from all other European and Asiatic languages" (105). A comparative chart is provided with non-Germanic Indo-European and Germanic pairs. The examples are illustrated as follows: Non-Germanic Indo-European P Latin pes Latin piscis Germanic f English foot English fish

As an extension to a mere mention of the "comparative method," Bolton provides for us a very short list of Latinate-Old English (Germanic origin) pairs. The work of Rasmus Rask and Franz Bopp is acknowledged; yet, it is the work of Jacob Grimm and Carl Verner, their improvements on the work of the men aforementioned, that is noted. Once again, the discussion is succinct but lacking. Bourcier refers to Grimm's Law as being the first consonant shift and dates it from around 1000 B.C. to the Christian era. He emphasizes the explanation behind the sound-shift. The manner of articulation was such that it was prone to turn voiceless stops into aspirates. Bourcier offers a list of Latin words and their Old English counterparts, demonstrating the results of the change (27). Bradley makes no reference to Grimm's Law as such. He emphasizes, however, many sets of cognates in his introduction to the likeness of German and English. Some similarities he brings out are 26

as follows: vaterffather, matter/mother, bruderlbrother, schwesterlsister, haus/house, and so on. Bradley sums up Grimm's Law in one sentence: "An English t is usually represented in German by z, /z, or ss; an English th by d\n English p by pf or /; an English d by t\d an English v in the middle of a word by b." Bradley justifies his book in this way: The transformation of English . . . into the widely different language which we speak today has . . . been the result of gradual changes. We do not propose in this little volume to treat these changes in their chronological sequence. Information of this kind must be sought for in regular histories of the English language. Our purpose is merely to give some idea of the causes by which the more remarkable changes in the language were brought about, and to estimate the effect which these changes have had on its fitness as an instrument for the expression of thought. Bryant, quoting the words of Leonard Bloomfield, suggests that to refer to the discovery of Grimm as a law "could be a dangerous metaphor." The observation would also be true for Verner's "Law" of accent. Bryant has pointed out that Grimm's discovery has helped to create a classification system for grouping Germanic (and non-Germanic) Indo-European languages. Bryant provides no diagram but gives a few examples to illustrate each consonant shift. The description is succinct but highly adequate. Burchfield does not mention Grimm's Law. In a brief explanation, Claiborne describes that the effect of Grimm's Law is easily the trait that distinguishes Germanic from other Indo-European tongues. He uses no diagrams but sufficiently explains the changes by giving examples of actual word changes which have occurred. One example he gives is the Indo-European p being used for the Germanic /, as in the Germanic fatherly versus the Latin paternal. He also gives the example of the change from the Indo-European t to the Germanic th. He goes on to describe briefly how each loss was recouped. For example, he states that Germanic regained the loss by making a new p out of the Indo-European b (46). Cannon spends two of the three pages devoted to Grimm's Law in explaining the formation of consonants, their linguistic groupings, and their representative notations. Grimm's Law is then presented and illustrated. Donahue does not make any direct reference to Grimm's Law. Emerson records the Great Consonant Shift as having first been discovered by the Danish scholar Rask (1787-1832). Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) is noted as having added to Rask's discovery, and from him it became more commonly known as Grimm's Law. A definition of the law is not given by the author.

27

Emerson finds fault with Grimm's statement of the law because the classical languages "do not perfectly preserve the Indo-European consonant system" (15). Shown below are four series of IndoEuropean consonants affected by the consonant shift as recorded by Emerson: 1. The labials: 2. The dentals: 3. The palatals: 4. The velars: bh, b, p sh, d, t gh', g', k' gh, g, k

These are further explained throughout the chapter (15). Gordon describes Grimm's Law as "a description of important consonantal changes which distinguish the Germanic from the other Indo-European languages." In other words, changes occurred in all the early Germanic dialects but not in all other languages that descended from the parent tongue. He simplifies and condenses the shift of consonant changes to three points: 1. Voiceless stops (p, t, k) became fricatives, respectively (f, 6, x). 2. Voiced stops (b, d, g) became voiceless stops, respectively (p, t, k). 3. Voiced aspirated stops through intermediate stages became non-aspirated voiced stops (b, d, g). He also refers to Karl Verner, whom he feels refined Grimm's Law. Groom briefly mentions Grimm's Law. His definition explains that the consonants p, t, and k (or c) of Greek and Latin correspond to the consonants f, th, and h of Teutonic languages. In addition, b, d, and g of Greek and Latin correlate with p, t, and k (or c) of the Teutonic languages. Two examples Groom includes to demonstrate this law at work are the Latin piscis, compared to the AngloSaxon fish, and the Latin canis, compared to the Anglo-Saxon hund (8). Hook does not generalize the concept as do Baugh and Bloomfield, but he has provided a convenient comparative list to illustrate each consonantal change. The list includes some non-Latin (non-Germanic) languages. p to / : t to th: Greek podos, English foot; Persian pitar, Latin pater, English father Polish tarn, English thorn; Latin tu, English thou (25)

McCrum mentions Grimm's Law only in passing. He is discussing the "common source" of Indo-European languages when he says, " 'Grimm's Law' established beyond question that the German voter and the English father have the same root as the Sanskrit/Latin pitarlpatef (52). McKnight dwells little on the characteristics that distinguish English, along with other Germanic languages, from the rest of the Indo-European family. There is a brief appendix entitled "The Near Relations of English," which compares English to its kindred Teutonic languages. It lists various versions of the Lord's prayer, including Old High German, Gothic, Icelandic, Old English, and Modern Welsh. Grimm's Law is not even mentioned.

28

Myers produces both a list of Latin (or Greek) and English cognates and a simplified diagram to illustrate the Great Consonant Shift. The cognates are arranged in the following pattern on page 54: /p/ becomes HI pater becomes father piscus becomes fish /t/ becomes /6/ tu becomes thou tres becomes three /k/ becomes /h/ caput becomes head cornu becomes horn

The diagram consists of three parallel consonant flowcharts illustrating the Great Consonant Shift.

/P/ -•• ni -+ /b/ +in - ye/ -* /d/

(55)
The Greek letters used in the bottom two patterns have been selected to prevent confusion between voiced and voiceless fricatives. Myers informs the student that the /x/ "stands for the sound like that in German dock." Nist provides an enumerated set of generalizations along with a simplified chart. The following is an illustration of the Voiceless stop to voiceless fricative pattern": 1. Indo-European voiceless stops lost their stopped quality and became Germanic voiceless fricatives (80). 2. Voiceless stops became voiceless fricatives: Indo-European Germanic /p/ 4 /f/ 4 /6/ /t/ 4 /k/ /h/

(81)
The diagram is followed by a list of illustrations made up of Latin and Germanic cognates. Pyles provides a series of comparative tables, utilizing Latin, Greek, and Germanic cognates-at least four to six for every consonant shift generalization. The following example illustrates the d-to-t shift:

29

Indo European "d" / Germanic "t"

duo/two dentisltooth damare/tame

(Gr.) drys "oaW/tree decem/tem (Gothic taihuri) edere/eat

This set of tables is followed by a compact diagram, stating the general tendencies of the sound shift:
First Sound Shift (Grimm's Law)

Indo-European bh, dh, gh Indo-European p, t, k Indo-European b, d, g

-»• -*• -*•

(respectively) (respectively) (respectively)

Germanic b, 6, Germanic p, t, k

-»•

b, d, g

Germanic f, 6, x (-+ h initially)

The first line of the diagram contains non-Roman symbols in the Germanic since voiced aspirated symbols are hard to represent.

30

Robertson and Cassidy's diagram indicates that these shifts took place in stages. The diagram is conveniently joined to the generalizations: Voiced aspirated stops bh I b dh 4d gh 4 g
b 4P
Voiced stops

Voiceless stops*
g

d 4'

p
4.

t
4-

k
4-

4-

k

f

th

h

Indo-European voiced aspirated stops lost aspiration and became Germanic voiced stops.

Indo-European voiced stops lost voice and became Germanic voiceless stops. (Stage 2)

Indo-European voiceless stops lost their stopped quality and became Germanic voiceless spirants.** (Stage 1)

(Stage 3)

* Sounds are voiced when the vocal cords are vibrating during their production, voiceless when the vocal cords are not vibrating. Aspiration is the quality of a sound produced by puffing the breath out, with slight constriction of the oral or throat passage. **A spirant (or fricative') is a sound made by forcing the breath, without actually stopping it, through a narrowed outlet in the oral or throat passage.

(29)

The tabulation of the examples is done horizontally with each sound change illustrated by pairs of three Germanic/non-Germanic cognates:
Change: d > t

Greek
Dirt Pnolkh

eat
(30)

Since Williams' text is basically an inductive approach, he provides an exercise in which the student is expected to make generalizations from a comparative list of 32 pairs of cognates. The list is arranged vertically as follows: nephew five lip nepos penta labia
(320)

Wrenn does not discuss Grimm's Law.

31

The nine texts originally surveyed have the following general characteristics regarding Grimm's Law:

Characteristic Diagram of Grimm's Law Comparative lists of cognates Definition or description

BA

BL
X

BR

HK

MY
X

NI
X
X

py
X

RN
X

WI
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

32

Indo-European Family Divisions
Albanian Albanian Balto-Slavic Bulgarian Czechoslovakia!! Polish Armenian Armenian Russian Slovenian Sorbian Ukrainian Indian Bengali Hindi Mahrati Punjabi Iranian Afghan Avestan Buluchi Kurdish Celtic Irish Scotch Welsh Hellenic Greek

Italic (Latinate)

Teutonic-Germanic

French Italian Latin Portuguese Rumanian Spanish

Danish Dutch English German Icelandic Norwegian Swedish

Both beech and bee were on the list of common Indo-European words. Anthropologists have discovered that the beech tree is of a "relatively limited range-confined to central Europe." Also, the Indo-European languages have a common word for honey and bee. The bee is found throughout Europe but has never been found in those parts of Asia previously considered the homeland for the Europeans. Centum and Satem classification is predicated upon a supposed cleavage between eastern and western branches of the Indo-European language. Centum-thc Latin word for hundred-includes the Hellenic, Italic, Teutonic, and Celtic families. Satem—the Avestan word for hundred—includes the Indian, Iranian, Armenian, Ballo-Slavic, and Albanian families. Of the nine texts examined for this section, Baugh, Bloomfield and Newmark, and Pyles have treated "Indo-European Family Divisions" with considerable penetration, each devoting between ten and seventeen pages to the topic. Of all the texts, Baugh devotes the most space to this descriptor, treating nine major groups of Indo-European families, identifying the subgroups, and examining some of their enduring literature. Although he provides neither family tree diagrams nor maps, Baugh's is still one of the easiest texts to follow. The major groups are enumerated and described in paragraph form, beginning with eastern-

33

most families (Indian and Iranian) and ending with the western-most family groups (Teutonic or Germanic, and Celtic). Such literary texts as the Indian Upanishads, the Persian epic Shahnamah in the Iranian group, and the Iliad and the Odyssey in the Hellenic group, are identified as examples of great literary foundation. The efforts of Bible translators such as Cyril and Methodius are also noted; the Centum and Satem groups are identified, and the original homeland of the Indo-European people is hypothesized. At the conclusion of this section, the lists of the nine texts will be placed on a comparative table. As previously stated, Rumbas breaks Indo-European into its nine principal branches. Each branch has a section of its own. Each section, although brief, contains a fairly detailed history of the branch and discusses forms and dialects of it. The section on Germanic is most detailed. A helpful, two-page map of the distribution of the Indo-European languages in Europe and Western Asia is inserted (19-35). Since Berndt's book puts great emphasis on the Germanic heritage of the English language, Berndt does not go into this descriptor. He simply states that English is a division of the Germanic language family, which itself is one distinct division of the Indo-European group (31). Under the general heading "Comparative Linguistics," Bloomfield and Newmark investigate the family divisions with much attention to detail. Three family tree diagrams are provided-one for the main divisions of the Indo-European family (drawn in the configuration of a real tree), with two separate genealogical trees designating the North Germanic and the West Germanic (125). On the tree representing the Indo-European family, the Centum and Satem groups are placed symmetrically opposite each other. Regarding the Centum-Satem hypothesis, Bloomfield observes that it is "hard to explain why certain Centum languages show similarities to certain Satem languages rather than to other Centum languages" (125). The Balto-SIavic inflected suffix -m is described as a Centum feature while the language itself is Satem. Within the same context of Grimm's Law, Bolton discusses the "family tree" of languages. The work of such men as Swift, Johnson, and Lowth is mentioned. Particularly noted is Sir William Jones, who, the author states, "provided more than a model of the history of Indian and European languages," but went on to connect it subtly with the origin and nature of language. Along the lines of Jones' treatment, the author breaks the "family tree" into three important characteristics. Discussions of the common features of all languages ensue, pointing out the "noun" and the "verb" as being universal. The "historical-comparing method" and the "parts-of-speech approach" are further noted. Bourcier and Clark devote five pages to this topic, stressing the history of how the present Indo-European languages came to be, and establishing the Danube basin as the geographic cradle. He illustrates how consistent phonemic laws allow different languages to be traced to a common ancestor. No family tree is given, but a list of the eight primary language families is given, along with a brief description of the individual languages within the larger language groups. On the Satem-Centum
34

question-why some Satem languages show Centum characteristics-Clark asserts that a central zone characterized by innovation between the two zones accounts for this problem. Bradley does not deal directly with the family divisions, but he incorporates bits of information along the way which help him to elaborate on the purpose of his book. He spends some time tracing several branches of the Germanic family as is illustrated by the following passage: English and German have both descended, with gradual divergent changes, from a prehistoric language which scholars have called Primitive Germanic or Primitive Teutonic. Dutch and Frisian resemble Low German. The Scandinavian languages, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, are also of Germanic (or Teutonic) origin; and so is Gothic, a dead language known to us chiefly from a translation of portions of the Bible made in the 4th century. Bryant lists nine main branches of the Indo-European family and treats the subgroups of each major language group. Although the list comprising two pages appears to be rather short and perfunctory, it is highly concentrated and very thorough. She accomplishes this by leaving out much of the illustrative material which Baugh and Pyles include. Burchfield does not mention the Indo-European family divisions. Cannon provides a chart of sixty Indo-European languages and a map of Indo-European languages in Europe and Asia Minor. He lists eight definite branches of the Indo-European family and two possible branches based on the Centum/Satem distinction. Under the headings "Centum" and "Satem," Cannon differentiates between the two and divides the languages accordingly. The Satem branch receives general coverage. The Centum branch is given less general coverage, Cannon preferring to focus on the Germanic branches. In the second chapter of his book, Claiborne very briefly discusses the Indo-European family divisions. He makes mention of the Indo-European family tree, stating that it is like any other tree in that "it divides and subdivides into limbs, branches and twigs" (28). He says that English can be described as "the largest and most vigorous twig growing from the West Germanic branch of the Germanic limb" (28). He then proceeds to describe the Italic limb and the Celtic limb. He also devotes two paragraphs to an explanation of the works of Sir William Jones. Donahue specifies eight language divisions which the Indo European family broke into: Eastern, Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Italic, Balto-Slavonic, Primitive Germanic, and Celtic. She also includes a brief summary of the descendants of these large groups. Donahue describes the original language as highly inflected, and she gives a brief synopsis of words which may be traced back to their IndoEuropean roots (9-11). She then provides a theory for all the migration patterns by tracing where and when certain elements of vocabulary came into the language. She focuses primarily on the Teutonic tribes in the text (10-15). She includes no diagrams. Emerson devotes the entire first chapter to the Indo-European family. In this chapter he lists eight Indo-European family divisions and gives a short but highly concentrated explanation of each. A
35

diagram is provided to show the relationships among the eight branches. "The large oval . . . represents the common ground of words and grammatical forms. The overlapping of the smaller circles indicates the possession of similar forms binding together the minor groups" (7). Gordon devotes four pages to the Indo-European family. He divides these into eight branches and further divides some of these into subgroups. Those mentioned are: I. Indo-Iranian A. Indian B. Iranian II. Armenian III. Albanian IV. Balto-Slavic A. Baltic B. Slavic V. Hellenic or Greek VI. Italic VII. Celtic VIII. Germanic According to Groom, there are eight family divisions: 1) the Eastern group, 2) Armenian, 3) Greek, 4) Albanian, 5) Italic, 6) Balto-Slavonic, 7) Teutonic, and 8) Celtic (11). Groom does not expound upon each individual division, but he does devote six pages to the subject of Indo-European languages in general (9-14). J. N. Hook, in his chapter The Ancestors of English," describes the foundational work of Sir William Jones and Franz Bopp in reconstructing the prototype from which the branches of the IndoEuropean family were said to have sprung (23). To illustrate the validity of the Indo-European hypothesis, three rather detailed lists of Indo-European cognates are given, two illustrating similarities in cardinal numbers and one listing miscellaneous objects (25). In the appendix on 333 and 334, Hook provides diagrams of the Indo-European family divisions and the Germanic divisions respectively. The Centum and Satem divisions are illustrated on the Indo-European diagram on page 333: Indo-European Centum Languages Germanic Celtic Italic Hellenic

I

Satem Languages Balto-Slavic Indo-Iranian

I

McCrum, discussing "the common source" of Indo-European languages, devotes two pages to discussing the work of Sir William Jones. There are no charts or family trees provided, and the work of 36

Grimm is mentioned only in passing. Nonetheless, the story of common heritage of the languages is told for the purpose of introducing the migration of the Celtic people to the British Isles. McKnight dwells little on the characteristics that distinguish English, along with other Germanic languages, from the rest of the Indo-European family. There is a brief appendix entitled "The Near Relations of English," which compares English to the kindred Teutonic languages. It lists various versions of the Lord's Prayer, including Old High German, Gothic, Icelandic, Old English, and Modern Welsh. Myers does not attempt to enumerate systematically or to list the major branches of IndoEuropean, but he does reproduce a family tree chart from Webster's New World Dictionary of American Language (49). Myers calls attention to those specific branches of Indo-European which have the most relevance to the development of English. Nist lists leading branches of the Indo-European family, placing five in the Satem group and four in the Centum group. In his short, succinct list, he nevertheless includes most of the surviving languages and several of the extinct ones. Pyles includes a detailed diagram of the Indo-European major and minor subgroups. Perhaps no textbook outside of Baugh's has treated this topic with greater penetration. As Baugh has done earlier, Pyles notes monumental works of literature found within the major language groups. Sacred literature such as the Vedic manuscript as well as philosophical and lyrical works of Dante and Petrarch, for example, are noted for their contribution to the study of the language. Robertson and Cassidy suggest that geographical location is only one of several theories describing and classifying the nine divisions of the Indo-European family. Robertson observes, "they group together in one way on the basis of some features and in quite a different way on the basis of other features" (22). In a footnote, Prokosch's Comparative Germanic Grammar is cited as a good summary of these theories (21-22). Nine major divisions are enumerated and described on two pages but not subdivided in as much detail as Baugh or Bryant have done. A map with the geographical boundaries of the language group is placed immediately before the list. A table of cognates from ten different Indo-European languages compares cardinal numbers, pronouns, and family number terms (24). Williams gives a brief list of the members in the Indo-European family group and makes reference to the Centum-Satem split. Wrenn writes of eight main groups in this family, which themselves are divided into "Centum" and "Satem" languages. He points out that the Eastern group (Satem languages) contains certain basic changes from the original system, such as a shift in pronunciation of "guttural" consonants to "palatal" position (12). The following is a comparative table with the major lists from the nine major texts surveyed. An "x" indicates that the item is discussed in the text.

37

Indo-European Family Divisions
Family Division Satem 1. Indo-Iranian (Aryan) A. Indian B. Iranian 2. Armenian 3. Albanian 4. Balto-Slavic Centum 5. Hellenic 6. Italic 7. Celtic 8. Teutonic (Germanic) 9. Tokharian
X X X

BA

BL
X

BT

HK
X

MY

NI
X

PY

RN

WI

X X X

X X X
X

X

X

X

X X X X
X X

X X
X

X X X
X X

X
X X

X X
X

X X
X X

X
X

X X X
X X

X X X
X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X X

X X
X

X
X X

X X X

X
X X

X
X X X

X
X

Additional Features
Feature 1. Map Provided 2. Diagram Provided 3. Centum/Satem Distinction Grouping 4. Literary Work Listed 5. List of Cognates
X X

BA

BL

BT

HK

MY

NI

PY

RN
X

WI

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

One notices that any differences in these lists are largely a problem of nomenclature.

Teutonic

is equivalent to Germanic and Aryan is equivalent to Indo-Iranian. Tokharian is an extinct language which was formerly spoken in Chinese Turkestan. Most Indo-European diagrams omit this member from the family tree. 38

Scandinavian Influence and the Danelaw
Perhaps the most significant event responsible for inflectional decay was the Treaty of Wedmore and the Danelaw of 876. When the Danes and Saxons attempted to coexist, they found that their inflectional endings, so similar and yet so different from one another, became a nuisance. Saxons and Danes mutually leveled these inflections, especially with regard to the definite and indefinite article. The Scandinavians came to power in England by plundering England in three distinct stages, beginning in 787. They were halted by King Alfred's forces in 878 and given half of England at the Treaty of Wedmore, A line was drawn from London to Chester, separating the Danes' province from the Saxon territory. Peters (59) shows this dividing line in a map of England (right). Mario Pei feels that the most significant inflectional decay started at this point in time, when the Saxons and Danes found their inflectional endings to be close but not identical and, consequently, more a hindrance than a help. From this time on, the Scandinavian influence was to stay. In 991 a new Scandinavian assault was initiated. In 1014 King Cnute began his rule over England. The Danes were to be in power for the next 25 years. Some of the lexical (vocabulary) and phonological (sound) influences that the Scandinavians had on English are as follows: The /sk/ sound is not an Old English characteristic but is very Scandinavian. Consequently, vocabulary words such as sky, skin, skirt, and skill are Scandinavian in origin. The pronunciation of the hard /k/ and /g/ is also indicative of Scandinavian origin. Gift and goat also have Scandinavian origin. The replacement of the Teutonic diphthong /ai/ with /e/ is another Scandinavian influence. Aye and nay, reindeer and swain are Scandinavian rather than Saxon in origin. Baugh gives both a political and a linguistic analysis of the effect of the Danelaw upon the language. He discusses the political consequences of Danish and Saxon amalgamation as well as
PUt* 10. Scandinavian settlement! and southern limit of Danelaw. PERIODS OF ENGLISH

39

Scandinavian place names, loan words (and their influence upon the language), and the process by which case endings were "obscured and finally lost" (122). Bambas discusses the arrival of the Scandinavians in England, mentioning several Danish kings. He brushes past specifics on the Danelaw, merely mentioning that various sections of England north of the Thames were put under it. Why were the Scandinavians able to influence our language so much? According to Bambas, Scandinavian words were not hard to pronounce or remember and "had the attraction of fashion about them." These "fashionable" words were, however, "simple and homely ones, aside from names, as would be expected, since Viking society was in the preliterate stage." Old English and Old Norse were already quite similar because they shared many cognates with only slight differences in phonology. Some phonological clues of this similarity are given. Bambas states that although it was not as influential as French, "as many as 900 words of Scandinavian origin remain in standard English" (87-90). Although Berndt does not mention the Danelaw, he devotes about three pages to the Scandinavian influence. In two pages he briefly, but succinctly, illustrates how "lexical loans" of Scandinavian origin have been integrated into Old English and then Middle English. In about one page Berndt lists numerous examples of nouns, verbs, and adjectives of Scandinavian origin (64-65). Bolton makes no reference to this descriptor in his book. Bourcier and Clark discuss the Treaty of Wedmore, mentioning the Danelaw, and give two maps of Anglo-Saxon settlements and the approximate dialect areas (52-53). Bourcier credits the Danelaw with having a great influence on English vocabulary, especially in the form of borrowed words and placenames. Bradley discusses the rise of Danish kings and the extension of Scandinavian influence to those parts of the country which previously had been mostly pure English. He speaks of the Danes' role in altering grammatical inflections. He also discusses Scandinavian loan words. He states that those districts in which the Danes had settled are precisely those in which English grammar became simplified most rapidly. He feels that the Scandinavian admixture in the population was one of the causes contributing to the disuse of Old English inflections. These troublesome endings denoting case and gender were at first confused and then dropped. Bryant and Burchfleld do not mention the Danelaw although Bryant discusses the Scandinavian influence. Cannon limits the majority of his comments on Scandinavian influence to the loan words and sounds English has borrowed from Scandinavia. He devotes two paragraphs to showing that the borrowing of Scandinavian paradigms hastened the decay of English inflection between Old and Middle English. Cannon mentions the Danelaw twice but does not explain its importance. Claiborne devotes three pages to the history of King Alfred and the Danelaw. He draws the following conclusion: The fusion of English and Danes might conceivably have led to a sort of AngloNorse hybrid tongue, but English prevailed" (91). He maintains that only about 40 Norse words entered
40

Old English. Donahue believes that the Danelaw and Scandinavian influence on English was noticeable, but not completely debilitating. The English considered the Scandinavian people as neighbors, and as a result, the Old English language and Old Norse have many words in common. There were noticeable differences, however, in grammatical patterns. An influx of terms entered English from the Scandinavian vocabulary. The Danelaw "influenced government and law terminology" (31). A change can also be seen in the "extensive use of verbs with adverb prepositions" (32). Anglo-Saxon and Norse were so alike that before long, they simply were combined. Donahue is careful to point out that "classical Anglo-Saxon, with its genders and inflectional forms, went unaffected by the Danish invasion" (32). Although Emerson neglects to mention the Danelaw, he discusses the influence that the Danish (Norse) language had on Old English. He mentions that because the language of the Danes was so much like that of their English cousins, many Danish words were eventually adopted by English. Indications of probable Norse origin are listed below: 1. Teutonic words with the sound combination sk (written sk or sc). 2. Teutonic words with a hard g or k, where genuine English words would have y, y, or ch sounds. 3. Teutonic words with ei or ai, where native English words would have the Old English a or ae, or, in Modern English, o, or ea (ee) (153). Fernuld makes virtually no mention of the Scandinavian influence, other than a brief reference to the Scandinavian form aren (are) as the present indicative plural of the verb beon (to be), as used in the work Ormulum. Fernald states that this work, which was a paraphrase of biblical scripture, "marked one step in the transformation of Anglo-Saxon into modern English" (125). He makes no reference to the Danelaw. Gordon refers to Scandinavian influence in his chapter entitled "Borrowing and Enrichment," but the Danelaw is not mentioned. Groom's discussion of the Danelaw and the Norse influence is from a purely historical perspective. The Norse language had a different kind of effect as it was "unevenly distributed" throughout Britain. First, the Norse and their language were confined to Eastern Britain in what came to be called the Danelaw. Later, though, most dialects of the island adopted numerous Norse words. Groom stresses the importance of the Danelaw. It was from the Danelaw's area of greatest influence that the East Midland dialect would eventually emerge to prominence (32). Although Hook mentions neither the Treaty of Wedmore nor the Danelaw, he discusses the ways in which the Danish language has influenced Old English. Hook points out that the "velar stop with sibilant, as in 'skirt,* is a Scandinavian characteristic" (68). Hook also credits the loss of inflectional endings to Dane, Saxon, and Norman difficulties in communicating with each other (67). McCrum deals quite extensively with the story of the Viking Invasion, and especially of Alfred the Great, for his part as "savior of the English language" (70). McCrum mentions the Treaty of 41

Wedmore as well as the deterioration of the inflectional endings of Old English although he doesn't use the term "Danelaw." McKnight does not mention Scandinavian influence or the Danelaw. Myers briefly discusses the reign of the Danish kings and the resultant mixing of the Danish invaders and the English inhabitants. The direct effect on the emerging English language is not touched upon. Nist makes a short reference to the signing of the Treaty of Wedmore in 878 as well as to the "golden era of national unity" under King Alfred (the English Charlemagne) (95). The point is made, however, that the Danelaw was completely absorbed by the province of Wessex. Pyles does not discuss the Danelaw although he credits Scandinavian influence with the deletion of the conjunctive "that" (119). An example of this is as follows: "the reason that he came . . ." might be expressed, "the reason he came . . . ." Robertson discusses the invasion of the Danes but makes no reference to the Danelaw. Not only does Williams give a detailed account of Alfred's establishing of the Danelaw, but he is also the only one of the nine who provides a map showing the boundary between the Danes and the Saxons (59). Williams also observes the parallels between the Danes who were absorbed into Wessex and another group of Danes who were absorbed into Normandy. The Norsemen were extremely adaptable people. Although Wrenn doesn't discuss the Danelaw specifically, he covers the influence of Norsemen on Old English and on Middle English; he describes the Scandinavians as having left "considerable masses of Norse words and phrases, and even grammatical forms" (64).

42

Grammatical Gender
In all Indo-European languages other than English, words are arbitrarily classified into gender. Old English, as well as Modern High German, arbitrarily divides nouns into masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. The article, adjective, and verb change form depending on the gender or case of the noun. The following examples illustrate the difference between languages with grammatical gender and languages with natural gender.

Modern German (Masc) (Fern) (Neut) Der Mann Die Frau Das Madchen

Old English (Masc) (Fern) (Neut) Se Mann Seo Hlaefdige >aet Maegden

Modern English The Man The Lady The Girl

Note that in a language with grammatical gender, the article (as well as the adjective ending and verb) can be rendered in many different ways. The following is an example of the many ways the definite article is rendered in grammatical gender and natural gender.

Modern High German Masculine Nominative Genitive Dative Accusative Feminine Neuter Plural

Modern English

der des
dem den

die der der die

das des dem das

die der den die
the

Linguists claim that originally, gender probably had a semantic basis. A. Meillet, in his article, "The Feminine Gender in the Indo-European Languages," claims that the feminine gender was apparently linked to animate and living things while the masculine and neuter were linked to nonanimate things. Traces of this can be found in the French le ceil (masculine for sky) and la terre (feminine for earth), and in the German die Blume (feminine for flower) and der Felsen (masculine for rock). Many such distinctions can be found although the patterning is increasingly breaking down. Marcel Mauss feels that anymore, the "apportionment between the genders depends on very little." Other theories which try to explain grammatical gender suggest that the unifying principle seems 43

to be based on distinctions among certain characteristics, e.g. size and shape, hardness and softness, and forcefulness and acquiescence. Baugh suggests that this arbitrary classification in Old English (as well as many modern languages) is hardly grounded in logic. He describes several inconsistencies, such as the Old English mcegden (girl), designated as neuter, and wifinan (woman), designated as masculine (66). The possible rationale for grammatical gender is not investigated in this text although it is illustrated by several useful paradigms. Separate paradigms are produced for the noun, the adjective (demonstrating strong and weak declension), the definite article, and the personal pronoun. Baugh suggests that the substitution of natural gender for grammatical gender created a simplicity in Modern English which is "one of its chief assets" (66). Bambas decides to gloss over the subject of gender. He states that grammatical gender does not exist in English (8) and that the "English speakers dispensed with gender" in the period from 11001300. While discussing adjectives in Old English, he explains that the adjective then agreed with the modified noun in case, number, and gender, illustrating this with several paradigms of masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns (65). Bambas treats gender and the personal pronoun in a short section (66-71) and wraps things up by stating that morphological simplification by the disuse of grammatical gender is a result of "our over-willingness . . . to accommodate foreigners who were speaking English with an imperfect grasp of its grammatical niceties" (93). It is quite evident that Berndt wrote for German-speaking students. For instance, he shows clearly that Old English was very similar to Modern German, with respect to grammatical gender. Nouns were divided into masculine, feminine, and neuter classes in Old English. A German student could readily recognize these words and associate them with his own. To a student of Modern English, who did not grow up speaking a language with grammatical gender, it would be less effective for him to read this list of words. Berndt further states that gender assignment to nouns involves only a "partial correspondence between 'grammatical gender' of a noun and 'sex' as a component of its meaning (sometimes also referred to as 'semantic sex')" (116). Bloomfield and Newmark observe that the language user may be easily confused since "grammatical categories often partially parallel semantic ones" (154). There is a stern warning that it could be a mistake to follow this assumption too closely. Bloomfield and Newmark also illustrate the gender and case endings for the noun, the strong and weak declensions of the adjective, the definite article, and the personal pronoun. Bolton does not mention grammatical gender. Bourcler and Clark spend two paragraphs discussing the nature and replacement of grammatical gender in English. The example of mtegden (girl) is used to show that gender was grammatical and not semantic, and that "the only sure criterion of an Old English noun's gender therefore lies in its syntactic accompaniments" (86). The reasoning behind grammatical gender is not discussed. Bradley distinguishes between grammatical gender and "natural" gender in his discussion of the
44

differences between German and English. Later in the book he discusses the substitution of "natural" gender for grammatical gender. He also addresses the disappearance of grammatical gender and the reasons for that disappearance. Bradley views this as a wonderful change, yet, he says, although "we are apt to look on it as the most natural thing in the world that 'gender* should correspond to sex . . . it cannot be so very natural [since] English is the only language . . . in which it exists." Bryant, in much the same pattern as Baugh, makes a short generalization about grammatical gender in an introductory paragraph, and illustrates, by separate paradigms, the noun, the adjective, the definite article, and the personal pronoun. She also provides a summary (without stem words) of the "various inflexional endings which the nouns of the different genders and types may take" (35). Inflectional Endings in Old English Singular Nominative — u, a, e, o Genitive Dative — es, e, an — e, an, o Genitive Dative Plural Nominative — as, v, a, e, a — a, ena — um

Accusative — e, an, o

Accusative — as, v, a, e, an

Burchfield pays little attention to grammatical gender. He asserts that Middle English writers were not aware of the implications of the loss of grammatical gender. He also describes how Modern English does possess grammatical gender, i.e. masculine, feminine, and neuter. Cannon notes that in Old English, "each noun had its own grammatical gender . . . regardless of biological accuracy . . . . Today, of course, 'natural' gender operates." He illustrates both grammatical and natural gender with examples. Cannon explains that most nouns slowly lost gender and adopted the -s plural form. The nouns that did not use the -s form are now considered irregular. Noun determiners also lost grammatical gender. Claiborne describes grammatical gender as being another major conflict between Latin and Modern English. He states that as far as nouns themselves are concerned, grammatical gender had no significance. He gives an interesting equation for the number of inflectional forms for every adjective and pronoun in one of the sections on grammatical gender. "Since there were three genders, five cases and two numbers (singular and plural), this meant 3 x 5 x 2, or 30, inflexional forms for every adjective and pronoun"(13). Donahue notes the decline of grammatical gender in the Early Modern English period. In both Old English and Modern English, the gender of nouns had "no connection with their meanings and sometimes contradicted directly." She uses the example of "mfinan (woman) as being masculine, while wif (woman) and did (child) were neuter" (41). Donahue continues, "the gender of an Old English noun was often indicated by the form of an object or pronoun agreeing with it" (41). When inflections had decreased to the point that a noun's gender was indistinguishable, natural gender became a

45

necessity. Emerson only briefly discusses grammatical gender, not going into any elaborate detail. He points out that the grammatical gender of Old English changed to the neuter "with the loss of inflexional distinctions during Middle English" (289). A few examples are recorded to illustrate his point. Gordon gives several declensions: an a declension, o declension, i declension, and so on, and describes how some of the nouns in Modern English have been changed. Nearly all nouns in Modern English have been modified to conform to the masculine a declension, with an -s or -es added to make them plural (134). Hook, in his discussion of grammatical gender, refuses to go into elaborate detail. Only a few representative paradigms for the definite article (70) and the demonstrative pronoun (83) are used to illustrate his point. Hook, in praising the inflexional simplicity of modern English, suggests that while "Anglo Saxon children had no great trouble in learning distinctions," today's English language user, deluged with an increase of vocabulary, would find the mastery of this system nearly impossible (82). McCrum does not deal with the subject of grammatical gender at all, except in mentioning that Old English had genders that gradually disappeared. Myers attempts to offer some kind of rationale for the phenomenon of natural gender. Separating the concept of gender from sex, he states that grammatical gender may be "based on any kind of distinction, such as animate against inanimate or small against large" (265). Some languages, he claims, may have as many as a dozen different distinctions, all referred to as gender. Nist, in stating an "after-the-fact" fact, observes that gender is determined "solely on the basis of the way they [nouns, articles, etc.] form their case endings" (86). He provides a list of inconsistencies that contradict the notion of natural gender in Old English gender classifications. Since Nist compartmentalizes history and structure, the student is advised to consult the chapter entitled "The Structure of Old English," under the subheading "Morphology." Grammatical gender is referred to as a "morphemic nightmare," further complicating an already complicated inflectional system (121). Pyles discusses grammatical gender in a short unit, "Other Differences Between Old English and Modern English," in which he suggests that the "gender of a noun has nothing to do with sex, nor does it have sexual connotations in those languages which have retained grammatical (as opposed to 'natural') gender" (126). The inevitable list of inconsistencies follows this pronouncement. Following the discussion of logical inconsistencies, Pyles illustrates, by means of paradigms, masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns, demonstrative pronouns, and adjectives. The personal pronouns are listed without the aid of a paradigm. Robertson and Cassidy, in their section on gender, after distinguishing between grammatical and natural gender, illustrate the inconsistencies one would find by combining the two systems. The observation is also made in this text that "the simplification of gender began before the end of the Old English period" (119).
46

Williams continues the practice of listing masculine, feminine, and neuter words which do not correspond to natural gender. "Wifmann, mcedgen, and mihf are all listed as being out of their logical gender (239). Wifmann (woman) is masculine, mcedgen (girl) is neuter, and miht (might or strength) is feminine. Wrenn evaluates the word "grammatical" as concerning the gender in highly inflected IndoEuropean languages. In a language such as Modern English, which has lost much of that genderdetermining inflection, gender has become natural. Grammatical gender is a matter of form whereas natural gender relies on meaning-the sex or absence of sex of the noun, adjective, or pronoun in question (110).

47

Inflection in Old English
Two kinds of grammars distinguished by linguists are those which are synthetic, or inflected, and those which are distributive, or analytical. While analytic languages show relationships between words by means of word order, inflected languages show word relationships by means of endings affixed to the word stem, determined largely by gender and case. Examples of endings affixed to words which indicate relationships to other words (inflection) are as follows: Puella agricolam amat. (The girl loves the farmer.) Puellam agricola amat. (The farmer loves the girl.) In an inflected language, word order is only of secondary importance; the endings are the chief means of indicating word relationships. In the sentences above, the -am ending denotes receivership. Consequently, in the first sentence the farmer is being loved while in the second sentence the girl is being loved, even though the word order remains the same. Most linguists agree on three arbitrary periods of the history of the English language. These periods reflect a drastic process of leveling. Although greatly retarded, this process is still taking place. The three periods are: 1. The Period of Full Inflections (AD. 450-1150)~a time when noun, adjective, and verb endings were preserved intact. This highly inflected language is also called Old English. 2. The Period of Leveled Inflections (AD. 1150-1500). During this time the inflected endings eroded rapidly. The language structure moved toward a distributive system in which word order became a more determining factor than gender or case. This transitional phase of the language is called Middle English. 3. The Period of Lost Inflections (AD. 1500 to the present)~also called Modern English. In this phase the language is no longer dependent upon case endings to show relationship but has moved completely into the distributive or analytical system of showing relationships between words. The loss of the inflections is one of our language's greatest blessings. It represents a rejection of a needless complexity which troubles speakers of Modem German to this day. Some linguists claim that the highly inflected languages are moving in the direction of greater simplicity. Many speakers of Modern High German are currently muffling the adjective endings and using a common article which sounds something like /da/ or //a/. Baugh illustrates for the student the fundamental distinction between Modern English (an 48

analytical language depending on fixed word order) and Old English (a synthetic language with a grammar not unlike Modern High German). Although he realizes it would be impossible to illustrate the entire range of inflections of the Old English noun, Baugh produces two paradigms illustrating strong and weak declension of masculine and feminine adjectives. The two-fold declension of the adjective is illustrated through a comparative paradigm (strong and weak declension), displaying gender and case endings for the adjective god (good). Paradigms are also provided for the definite article and the personal pronoun. The Old English pronoun for dual relationship is also displayed. A table illustrating the seven classes of strong verbs and their principal parts is included along with a table illustrating the conjugation of the verb drifan (70). According to Bambas, "inflection of the Old English noun was not as elaborate as in Latin or Greek, but some objective case inflection, in the dative, was still retained." Following this statement are paradigms for eorl, horse (uninflected), ox (weak), adjectives such as good (strong and weak declension), and personal pronouns for first, second, and third person singular, plural, and dual form (61-70). Berndt gives a comprehensive list of nine peculiarities of plural inflection in Old English. Again, he gives a copious list of examples. He states that Old English had a number of "genitive singular affixes, the selection of which was largely determined by gender-class membership (masculine/neuter vs. feminine)" (122). Bloomfleld and Newmark suggest that one of the reasons the connotation of grammar has largely fixated to usage is the emphasis "of the various types of inflections in a language" (48). In the unit on the morphology of Old English are found paradigms illustrating the noun, the personal pronoun, the double declension of adjectives, and the seven classes of strong verbs. Bolton does not specifically refer to inflection as such, but he introduces the topic by means of discussion of the use of prepositions to add meaning and show relation to other words in the sentence. Paradigms illustrating any strong or weak declensions of nouns and verbs are few, yet some examples of a singular or plural subject are provided on pages 3 and 4. Furthermore, the author draws a close comparison between Old English poetic diction and Old English language in general, noting that with inflection a poet can more effectively make use of his language because of the freedom of "word-order to interlace the words in each line in a fixed pattern of alliteration." Although he does mention the idea of "stress," which can be placed on various words and syllables, the author seems to place more importance upon the "alliterative scheme" into which these stressed words fit. Bourcier and Clark are very generous in the coverage of inflection; a 20-page chapter is devoted to explaining this topic. They present the opinion that Modern English most likely could not be traced to the Indo-European family unless Old English were studied, so great is the difference between the two. Five pages are devoted to noun declension, including nine nouns in paradigms (87-90). Paradigms for adjectives (96) and for the personal pronoun (91) are also provided (96). Bradley begins by defining the three periods of English: Old, Middle, and Modern. In the case of Old English, he touches upon nominatives, genitives, adjectival inflections, conjugation of verbs, and 49

subjunctive mood. He brings into his discussion a passage of Old English prose, which he describes as having "the aspect of a foreign language." He then continues, giving some rules or directions on how to translate the passage; in this regard, he says that it would be impossible in his book to give any complete rules for Old English pronunciation. Bryant, like Baugh, selects two examples from the vowel declension and one from the consonant declension to illustrate the complex system of inflectional endings for nouns. Paradigms are produced for strong and weak adjectives as well as for the definite article and the personal pronouns. The instrumental case is illustrated in both the adjective and definite article paradigms. The seven classes of irregular verbs are shown in a table along with a complete conjugation list for first, second, and third person, in the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative moods (39). In her chapter entitled "The Nature of English Grammar," Bryant suggests that while only one in six words in Modern English is inflected, the majority of Old English words were inflected (197). Bryant demonstrates that inflection, though greatly leveled, still exists in the pronouns me, us, him, her, them, and whom (237), and in the -ster and -ess endings, denoting natural gender (242). Old English possessed a set of inflections more complicated by far than our own, says Burchfleld, but less complicated than those of Greek or Latin (4), Burchfield covers inflection of nouns in Old English according to case (nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative) (10). He shows inflectional differences between Old English and Middle English by comparing Beowulf to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Because Old English was an inflected language, customary, but not obligatory, rules affected the normal subject-verb-object rule (157). Cannon includes a passage from a late West Saxon translation of Mark 4:1-10 for analysis of syntactic, semantic, and phonological components, including inflection. In this way, he compares and contrasts Old and Modern English. He focuses on three forms of inflections: tense, plurals, and gender. Cannon explains the influence of inflection on nouns, verbs, determiners, adjectives, and pronouns; he provides examples for each of these categories. Because Cannon's emphasis is on structure, inflectional references are inserted within that framework. The Old English inflections, according to Claiborne, distinguish past tense from present tense in verbs. He follows this statement with a few examples of past ("weak") verbs and present ("strong") verbs. He speaks mainly of how the inflectional verb forms in Old English confused the Danes. He then explains their part in transforming strong verbs into weak ones with the normal -ed ending (93). Donahue provides little information concerning inflection in Old English, besides addressing the fact that it existed. She writes that it was in the thirteenth century that the Old English inflectional system began to decay (40). It was also during this period that the Scandinavian and French-speaking people influenced the inflectional endings of Old English, causing their decay (41). In the unit entitled "The History of English Inflections," Emerson designates individual chapters for noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, adverb, and other forms of inflections. These chapters highlight the Old English declensions, then proceed to discuss and illustrate thoroughly both the inflectional decay 50

and the modern usage of each. Fernald does not devote more than a few sentences, scattered throughout his text, to inflection in Old English. He refers to a poem entitled the "Brut," by Layamon, said to have been written around the year 1200, in which, Fernald says, many of the old inflections are used (121). He goes on to say that the inflections began to disappear in the thirteenth century. Gordon gives this description of inflection in Old English: the personal pronoun in Old English had four different case forms: the nominative case, for the subject; the accusative case, for the direct object; the dative case, for the indirect object; and the genitive case, for possession. The dative and accusative cases were also used after prepositions. Thus, the masculine pronoun had the forms he in the nominative, hime in the accusative, him in the dative, and his in the genitive. In Old English nouns, the nominative and accusative had already begun to blend together. Eorl (nobleman), for example, was the same in both nominative and accusative singular, and eorlas (noblemen) was the same in nominative and accusative plural (60-61, 132-143). Hook is lavish in his examples from Old English, demonstrating the "chameleon-like" quality of the definite article. A summary of the most common forms of Old English pronouns is presented in table form and then illustrated with the biblical parable of the prodigal son (72). The seven classes of irregular verbs are placed on a table, followed by a complete conjugation of the Old English verb helpan (80). A conjugation table for the weak verb macian (to make) immediately follows the example of strong verb conjugation. Paradigms demonstrating inflectional endings for nouns are sparse. Hook uses only a brief declension table for the word fisc (fish), which, he states, is fairly representative (82). A paradigm for the demonstrative pronouns (83), as well as the definite article (70), helps to round out the picture of the Old English inflectional system. McCrum does not deal with inflectional decay except to say that Old English was inflected "like most European languages of the time" (70). McCrum gives a couple of examples and then explains that the "simplification of English by the Danes helped to eliminate these word endings" (70), and that the word endings were then replaced by prepositions. McKnight deals with this facet of the history of the English language in a short section covering about four pages. He explains that the genitive singular form was reserved usually to indicate possession; the difference between singular and plural was indicated by use of the strong masculine. Otherwise, he adds, most of the inflections were dropped (34). For example, the plural for the neuter word word was wordes in Chaucer's time, yet it was either word, worda, or wordum in Old English (334). Many of the inflectional endings, such as -a, -u, -e, -an and -urn, were reduced to a uniform -e (34). However, as McKnight points out, some continue to exist today; oxen, sheep, and children are examples. Similarly, in pronouns, he states, "the older inflectional endings were longer retained," and many exist even today (35). He assumes that this decay is a result of "natural use in the course of a long period during which there was no cultivated use to give check to the natural process of changes" (36). 51

Myers provides an abundant number of examples of the inflectional system, summarizing the main characteristics in paragraph form and illustrating the pattern through tables and paradigms. Five nouns-three masculine, one feminine, and one neuter-are presented in parallel paradigms (74). Other paradigms are given for the personal pronouns (76). The strong and weak declensions for the adjective god (good) are also placed in parallel paradigms. The seven classes of irregular verbs are presented on a table in the infinitive, preterit, singular, plural, and past participle. Following the tables and illustrations; Myers gives a compact summary of Old English inflections on page 88: Old English nouns and pronouns were inflected to indicate gender, number, and case. The adjectives were also inflected for comparison (big, bigger, biggest). Verbs were inflected for person, number, tense, and mood, and there were a few traces (too slight to be worth discussing in this chapter) of inflection for voice. Nist, whose comments on grammatical gender and case endings have already been recorded, provides two paradigms for the strong declensions and one for the weak in illustrating the inflections of nouns in Old English (86). Two paradigms are provided for the adjective eald (old), one for the strong declension and one for the weak declension (84). Nist observes that in the Old English inflectional system, "flexibility of positioning is a marked feature" (85). Pyles does not group all nouns into a single table with five parallel paradigms; rather, he presents each major pattern of inflection with separate paradigms, the patterns having the largest proportion of the inflectional decay first. The first paradigm, for example, is for the masculine noun hund (dog), which represents the pattern of which more than a third of all nouns were inflected. Next in importance are the masculine nouns axa, utilizing the -n ending, and fSt, changing its form by shifting the vowel sound to /i/ and adding the -6 ending (129). The description of the feminine noun and its paradigm is treated separately. Separate paradigms are included for the demonstrative pronoun (133), the weak adjective declension (134), and the strong adjective declension (135). Although both the personal pronoun and the interrogative pronoun are adequately described, they are not placed in paradigms. The seven classes of strong irregular verbs are not placed on a single table, but on seven separate tables sandwiched between illustrative explanatory paragraphs. A specimen of Old English is taken from a sermon by ^Elfric, with interlinear Modern English translation (147).

52

Robertson and Cassidy provide a unique table (111), illustrating the number of inflected forms for six Indo-European languages as well as the degree of inflectional decay:

Sanskrit Nominative Vocative Accusative
Genitive
Dative

Latin

Greek

Old English

Modern German

Moderi English

/'

/

''?*

J- ' /"I /I
' '1

/ "1

//I
/ /i *

Ablative Locative
Instrumental

/
i

'/

// I i

/A I '

' '' ! ' ,'

The solid lines indicate preserved forms. The dots indicate weakened forms. The dashes indicate merged forms. The student is able to visualize the comparative degree of inflection of Modern English and other Indo-European relatives. This table also demonstrates that English is not alone in the leveling of inflectional forms. Very complete groups of paradigms are produced for the masculine, neuter, and feminine nouns (116). Paradigms are given for the first person pronoun (124), second person pronoun (124), third person pronoun (127), interrogative pronoun (129), the definite article, and the demonstrative pronoun

(13).
The classes of strong verbs are placed on two tables-one for the six main classes and one for the so-called reduplicating group of verbs, along with their Modern English equivalents. Williams uses a transformational model to generate the noun phrase. Case endings are illustrated in much the same way as semantic selectional features:

art [+ definite] [+ dative]

Paradigms are included to illustrate Old English articles (235), nouns (236), and first-, second-, and third-person pronouns (242). The seven classes of strong verbs are listed (261), followed by a complete conjugation pattern of one strong verb (262) and one weak verb (263). The unit on verb

53

inflection is concluded with several comparative paradigms illustrating the Old English, Middle English, and Modern English conjugation of the verb to be (266). Although there are many advantages in the "receptive and adaptable heterogeneousness" of English, Wrenn shows that there are disadvantages to this simplistic inflectional system. One disadvantage is that since the relationship of words to each other is no longer made clear by their endings, this must be done in other ways. Also, the tendency toward fixed word order in English allows little freedom in word arrangement, unlike Latin or Russian (7). The table located on the next page is a capsule summary of the locations of paradigms and tables for selected inflectional features in selected texts.

54

Paradigms of Inflectional Features

TOPICS Noun Inflection Combined Table Separate Tables Masculine Feminine Neuter Definite Article Interrogative Pronoun Demonstrative Pronoun Personal Pronoun First Second Third Dual Adjectives Strong Weak Verb Strong Weak Specimen of Old English

BA

BL

BT

HK

MY 74

NI

PY

RN

WI

65

35

81

86

236 128 130 116 116

67

37

70

130 79 129 133 130 124 124 127 124 84 84 82 135 134 143 138 139
89 147

235

83 68 68 68 68 66 66 69 38 38 38 38 36 36 39 79 80
71 194

78 76 76
76 76

72 72 72 72

242 242 242 242

80 80 84

262 263

72

55

Caxton and Printing

The single event which was responsible more than anything else for catapulting English from a group of loosely related oral dialects to a formidable competitor with French, German, and Italian was the introduction of printing by William Caxton in 1476. Although moveable type was originally invented in China, the introduction of printing to the western world was made by Johann Gutenberg. The first printed matter in Europe was a papal indulgence dating from 1454. The Mazarin Bible was the first booklength work, printed in Europe in 1456. Before 1500, according to Baugh, the number of books printed in Europe (largely in Latin) reached 35,000. By 1640, 20,000 titles in English had appeared. Since books were now within the grasp of everybody instead of being the property of a privileged few, the language could be spread rapidly. Because of multiple copies of identical books, a powerful force for standardization of the language was at last available. Coupled with popular education, the printing press was to be the most powerful influence on the stabilization and spread of the language. The effects of a written language over a period of time are to stabilize the grammar and spelling. The growth of the vocabulary, however, is promoted since the language is carried into social classes it had not reached before. Prior to the printing press, English had been a loosely related group of oral dialects. With the advent of the printing press, it reached a status equal to French, Spanish, and Latin. Baugh, in his discussion of Caxton, credits the printer for "the dissemination of London English," having used the "current speech of London" in his numerous translations (235). Caxton's remarks about vocabulary selection, affixed to his paraphrase of Virgil's Aeneid, illustrate his concern about using vocabulary items which would be accepted by the English people. Unlike Williams and Robertson, Bum bus makes short work of the treatment of Caxton and printing. He mentions, on page 130, that the use of printing led to the "Revival of Learning," and that the introduction of printing was a major factor in making Southeast Midland the standard dialect of England. The dialect was spread after Caxton learned printing on the Continent and began to print in London. All those who could read became familiar with written standard English (126). Be melt's organization of the text emphasizes the three main sections into which it is divided: lexis, morphology/syntax, and phonology. This descriptor, therefore, is not discussed. Caxton's name is mentioned only a few times. Rloom field observes that Caxton and other Middle English printers attempted to represent Middle English pronunciation in the spelling. The phonemic principles which they adopted were "often applied inconsistently," according to Bloomfield (230). Bourcier and Clark's discussion of the effects of Caxton is found in the pages devoted to the standardization of English. He quotes Caxton's written complaints about the nonstandard language. 56

However, "Caxton by no means wholly standardized his language," and printers like Caxton "found the existence of spelling variants a great help in justifying their lines" (179). Eventually, printing led to the spreading of the London standard throughout the country. Bolton makes a mere mention of the feat of Caxton's accomplishments. He points out, however, that his opening of a printing press had "the effect of creating a demand for a standard written English." The author himself quotes Caxton regarding his views of how the printed word affected linguistic diversity. Caxton's works drew attention to the diversity of the spoken language while at the same time being able to overcome diversity of both time and space. At first, Bradley only mentions Caxton in passing. He groups Caxton with other mentionable people "whose influence on the vocabulary and phraseology of literary English had been of great importance." Later in his writings, he relates the subject of spelling to Caxton. Caxton had adopted basically the same spelling as that of 15th-century East Midland scribes when he set up his press in Westminster in 1476. Since the time of Caxton, spelling has remained much the same although pronunciation has changed in many ways. Burchfield states that Caxton and other printers accepted the spelling patterns of the late Middle English period and rendered them relatively immobile (22). "Caxton punctuated his texts with full-length and short oblique strokes, and with stops" (25). Burchfield goes on to describe how Caxton*s stops were normally lozenge-shaped and how they differed from those used in Shakespeare's works. Cannon mentions Caxton as having "revolutionary effects upon standardizing the written word" with the introduction of the printing press (104). He adds, "The printing press permitted a cheap, mechanical way to reproduce texts that never varied in spelling or in any other way. One page of type could print an indefinite number of copies, each copy orthographically identical. The freezing of English orthography was thereby hastened" (127). Caxton is noted as being an advocator of "fixing" English orthography. Claiborne devotes several pages to the history of William Caxton and his part in printing. He states, "Far more important for England and for English than the noisy clash of feudal armies was an unobtrusive event of 1476: the return of the merchant William Caxton from the Low Countries where he had learned the new craft of printing" (146). He speaks of Caxton's works as being the first step in spreading literacy and knowledge to more people. Regarding printing in general, Claiborne writes, "The growth of printing, inevitably centered in London, could only strengthen the influence of this dialect" (147). Donahue highlights William Caxton and the setting up of his printing press as one of the important stages in the development of the English language (6). She goes on to write that the influence of printing was slow to develop because of the low level of education at the time. As education improved, so did the importance of the printing press. It was Caxton who made some interesting observations on the problems the language was encountering in going from the Middle stage to the Early Modern stage (53-54). The difficulty was that the radical change in vowels made it difficult 57

to write words the way they were being pronounced. Although the graphic symbols remained the same, the pronunciation changed (55). Emerson cites Caxton as the father of English printing. He notes that Caxton's printed works, having been spread abroad in England, "strengthened the literary language already established"1 (78). Emerson also credits Caxton as helping to establish London English as the standard language by employing it in his own works. Emerson brings to light that Caxton's great influence may be seen from the fact that his contemporaries accused him of using "over curious terms, which could not be understood by common people" (166). Fernald makes a brief reference to Caxton, stating that with the advent of printing, multiple copies of books were made available. Written in the same style of English as Chaucer and Wycliff, these books were greatly influential in establishing the permanence of the language. Gordon lists four principal effects of the printing press set up in 1476 by William Caxton: 1. Books were printed in greater numbers and were cheaper, so those of lower or less wealthy classes could afford to own them. Hence, a greater literacy level developed. 2. Caxton also translated Latin, French, Italian, and later, Greek, thereby acquainting those who lacked a classical education with some of the humanistic and literary interests of the day. 3. The growth of the printing industry created a general desire for a standard language, particularly in vocabulary and spelling. 4. The role of the native language (English), because it was used in books printed by Caxton, improved its status in competition with Latin as the language of learned men. Some authors began to feel that they could express themselves in English as well as in Latin. Some were still not fully satisfied with English, so they used Latin words in English contexts. Gordon believes that there is enough evidence of change in the English language to date the beginning of Modern English from the establishment of Caxton's printing press at Westminster in 1476, or from the accession of Henry VII in 1485 (167). Groom writes little about Caxton, but what he does write of Caxton's influence on the English language proves to be of great importance. He cites Caxton and Chaucer as the two main contributors to the dominance of the East Midland dialect. Caxton printed the first English books (69). Hook lists some immediate effects which Caxton's press had upon grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. Some significant influences he notes for grammar are the gradual disappearance of the double negative and the increasing number of verbs, such as help and climb, changing from strong to weak (145). McCmm describes Caxton's work and the idiosyncrasies of the language he dealt with in translating books into English. He also mentions his influence in fixing the language, and also his influence on some of its "chaotic [and] exasperating spelling conventions" (86). McKnight does not cover Caxton and printing. Myers, in his unit on the "Introduction of Printing," suggests that "it would be hard for us to 58

pick a more strategic date for the invention to have its maximum effect" (175). He cites the reduction in cost of duplicating and the possibility of spreading education as the most significant effects that Caxton's press had on the history of the language. Nist credits Caxton with establishing a "literary standard and a popular literacy" (171). Both of these factors were considered essential for the stabilization of the language. Pyles, in his discussion of usage, points out that Caxton's criterion was greatly different from modern standards. According to Pyles, Caxton's "standard of excellence was the usage of persons of good position-quite a different thing from our servile obedience to the mandate of badly informed authorities." Except for discussion of spelling difficulties, Pyles devotes little attention to the effects of printing on the language. Robertson and Cassidy's text is quite lavish in its praise of Caxton's contribution. Among the contributions attributed to Caxton are the elimination of dialectal diversity through the standardization of spelling (50), the introduction of words that bear Caxton's own stamp of creation (222), and the standardization accomplished by the printing of Chaucer's works (237). Williams gives Caxton high marks for fanning the flames of the Renaissance. According to Williams, "in the 16th century, one translation after another appeared: Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, Plutarch, Caesar, Livy, Sal lust, Tacitus, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Ovid, Horace, Terence, Theocritus, Homer, St. Augustine, Brethuis, Erasmus, Calvin, Luther" (91). Williams calls the 16th century a rich but unappreciated period in English literature. Caxton, of course, is credited with having made it all possible. Wrenn believes that because Caxton, as publisher, editor, and printer, had absolute control of introductory English printing, he inevitably influenced printing conventions in spelling. Wrenn also observes that the time of the early printers coincided with the increasing need of spelling conventions.

59

Inflectional Decay in Middle English
If one looks at the phenomenal growth of English—from the despised jargon of a peasant class, immediately after the Norman conquest, to the most influential international language that has ever existed~the loss of inflections apparently has been a most beneficial occurrence. In comparison to the case and gender paradigms of the other Indo-European languages, English has relatively few patterns to master. In languages where both word order and inflectional endings indicate relationship, inflectional endings would seem superfluous. During the Middle English period, inflectional suffixes were gradually leveled. Phonetic changes and the operation of analogy are the principal reasons given for this occurrence. Samuel Moore has explained that the final -m (usually used in the dative form) was gradually changed to -n and, ultimately, dropped completely. Another phonetic leveling process can be seen in the substitution of the uniform -e for the variety of distinct vowel or vowel nucleus endings: -a, -u, -e, -an, and -um. Analogy was the second major reason for the loss of inflection. The analogy in this case was a perceived similarity and frequency in language patterns. Baugh explains that since the cases of the plurals most frequently used contained s, gradually s was thought of as the sign of all plural forms. Consequently, in Middle English, a very pronounced pattern emerged—the -s or -es, indicating plural number in the strong declension, and -en, indicating plural number in the weak declension. The adjective endings which distinguished between singular and plural, -a and -an, gradually became leveled to -e. Since the ending ~e no longer had any grammatical meaning, it survived only as a spelling feature. The pronoun was simplified in much the same way as the noun and adjective. Relationships were no longer indicated by gender and case endings, but instead by word order. Function words such as prepositions replaced the dative and genitive case endings. Demonstrative pronouns reflected the greatest loss of case endings. Only the and that (out of numerous forms indicative of gender and case) have survived into Modern English. The personal pronouns--/ie, him, she, her, and so on-retained more of the endings than the other pronouns. Some native speakers disregard the purpose of these endings in the construction, "Him and me went down town." A dative pronoun is used in the slot usually reserved for the nominative case, but the meaning is still understood by the syntax. Strong verbs-those verbs which changed principal parts by changing the vowel-gradually became conjugated as weak verbs—those verbs in which tense is indicated by a simple addition of -d or -ed, and so on. Baugh suggests that nearly a "third of the strong verbs seem to have died out in the Early Middle English period." Through the principle of analogy (defined by Baugh as "the tendency of language to follow certain patterns and adapt a less common form to a more familiar one") strong verbs became conjugated as weak verbs. Note that strive, stove, striven can also be conjugated strive, strived, strived, much the same as light, lit, lit can be conjugated light, lighted, lighted. 60

Baugh, in his discussion of Middle English grammar, describes the Middle English period as a time of "general reduction of inflections" (190). The process more specifically is described as a drastic alteration in the pronunciation of the noun and adjective endings, a change which rendered their very existence useless. Baugh cites two reasons for this dramatic change. In his discussion of the Middle English adjective, Baugh states that the pressure of analogy had forced the "nominative singular to extend to all cases of the singular and the nominative plural to extend to all cases of the plural" (192), the result being that the endings no longer had grammatical significance. In the pronouns, Baugh points out that of all the numerous forms of the definite article, only the has remained (193). The losses of the dual number pronoun (193), the massive losses of strong verbs (195), and the regularization of the survivors are noted by Baugh. The sense of historical continuity is accomplished for the student by the listing of strong participles and strong verbs which have been preserved down to the present. The conversion of grammatical to natural gender is described as a consequence of Middle English inflectional decay (199). Bambas writes, "Analogy drew most nouns into the dominate pattern illustrated by the paradigm for eorr (114):
Singular Plural

Nominative Genitive Dative Accusative

corl eorles eorle corl

eorlas eorla corlum eorlas

However, "analogy stopped short of functioning absolutely as shown by swine and deer . . . . Many members of weak declension were absorbed into the dominant pattern of eyen -+ eyes, earen -»• ears* (115). Bambas explains the effect that analogy had on the extension of the -s inflection from genitive singular to genitive plural. He remarks that analogy fails in absolute operation, concluding that "linguistic change is a fitful phenomenon, not one managed by intelligent design" (115). By the Late Middle English period, he says, much inflection, if not most, was lost. The causes Bambas gives for the loss are twofold: 1. The native accommodation of foreigners' English. 2. The temporary loss of respect for the traditional patterns of the mother tongue. Bambas feels that the reduction of inflectional variants during the Middle English period had the effect of causing English grammar to become "a tangle of syntax rather than a tangle of morphology" (117). Berndt devotes a few pages to this descriptor. He asserts that the inflectional -e did not altogether disappear in Early Middle English (131). Again, he gives a list of examples to compare with the Old English listed earlier. He gives another illustration: the person/number marking in the past indicative of the Old English was rather similar to Middle English. He mentions that the changes that took place at that time included the plural form. Before the Middle English period was over, there was a total abandonment of the inflectional suffix (132).

61

Bloomfield and Newmark cite three factors contributing to the loss of inflection. "The strong accent on the root of the word, the mixture of languages (Scandinavian and Saxon, Saxon and French), and the lack of a dominant dialect" are cited as the principal reasons for inflectional decay (183). Each of these reasons is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. The leveling of endings is diagrammed on page 184 for the student as follows: [urn] > [un] > [5n] > [9] > [?] The diacritical mark represents nasalization, which would have caused the consonant immediately following to be overshadowed. Rolton's discussion of Middle English decay of inflections proceeds from the premise that "the English that we find has been changing freely" and that this time of change is just part of the process. Despite the changes of some older verb and noun endings, the developing "modern" appearance of the word order and the reliance on prepositions continued to chip away at the inflectional foundation. According to Bolton, "there continued to be dialect divisions in the Middle English period, many more than in the Old English period" (9-11). The author maintains that although the Germanic word stock of Old English remained somewhat undisturbed in areas, it changed rapidly in other areas due to one main cause. This he attributes chiefly to the borrowing from the French brought by the Norman Conquest. Bourcier and Clark devote a detailed 12-page chapter entitled "Inflection Changes" to the subject. The chapter begins by saying that if you are to study a proper example of Middle English, you must look at fourteenth-century Middle English, and not the English of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The former period was characterized by stability and maturity while the latter was characterized by great variation. Clark, unlike many other authors, gives no concrete reasons for the decay, but he presents problems in a topical format, first illustrating the problem and then showing improvement after the change. He begins with the noun, then moves to the pronoun, the article, and the adjective. To illustrate that decay was a process, he gives comparative paradigms for the thirdperson pronoun, comparing the eleventh and fourteenth centuries (145). Bradley proposes two basic causes which have hastened the progress of languages toward grammatical simplicity. These two causes are phonetic change and the mixture of peoples speaking different languages or different dialects of the same language. When he discusses phonetic change, he hints at Grimm's Law and at the Great Vowel Shift. He continues to discuss bits of inflectional decay and how speakers simplify inflections, then he spends time emphasizing the mixture of peoples as a large contributor to decay. Bradley sums up this view in one statement: "The simplification of the inflectional machinery of a language is powerfully stimulated by the absorption of large bodies of foreigners into the population and by the mixture of different dialects." Several pages are then devoted to specific examples of inflectional endings and how they have changed through time. Bryant follows a pattern similar to Baugh by generally discussing inflection loss, then specifically and systematically discussing the noun, the adjective, the definite article, personal pronouns, and verbs. 62

Bryant, in her discussion of the principal parts of the verb, lists the endings in the reiterate plural and the present participle, which have merged (58). Two tables are produced to indicate the extent to which the endings of Old English had been abandoned (54). Burchfield does not cover this topic. Cannon makes scattered remarks about inflectional decay. He feels that borrowing from the Scandinavians and Danes, the increased use of "natural" gender, and the -s plural form all contributed to the loss of many inflectional endings. Determiners lost most grammatical gender as did nouns in order to remain in agreement. Words such as that, those, this, and these are still inflected for the number of the noun. He notes that the pronouns have retained their inflections. Adjectives are inflected by the addition of degree. Verbs are still inflected for person and tense. Despite continued inflection, dependent mostly upon the noun, English has fewer inflections than most languages since it depends on word order for meaning. Claiborne does not specifically discuss inflectional decay in Middle English, but he refers to decay of inflection in the English language in general. He gives the credit for inflectional decay to the Danes. Following the Danish Invasions, inflections were dropped or mumbled into a vague uh sound. "The Danes," says Claiborne, "did what you would expect: transformed strong verbs into weak ones with the normal -ed ending" (93). He also states that between AD. 1100 and 1200, nearly one-third of the nearly 300 strong verbs in English were transformed. Donahue gives special attention to the phonetic changes that took place in writing and in speech from 1100-1500. She observes that "word order became more fixed and use of prepositions and auxiliary verbs to express meanings of lost inflections increased" (37). Soon foreign pronouns were "gradually adopted" into speech (37). She continues, "the use of the genitive and plural in -sn in most nouns spread, "and not for only those of one declension" (37). She discusses how the language changed in grammatical structure, sound, meanings of words, and nature of word stock (38). Some words were borrowed, some consonants were dropped, and still others changed in sound. In these transitional years and in later years, the Old English inflectional system continued to decay. "Weakening vowels of lightly stressed syllables" continued (41). Because of this inflectional decline, prepositions began to be used more and more (41). Donahue also covers the importance of these early years in changing the English language. Emerson devotes an entire unit to the inflections of the English language, and a chapter to inflectional leveling. He points out that the leveling tendencies were particularly strong during the Middle English period. Only a slight similarity of the original system remained because the older inflections were so thoroughly broken down. Emerson also discusses the impossibility of any considerable French influence on inflectional forms. He provides the example of the early inflectionless Orm language and argues that it shows no French influence whatsoever (283). The author also reveals that there was a great inflectional loss when Old English ceased to be the standard. During this time, manuscripts were written in the dialect most familiar to the writer. The absence of a standard, plus the 63

fact that it occurred in many localities, contributed to the acceleration of leveling during the Middle English period. Gordon's text features a 24-page chapter entitled "Modern English, Grammatical Forms, Old and New." He gives examples of change in most parts of speech and shows the difference between Old English and Modern English nouns by the use of the ~n and the -s and -es. He shows the change in adjectives and adverbs, such as using "more" and "most" or their variants instead of an -s or -es. Some changes also occurred in Old English: near became nigh and some t's were added (e.g., amiddes to amidst). Articles and pronouns changed. At the end of the Middle English period, the first-person singular pronoun / was established. Ye/you became thou/thee and that/which became what. Pronouns, compound personal pronouns, case, and verbs are all discussed. There was not yet strict grammatical legislation. Gentlemen and the educated middle class "accepted their linguistic tradition and used it with confidence and skill" (198). Overall, this is one of the most thoroughly described descriptors in the book. Groom briefly describes what he terms "phonetic decay," but he does not elaborate upon the topic or provide specific examples of inflectional decay. The main factor in the decay, according to Groom, was the need for better communication between the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons. He writes, Two races, so placed, would naturally try to evolve a means of communication in which inflexions counted for as little as possible-a process which would lead to much [inflectional] laxity" (27). Hook supports Robertson's contention that language mixtures played a significant role in leveling the endings. He suggests, "If a Norman who knew a little English deigned to use it, he tended to slur or ignore the endings of words, and some Englishmen no doubt began to do the same thing in talking with the Normans" (100). He later reiterates this assumption that "linguistic mix-ups resulting from having two widely-used languages accelerated the change" (114). Although he does not state it explicitly, Hook seems to agree with Baugh's assertion that pressure of analogy and change in pronunciation habits were also partly responsible for inflectional decay. In his discussion of nouns, Hook describes the battle between the -s and -en plural endings, with the resultant dominance of the -s form. In his discussion of adjective endings, Hook greatly abbreviates the extensive treatments given to the subject by Baugh, Bloom field, and others. To illustrate his perfunctory treatment, one might observe Hook's description of the acquisition of the -e ending in which he states, "Middle English adjectives slowly lost their complex patterns of endings. For a time, both singular and plural forms remained, but then these too merged. An -e ending, typical of many adjectives, remained for a while with the pronunciation [a], but gradually it too disappeared from speech" (115). The perfunctory treatment continues in the discussion of verbs, in which the explanation for the disappearance of strong verbs seems to be that both strong and weak verbs existed side by side, with the pressure of analogy forcing the adoption of the weak form. McCrum does not deal specifically with the inflectional decay in Middle English except to say, 64

"Perhaps the most vital simplification, now fully established, was the loss of Old English word endings" (78). McKnlght deals with this area of the English language in a short section covering about four pages. He explains that the genitive singular form was preserved, usually to indicate possession, and that the difference between singular and plural was indicated by the use of the strong masculine. Otherwise, most of the inflections dropped (134). For example, the plural for the neuter word was wordes in Chaucer's time, but was either worde, worda, or wordum in Old English (33-4). Many of the inflectional endings, such as -a, -u, -e, -an, and -urn, were reduced to a uniform -e (34). However, as he points out, some continue to exist today; oxen, sheep, and children are examples. Similarly, in pronouns, he states, The older inflectional endings were longer retained" and many even exist today (35). no cultivated use to give check to the natural process of changes" (36). Myers states that the loss of inflections replaced by a standard word order was the "most important structural change in Middle English" (127). The development of the present participle is shown as a merger of three alternate dialect forms: "-and in the North, -end in the Midland, and -but in the South" (127). Confusion with the gerund is offered as the explanation for this blending. Although he admits that his explanation is superficial, Myers suggests that the "rubbing" of English with French put too much of a strain on the old inflections, the result being that they were forgotten (128). Nist, in his unit on the "History of Middle English: 1150-1500," provides a one-page overview of the simplification of inflections, offering as explanation for this phenomenon: (1) the stressing of the root syllable, (2) "speech interference of Scandinavian and French," and (3) "the suppression of West Saxon as a standard dialect," allowing a "free-for-all" scramble for ascendancy (149). Paradigms of noun declensions illustrating the blurring of endings are found in Nist's chapter on The Structure of Middle English" (186). Similar tables are produced to illustrate "the general compression of principal parts in the strong verb from four to three (188) and the blending of morphemic endings in the weak verb" (189-90). The growth of the -fy ending is described for the adverb (190) and for the reduction of the pronoun forms (191). The process of inflectional decay is treated from general to specific in Pyles* text, beginning with a discussion of "the reduction of inflections" (166) and the "loss of grammatical gender" (167), followed by detailed examinations of specific morphological classes—nouns, personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, relative pronouns, comparative and superlative forms, and verbs. In the table illustrating the Middle English strong verbs, Pyles does not illustrate the compression of principal parts as Hook does, but he refers the student to the table on pages 140-143 to illustrate the differences. The simplification of strong and weak verb endings is illustrated on parallel tables (176-77). Although Pyles does not enumerate the reasons for inflectional decay, he implies that changes in 65 He assumes that this decay is a result of "natural use in the course of a long period during which there was

stress and analogical conformity contributed to this phenomenon. For example, in his discussion of noun inflection, he states, "practically all nouns were reduced to two forms just as in Modern English—one without -s, used as a general nongenitive singular form, and one with -s, used as a genitive singular and a general plural form. The English language thus acquired a device for indicating plurality without consideration of case—the -s ending . . ." (169). The principle of conformity to analogy is, by implication, supported by Pyles. The process of a different stress pattern is indicated in the obliteration of the -an and -on endings, all falling together first as -en and then as -e (167). A comparative table illustrating the differences in the Old, Middle, and Modern English infinitive preterit plural, and in the past participle form of the verb find, illustrates this leveling process (167). Robertson and Cassidy, in a most thorough chapter on "The History of English Inflection," treat the Old, Middle, and Modern English periods simultaneously. Consequently, many of the tables either show the three periods in parallel arrangement or skip the intermediate Middle English state since inflectional decay is considered a continuous process. Hence, more tables illustrate the "before-andafter" process than the "going-going-gone" aspect, as seen in Nist and Pyles. The compression of strong verb classes from four to three is illustrated by parallel Old English/Modern English tables without the intermediate Middle English step (138), as are weak verbs (139). The intermediate step is illustrated, however, by three tables summarizing "the present and preterit endings of the typical Old, Middle, and Modern English verb" (141, 143). Robertson, in addition to explaining the process of inflectional decay, also discusses the consequences. Some of the consequences he notes are the notable "increase in the number and variety of verbal phrases" (143) and the loss of mobility (145). In a later chapter on syntax (which would increase in importance proportionally to the decrease of inflectional importance), Robertson provides a brief summary of the proportion of words in a passage which varied by inflection. In Old English, 66 percent (or 56 of 85) of the words varied by inflection while today only 39 percent vary by inflection. In the same summary, he points out that the form for the noun has decreased from nine varieties to one while the inflected forms of the adjective have decreased from thirteen to two (281). In the paragraphs that follow, the observation is made that every new noun which enters the language is automatically regularized. Consequently, -es, -ing, and -(e)d endings are solidifying their positions (282). Williams again provides problems which force the student to look at data or a corpus of evidence and arrive at his own conclusion. In problem 10.30 (254), he presents a list of parallel words, such as fiscaslfisces, truman/trumen, and so on, and asks the student to make a generalization about the changes in the vowel from the first to the second set. In problem 10.34 (255), Williams asks the student to explain how the loss of /a/ affected the inflectional system. In problem 10.35 a passage of Middle English poetry is presented. The student is asked to determine from the meter when two syllable words became one syllable (256). Wrenn verifies that the increased rigidity of word order, as a result of less inflection, demands

66

an increased role of intonation. Without accidence, syntax plays a central role, and prepositions are used liberally (107). The following charts located on the next page comprise a capsule summaiy of the locations of paradigms and tables for the factors of Middle English inflectional decay in selected texts. The Vs" show that the topic is discussed by the author. A number denotes the page(s) on which the topic may be found.

67

Factors In Middle English Inflectional Decay
TOPICS Cause for loss of Inflection Suppression of West Saxon change in stress Mixture of languages Pressure of analogy Inflections, too much of a strain
X X
X X

BA

BL

BT

HK

MY

NI
X
X

PY

RN

WI

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

Additional Features of Inflectional Decay

FEATURE

BA

BL

BT

HK

MY

NI

PY

RN

WI

Paradigm of Middle English endings Middle English declension table for nouns Middle English declension table for pronouns Middle English declension table for adjectives Strong verb endings Weak verb endings "To be" verb form

54 54-6 186 255 127 187 188
189 176

175
176

141 141

68

The Great Vowel Shift
As "Grimm*s Law" or the "Great Consonant Shift" was the most significant phonological change separating the Germanic languages from the rest of the Indo-European family, the "Great Vowel Shift" was an equally significant phonological event separating Middle English from Modern English. As was the case with "Grimm's Law," the "Great Vowel Shift" was given the aura of an irrevocable, immutable law even though it consisted of a series of generalizations about an unwieldy mass of data. When one surveys the treatment of this subject, he finds a wide array of diagrams, lists of key words, and rhyming stanzas of poetry all attempting to describe this unique phenomenon. The Great Vowel Shift is characterized by elevation of the tongue and diphthongization. In the production of vowel sounds, two factors must be considered: (1) the relative height of the tongue from low to high in the oral cavity (vertical position) and (2) the relative position of the tongue from front to back in the oral cavity (horizontal position). Before the great vowel shift, the long vowels were pronounced with a greater elevation of the tongue. Those vowel sounds which were originally made with the tongue highest in the oral cavity now had to be substituted with diphthongs in order to avoid becoming consonantal. "Diphthong" is another term for a glide of the tongue in the oral cavity. Glides are produced when the tongue begins in the position of a simple syllable nucleus, such as in bet and sit, and glides toward the post-vocalic y or w. Gate and beat represent simple syllable nuclei turned into y-glides: [geyt] and [biyt]. The diphthongs in the words ride and cow are simply more lengthy glides. In the Great Vowel Shift, the accented vowel sounds were gradually shifted upwards in the oral cavity. The highest front vowel in the oral cavity is the [ly]. A low central vowel became a mid front complex vowel in Shakespeare's time. The following words illustrate the shift: Chaucer /fif/ /med/ /klen/ /nams/ Shakespeare /fayv/ /mid/ /klen/ /nem/

Baugh begins his description with the generalization that "all long vowels gradually became pronounced with a greater elevation of the tongue," with the highest vowels turning into diphthongs (288). A simplified diagram in addition to a list of paired key words (partially given above) demonstrating the difference between Chaucerian and Shakespearian pronunciation follow the generalization. The key words are placed within phonetic brackets. At the conclusion of this section, the diagrams as well as a partial listing of the key words are given for quick comparison. Baugh believes that the "unorthodox use of the vowel symbols in English spelling" is largely a result of the vowel shift (289).

69

Under the subheading "Phonological Changes, 1400-1600," in his chapter entitled "Early Modern English," Bambas discusses the Great Vowel Shift. Tense vowels, he explains, were raised in the oral cavity, and the high tense vowels, /i/ and /u/, could not be raised. Therefore, they were diphthongized to /ai/ and /au/. Bambas includes a diagram showing the involvement of back vowels and front vowels in the shift: . au 4— u

/
shift (147-151).

V

(147)

Bambas states that the reason for change is unknown, but he suggests that lazy pronunciation--a "closemouthed attitude""Contributed to the phonological change. He details sound changes evolved from the In his section discussing phonology, Berndt devotes five pages to this descriptor. Along with a long list of examples for the shift of each vowel phoneme, he discusses in detail the whole vowel shift through each stage. He asserts that the loss of the phonological contrast in the vowel system of Modern Standard English occurred early in Middle English. He explains the merging of several Middle English vowel phonemes by numerous examples. Since they belong to the same phonemic shift, Berndt believes that none of the individual changes of the shift can be given chronological priority. BloomfieId and Newmark concur with Berndt's view, suggesting that modern spelling reflects Middle English pronunciation better than current pronunciation. Bloomfield's diagram, while it does not follow the outline of the oral cavity, is more detailed than Baugh's and includes four stages-Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, and Late Modern English. Examples of key words are presented without the benefit of phonetic brackets. This topic is only briefly mentioned by Bolton, in reference to Shakespeare and Chaucer. The "change of sounds of six vowels took place over a long period of time, starting soon after Chaucer wrote and still incomplete in a few details in Shakespeare's day" (15). Bolton states that the great vowel shift chiefly entails a change in pronunciation of these vowels, and not so much the spellings of them. Even modern spelling reflects Middle English pronunciation better than current pronunciation because spelling for these words was fixed before the vowel shift began. Bourcier and Clark describe the Great Vowel Shift as occurring between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries. During this time period the Middle English short vowels changed little, but the long vowels changed drastically. Of the seven long vowels, three were raised and four became diphthongs. A table is given that illustrates the change these vowels underwent from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. Another chart, based on a timeline from 1300-1700, shows how gradual the change was (196-7). The shift is said to be a chain reaction illustrating that when one
70

component changes, the rest must accommodate. Bradley does not make direct mention of the Great Vowel Shift in those terms. He discusses three kinds of phonetic change and provides examples of each kind. The first kind is "Confluent Development," which is the gradual combination of two original sounds into a single sound. The second is "Divergent Development," in which one original sound yields two or more distinct sounds in later language. The third is the "Dropping of Sounds," which is the vanishing of a sound from a language's phonemic inventory. Later in his presentation of "English: Present and Future," he touches upon "modifications affecting both vowels and diphthongs," in which he briefly mentions some examples. Bryant illustrates the "tense vowel shift" by means of a diagram using phonetic symbols and diacritic marks, followed by a list of Old English/Modern English equivalents. Burchfield asserts that English writers of the Middle English period seemed to be unaware of the implications of the Great Vowel Shift of the fifteenth century. Indeed, the Great Vowel Shift changed the whole phonetic basis of the English language (23). It seemed to affect nearly all of the long vowel sounds in the standard language. Cannon calls the Great Vowel Shift "one of the most important changes in 1500-1900" (153). In order to illustrate how some vowels have shifted while others have not, he cites words that Pope (an eighteenth-century poet) and Spenser (a sixteenth-century poet) used in their rhymes. Claiborne writes, ". . . the Great Vowel Shift involved a change in nearly all the English vowel sounds" (153-154). He adds that in Chaucer's time, vowels had been close to their continental values: /a/, lei, HI, /o/, and /u/. He goes on to say that by Shakespeare's time, they had shifted almost to their modern values. The changes were most noted in accented vowels, and the unaccented ones, says Claiborne, ". . . tended to fall together into a single, indeterminate uh, as they still do" (154). He gives examples of this in the words elegant, upon, and drama. Donahue describes the vowel shift during the 1400's as an "important linguistic event" (54). It was Caxton and the subsequent printers who based their spelling on medieval scripts and not on the pronunciation of words at that time; thus, the old spelling was maintained. She also gives examples of the change in vowel sounds. Emerson devotes a whole chapter to the "History of English Vowel Sounds." In this chapter he does not classify the change in sounds as a "vowel shift." The chapter instead is divided into subsections for each individual vowel and diphthong, explaining how specific change gradually took place and providing examples to support the statements made. Several charts are scattered throughout the section, comparing and contrasting the vowel changes. Changes in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries mark the passing from Middle to Modern English. All vowels began to rise, and the vowels highest in the oral cavity became diphthongs. Gordon states, "the change at first would have been so slight as to remain unnoticed by any one generation of speakers, but, continued over a period of one or two centuries" (168). Thus, the cumulative effect was quite noticeable. 71

Gordon believes that all changes must have begun about the same time, or, at any rate, each vowel must have begun to shift before the next lower vowel had completed its evolution; otherwise the two sounds would have blended together. Some vowel shifts took a longer time for completion than others. Some shifts were not completed until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; others are still taking place. Gordon provides a chart of examples of the Great Vowel Shift from Middle English through all of its stages to the English of the present day. Hook's definition is about as compact as could be when he states, "the low ones [vowels] became higher, and the high ones changed to diphthongs that glided from low to high" (153). The point is made in his explanation that the process did not occur simultaneously, all changes happening at the same time. Hook produces three parallel lists of words in phonetic brackets, illustrating the pronunciation change from Chaucerian to Shakespearian to Modern pronunciation. Although McCrum does not name it as such, he gives a few examples of the Great Vowel Shift—the change in vowels from Old to Middle to Modern English. McKnight claims that "one of the most remarkable features in the history of the English language is the sweeping change that affected the pronunciation of the long vowels." This change was called the Great Vowel Shift (75). He summarizes it as a "general raising of all long vowels," except the two high vowels, l\j and /u/, which were first diphthongized into /ei/ and /ou/, and then later into /ay/ and /aw/ (75-6). To illustrate this shift, a comparative pronunciation chart is given. Old English ham (as in "ah") raedan (as in "am" prolonged) bete (as in "ate") ridan (as in "see") sona (as in "bone") bus (as in "goose") Modem English home read beet ride soon house

Mcknight states that there is no satisfactory explanation of the causes for this change, nor of the time when it happened although he hints that it may have occurred at the same time that important changes in English syntax and inflections were taking place (76). Myers, in his discussion of the Great Vowel Shift, emphasizes that nobody knows why it happened, adding that "exact dating is impossible" (168). Myers includes only six key words to illustrate the vowel changes, comparing only Chaucerian and Shakespearian pronunciation. Nist provides a less compact, but far more accurate, description of the process: The first formant elements of the diphthongs moved either from high-back to low-front or from high-front to low-central, through a clock-wise motion in the mouth that often made use of the mid-central schwa /a/ as the phonemic step of a transverse and diagonal
72

shortcut. (221) To illustrate the pronunciations, Nisi provides not only a single list of key words, but three parallel lists of vowels within phonemic slashes, describing Chaucer's, Shakespeare's, and Eliot's pronunciations. Referring to the work of Helge Kokeritz, Pyles uses many examples of rhyming words to prove the existence of a given pronunciation. Pyles' diagram consists of parallel lists of long vowels in phonetic brackets connected by horizontal arrows. Robertson and Cassidy's diagram is similar to Baugh's although there are two more vowels represented by phonemic symbols on the Robertson diagram. Individual vowels are examined in greater detail, illustrated by three parallel lists of key words. Another diagram illustrates the merging of pronunciation patterns, leaving in their wake the old spellings. Seven variant spellings of the sound /i/, three of which show no relationship to the original pronunciation, can be blamed on the Great Vowel Shift (102). A table listing the variant spellings and their Old English origins illustrates the magnitude of the change (102). Williams, in his diagram of the Great Vowel Shift, follows the pattern of the oral cavity, illustrating each vowel change by means of a separate arrow. The change from the high simple nucleus vowel to a glide (or diphthong) is placed on a chronological table. Keeping a largely inductive approach, Williams provides a list of words with the spelling and date of usage, asking the student to make generalizations based upon the spelling changes (344). In another problem, Williams provides sets of rhyming words, from which the student is to make generalizations about vowel changes (347). With the aid of a table (92), Wrenn illustrates the main pronunciation changes in vowels from Old to Middle English to Early Modern English, the change between the former two being the great shift. The development of Old English from its beginning as a roughly phonetic language is illustrated by several examples of usage (93). The following section is a comparison of representative diagrams illustrating the Great Vowel Shift.

73

Diagrams of the Great Vowel Shift

Baugh
\

l—» M

«

au«-u
*

/

"All long vowels gradually came to be pronounced with a greater elevation of the tongue and closing of the mouth, so that those that could be raised (a, e, e, o, o) were raised and those that could not without becoming consonantal (i, u) became diphthongs."

W-EI e $ a 5 9 u

Chaucer [fi:f] five [me:d»] meed [klerna] clean [na:nw] name [g3:ta] goat [ro:ta] root [du:n] down

Shakespeare [faiv] 1 [mi:d] [Idem] (now [kli:n]) [ne:m] [go:t] jru:t] [duun] '

The effects of the shift can be seen In the comparison of Chaucer's and Shakespeare's pronunciation.'

(288)

Bloomfield
OE i u e
se
0

ME

ENE

LNE
ai

Examples mine, / mice, fire we, teeth clean, cheese mouse, our to, tooth loaf, stone name, lady

> >
>

e e
U

> >
>

I e
911

i au u o e

6 a

> >

o 5 a

> > >

u 6 e

*. . . the lower long vowels became higher and the highest long vowels became diphthongs, gliding from a low first part to a high second part." ENE = LNE = ME = OE = Early Modern English Late New English Middle English Old English

(234)

74

Bryant
rROKT BACK

QU

/v
UI

°'
31

^«ei

ai

The Tense bowels
The broad historical changes in the tense vowels may best be summarized in the diagram shown above.

1»J > T*il > |c:j > (r.) > |i:| >

[cl [e] [i] [i] [ui]

*r> ft; P*r, 'here; hw*rt where. F*I, gray; wxn, wain; we/re, waoer(inf). drnd, deed; u&d, weed; mlkl, meal. me, me; leTI, teelA; even, queen, milt mile; KJt life; gtidan, glide.
brad, broad; ahl, aught; tahte, taufkt.

VI > [a)

|c| > [o]
|ot| > [uj

ham, home; gat go; rod, road.
tot, toot; tSV, tooth; don, do.

|ui| > (ou]

muj, mouie; hu, how; mi1ft mouth.

Examples of Old English words with their Modern English equivalents illustrate the shift. *An asterisk shows irregular or exceptional development.

(167)

Hook
Chaucer [i:] [Ii:f] [e:] [swerta] [e:] [kle:n] Shakespeare
[9i] [I9if]

Today [ai] [laif] life [i:] [swi:t] sweet [i:] [kli:n] clean

[i:] [swi:t^ [e:] [kle:n]

The parallel lists of words in brackets illustrate the pronunciation change from Chaucerian to Shakespearian to Modern pronunciation. The low vowels became higher, and the high ones changed to diphthongs that glided from low to high.

(154)

75

Meyers
Vowel
/a:/

/e:/
/i:/

/U:/

Word place feet bite stone fool mouse

Chaucerian pronunciation /plass/ /fe:t/ /bi:to/ /sto:n/ /foil/ /mu:s/

Shakespearean pronunciation /ple:s/ /fi:t/ /bait/ /sto:n/ /fu:I/ /maus/

The list of words Indicate the changes in the Great Vowel Shift. "For some reason, people started pronouncing the long vowels with their tongues higher in their mouths. When the front part of the tongue was raised, /a:/ changed to /e:/ and /e:/ to /i:/; when the back part was raised, /o:/ changed to /o:/ and /o:/ changed to /u:/.'

(168-69)

Nist

v
• a
THE GREAT VOWXL SHIFT

T
3

From this movement also came three simple vowels: /! ae D/.
'In the tense vowels [the displacement in sound patterns] amounted to a general change in tongue positioning and a tighter closing of the mouth, so that the first formant elements of the diphthongs moved either from highback to low-front or from high-front to low-central, through a clockwise motion in the mouth that often made use of the mid-central schwa /9/ as the intermediate phonemic step of a transverse and diagonal shortcut.1
WORD TENSE VOWEL PRONUNCIATION

Chaucer bide rude house beet dean

Shakespeare
/aw/ /ih/

Eliot
/ay/ /uw/ /aw/

/iy/
/iw/ /uw/

/e"/

/ey/

/iy/

To illustrate the basic features of this shift, we may take several words common to Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the Late Modern English of T. S. Eliot, and phonemicize their stressed vowel clusters."

(221-22)

76

Pyles
Late Middle English [a] as in name -*• Early Modern English [&] - [€] -> Late Modern English
[e]

[e] as in feet -* [£] as in great -*

HI ca. 1600 [£]
(188)

Robertson

\i

e: ae;

au

-T o:
f
a:

X
0£.
•ft, clftoe grtne, t85 Is, hydan •

"The tense vowels, both the front and the back series, have shifted to the positions of articulation of vowels above them. The highest in each series, unable to go higher, have become diphthongs."

o.s.
K!

Afjr .

Mn.E.

M.E.
we, dene grene, teeth

Mn.E.
sea, clean freen, teeth ice, hide bone, boat tooth, eoon mouth, house

O.E. = Old English M.E. = Middle English Mn.E. = Modern English

- « > i ei — ei > i ii, y: — ii > ai
QI Ot

to, bide
boon, bate tooth, toone mouthe, houe

> w
— — 01 UI

UI

> o > u > au

bin, bit

mac, has

tfitS, sona

Some words illustrating this shift are listed above.

O.E.

M.B.

\7 c. , ee*t
CMt
«ene, deep dCop [eto]

18 c.'

"N
[ei]

X"

, green, deep {e] > [i]

"By the eighteenth century, the [e] in this entire group of words seems to have begun to shift to [i]." e» (mead, leaf, dear, auat, beowr) ee («/, tkeep, feel, creep, fee) « (man {boundary], <faw,** /nwr, ie (frur, (Aw/, chief) ei (ntlur») tram O.E. C, «m, to, e, eo from O.E. ft, te, *, to, eo mete) from O.E. ft, te, A, eo, e from O.E. ft, Co ; French ie from O.E. ftg from O.E. ftg from French ay

ey (toy) ay

*. . . difficulties in modern spelling . . . will now be better understood. K spellings had changed to keep up with the changes in pronunciation, there would have been only one way to spell [i] In Modern English. . . . Today . . . we have at least seven ways of spelling [ij, three of which are widely used, but without clear relationship to the original sounds.* This Is illustrated above.

(99-102)

77

Williams
ME ModE

'Certain Middle English long vowels correspond with Modem English diphthongs."

l\l > /ai/ and /u/ > ,'au/
The earliest respellings that indicate when long vowels began to change[,] date perhaps from the thirteenth century in some dialects, so the change may have begun as early as the 1200's.'

1300

1400

1600

1700

/I/ > /if/ > /6i/ > /di/ /u/ > /uu/ > /6u/ > /au/

The change probably began when an unstressed ongllde was somehow Introduced before the vowel. But then the stress shifted from the nucleus to the glide until the glide became the nucleus.' The change is illustrated above.

(343)

78

Borrowing: Enrichment
Linguists unanimously agree that any study of the history of language is a panorama of dramatic change. The Old English period may be characterized as a time of morphological change, the Middle English period as a time of phonological change, and the Modern English period as a time of vocabulary change. The Early Modern period, concurrent with the Renaissance, saw a popular interest in the literature and philosophies of ancient Greece and Rome. Prior to the Renaissance, Latin exercised a stranglehold over the various kinds of scholarship and learning. During the Renaissance, translators were busy providing reading material for an increasingly voracious popular literary appetite. With the "revival of learning" during the Renaissance, Greek and Latin documents were thought to provide the highest achievement in the world's knowledge. The vernacular tongues were thought by many of the Renaissance scholars to be inadequate for the transmission of abstract ideas. Richard Mulcaster, one defendant of the English vernacular, said of the English language, "I love Rome, but London better; I favor Italy, but England more; I honor the Latin, but I worship the English." Both Greek and Latin works were translated into the English tongue. Arthur Goling, in 1565, translated Caesar while Sir Thomas North translated Plutarch's Lives of the Nobel Grecians and Romans. Greek translations were made by Sir Thomas Eliot, who translated Plato and Aristotle, and by Chapman, who translated portions of Homer. Some of the advocates for the use of the English vernacular pointed out that Latin and Greek were also at one time vernacular. Eliot, in 1534, stated that "Grekes wrate in greke, the Romains in Latine, Avicenna, and the other in Arabike, whiche were their own proper and maternall tongues." Baugh observes that near the conclusion of the sixteenth century, linguistic patriotism was growing with greater intensity than ever before. George Pettie, one of those who was tired of hearing that English was "crude and barbarous," praised English for its brevity, pithiness, and variety. Mulcaster represented perhaps the most extreme position, i.e. that the English language did not need help from any other language for expressiveness. In 1583 Sidney felt that the English language could hold its own with any other language in the world. The name given to words borrowed from a foreign tongue for the purpose of embellishment or enrichment was "inkhorn terms." Sir John Cheke felt that the English language would be better off without the affectation of "learned pedantic" terms from Latin. Thomas Chaloner suggested that the obscurity of these "disused words of antiquitee," instead of enriching the language, actually cloud the meaning. The negative attitude toward borrowing was not shared universally. John Dryden felt it was good practice to borrow both from modern and from classical languages in order to enrich the English language. Defenders of borrowing suggested that Latin and Greek had also done a great deal of

79

borrowing in the past. The advocates of borrowing thought that the problem of strangeness and obscurity would be a temporary anxiety which would be cleared up by frequency of usage. George Pettie pointed out that many terms in common currency were originally "inkhorn terms." The opposition to inkhorn terms gradually gave way to compromise. Baugh points out that many terms which were ridiculed as "inkhorn" at that time are now considered an indispensable part of our vocabulary. Cheke sought to avoid using Latin words in his translation of the book of Matthew by utilizing existing elements in the language. Through the means of compounding (e.g., foresayer, byword) and adding affixes, he attempted to "make do" with the resources available. The trouble with this practice is that the combination of existing elements can lead to some rather cumbersome constructions, such as the German Femsehenapparat, for television. It is much to the advantage of the English language that it was allowed to become more cosmopolitan. Baugh suggests that the very act of translating proved to be a temptation to dip into the vocabulary of Latin and Greek (259). Those who favored borrowing from the classical languages justified the practice by calling it "enrichment." Baugh quotes Dryden, who claims, "I trade both with the living and the dead for the enrichment of the native tongue" (265). Those who deplored the practice of borrowing were termed "nativists," who believed that translators and pedants were polluting a pure, undefiled language with "inkhorn terms." Baugh quotes nativist John Cheke, who argued, "I am of this opinion that our own tung shold be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borrowing of other tunges" (261). Any discussion of borrowing or enrichment contains a reference to the "Nativist-Latinist" controversy or the "Classicist-Purist" debate. Generally, the names Elyot, Dryden, Pettie, and Caxton are associated with the borrowers while John Cheke, Roger Ascham, and Philip Sidney are associated with the Purists or Nativists. Accordingly, Baugh has presented both sides of the issue very clearly, first describing the intellectual climate of the Renaissance and the need which the translators felt to supply a new term where one did not exist in the vernacular. The reaction to this practice is described in a unit called "The Opposition to Inkhorn Terms," in which the positions of Sir John Cheke, Thomas Wilson, and Sir John Chaloner are presented by means of liberal quotation. The unit immediately following, "The Defense of Borrowing," presents the positions of Dryden and Pettie. Following the resolution of the "inkhorn" controversy, Baugh provides lists of borrowed words with explanations as to how they entered the language. Among the groups of borrowed words, Baugh classifies permanent additions (269), adaptations (269), reintroductions and new meanings (270), and French, Italian, and Spanish input (273). Each of these sub units describing one of the tributaries of borrowing and enrichment is replete with lists of terms which entered the language through that method. Some texts which treat the subject of borrowing describe the phenomenon of the "hard word" glossary, the precursor of the modern dictionary. Baugh mentions six of these "hard word" dictionaries,
80

including the Cawdrey Table Alphabetical of Hard Words (279). No discussion of enrichment and borrowing would be complete without a discussion of Shakespeare's contribution. Baugh quotes a partial list of Shakespearean borrowed words (281). Bambas is somewhat unorganized in his approach to enrichment, and the liberty to combine his comments is taken here. Old English: Several thousand French words were borrowed as a result of the Norman Conquest. Other "borrowees" were German, Russian, French, Celtic, Scandinavian, and Latin. Religion also played a significant role (75). Early Modern: A problem arose when scholars tried to translate the classics into English. The solution was to borrow Latin or Greek terms that had no English equivalent. This was called enrichment. As learned writers sought to embellish the vocabulary, ordinary readers were sorely at a disadvantage due to the lack of adequate dictionaries. Those who were opposed to borrowing foreign words were called purists. Cheke, Roger Ascham (the tutor of Princess Elizabeth), and Thomas Wilson were ready to accept seemingly necessary new words. These men are contrasted with "unrestrained enrichers," including, most notably, Shakespeare. Overseas words borrowed in the period included French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. Late Modern: Since 1800, Bambas states, large additions to the vocabulary from the expansion of the British Empire into South Africa, Australia, and India have been one of the greatest changes. The World Wars also produced borrowings from French and German. Advances in science led, and still lead, to the adoption of Latin and Greek compounds (200). Berndt covers this descriptor quite adequately, devoting about twenty pages to the topic. Subsections include discussions on the borrowing from Latin, the French and Scandinavian influence, loans from Low Dutch, and a final section on the borrowings from other languages. Berndt says that this is one of the ways English underwent an enormous lexical expansion. He points out that English, unparalleled by other Germanic languages, borrowed words (including prefixes and suffixes) from foreign languages. He states further that the language continues to borrow in spite of the fact that perfectly adequate lexical items of native origin already exist. Berndt provides several lists of examples of foreignlanguage "loans." Bloomfield, in his discussion of enrichment, suggests that "borrowing has created most of the English 'hard words' " (332). The methods of enrichment and borrowing are, for the most part, out of the scope of Bloomfield's focus although the problem of aureate terms is given some attention (176). Bradley devotes an entire chapter to "What English Owes to Foreign Tongues." He presents the history of the adoption of foreign words, beginning with the Germanic peoples, then moving to Latin, Greek, and European adoptions. Reasons are provided for most of these additions. He claims that the English vocabulary owes a great deal to the Danes and Norsemen, mostly as a result of the Norman Conquest. Many of the terms relating to military matters were adopted from the tongue of the conquerors, and all the current terms of family relationship outside the immediate circle of the 81

household have been adopted from French; however, the words taken from Latin would far outnumber those from all other sources. The Greek language has also contributed to English, especially in the form of scientific and technical terms. The English words taken from other languages of Europe and from languages of more distant parts of the world are chiefly names of foreign products, or terms connected with the customs of foreign peoples. Bradley also addresses the controversy concerning the weakening or strengthening of the English language through borrowing and adoption; he presents both views. Bryant systematically treats the matter of borrowing in her fourth major section, entitled "Words." She discusses "Danish Loan Words" (289), "Latin and Greek Borrowings" (291), and "Other Sources" (291). The three pages in which she discusses borrowing are very perfunctory and sparse in comparison to Baugh. To initiate such a discussion, Bolton gives examples of Shakespearean words, which he shows to stem from Old English, Latin and Greek, and modern languages, notably French. The borrowing that occurred primarily in Caxton's day "served to enrich the literature of the sixteenth-century English" (21). Although the methods of borrowing evade the author's discussion, noted are certain spellings and words that have been innovated but which provide "a number of mistakes and irrelevancies" (21-23). Bourcier only mentions the borrowing of words in passing. He mentions the rivalry between English and Latin and credits the liberal attitude of the Renaissance for the acceptance of new things spilling over into language. He also says that the art of borrowing is not new, having taken place at the time of Danelaw. Burchfleld does not discuss the borrowing or enrichment of the English language. Cannon provides lists of loan words from selected countries for each of the time periods and discusses influences these loan words may have had on English as a whole. These lists are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive, but to provide an overview. "Artificial impositions" of foreign languages by invaders caused heavy borrowing in the development of Old English (96). Later, as cultures and objects were encountered for which English had no words, English speakers simply borrowed the native word and eventually Anglicized it. Translations also contributed to the increase of words. When there were no English equivalents for foreign words, translators would try to keep the meaning and connotation by borrowing the words themselves. In some cases, translators and writers would introduce polysyllabic words ("inkhorn terms"), believing that English was unable to convey the ideas and views they wanted to express. Claiborne refers to word borrowing several times throughout his book. Regarding word borrowing in general, he writes, "Borrowing is almost inevitable in situations where one people knows something the other doesn*t" (19). He gives detailed explanations of the many different ways that words are borrowed. One interesting statement that Claiborne makes regarding borrowing is that ". . . the process is seldom as simple as borrowing a hammer or a lawnmower from one's neighbour" (2). He continues, "... if it [a borrowed word] is going to be of any use, [it] must fit-or usually be fitted to its 82

new linguistic habit" (20). "The great majority of English borrowings," states Claiborae, "come from the Italic limb of the Indo-European family tree" (28). He also states that French has contributed some 15,000 words to English. As far as personalities involved in the history of borrowing are concerned, Claiborne only refers briefly to Pettie. Donahue views the history of the English language as one long pattern of borrowing. From Latin to Scandinavian terms, English inculcates the vocabulary it needs without hesitation (31). The list of borrowing goes on throughout the book and can easily be found by the italics used in the text. Donahue even concludes the book by noting that language will continue to borrow, using vocabulary that is of "Russian, French, and Spanish," which helps to improve the acceptability of English worldwide (105). In his discussion of borrowing and enriching, Emerson refers to Elyot as the first to borrow with the intent of improving the English language (85). Emerson notes Caxton, Dryden, Nash, and Pettie as being associated with the enrichment of the English language. Ascham and Thomas Wilson, however, are mentioned as being on the other side of the coin, believing that "large borrowing from the classics . . . was . . . a corruption of the speech rather than a real improvement" (86-87). Fernald devotes one full chapter to English etymology and cites many examples of word borrowing from such languages as Latin, Greek, French, and Norwegian. He also makes reference to Chaucer, who borrowed frequently from French and Latin and introduced new words into the English language. Gordon begins by explaining how we began to borrow words and discusses the various vocabulary sources. He also discusses different events in history that added to the borrowing. He introduces readers to "cultural exchange" and devotes a 19-page chapter to "Early English Vocabulary Enrichment." He notes the influences of Latin, French, German, Arabic, Italian, and Hebrew in the years prior to the settling of the United States, and the influences of Indian, Dutch, and other European tongues after the early English settlers reached America (153). Gordon feels that the words of the native English language are more "vivid and forceful" than other borrowed words (154). In his unit "Early Modern English," Hook discusses vocabulary growth, quoting Kittredge's assertion that fully one-fourth of the Latin vocabulary borrowed for English came through the Renaissance (148). The estimations of Charles Carpenter Fries as to vocabulary increase during the Early Modern English period lend some statistical muscle to Kittredge's estimate. From 1475 to 1700, the vocabulary is supposed to have increased from 45,000 to 120,000 words, 80,000 of these being Latinate (149). Hook devotes three short paragraphs to the "Inkhorn" controversy, mentioning the names of Thomas Wilson, Sir Thomas Chaloner, and Sir John Cheke (149). Two pages are devoted to the content of the borrowings-one section devoted to French, one to Greek, and one to all the other sources. Hook does offer a unique feature, in that for the third section mentioned above he provides the
83

Myers makes the important point that one of the reasons it was desirable to borrow was to make English more "compendious," or more compact (196). Borrowers asserted that one Latin word would often take the place of four or five native English words. Other reasons cited by Myers for borrowing were copiousness (providing a large reserve of synonyms) and aesthetic embellishment. Nist, in his chapter entitled The History of Early Modern English," provides a compact yet thorough unit on "vocabulary enrichment." The first two pages of this unit are devoted to the debate between the Latinists and the Nativists. Sir John Cheke, Roger Aschum, Sir Thomas Caloner, and Thomas Wilson are listed together as opponents of borrowing. No lengthy passages are quoted from these men although a sizable list of terms which Wilson objected to are presented with explanatory synonyms. Mulcaster, Pettie, Elyot, and Dryden are presented as the defenders of borrowing. Short excerpts are quoted which summarize their positions. On the six pages following the discussion of the "Inkhorn Controversy," Nist provides lengthy lists of borrowed terms. Nist has separate lists for unchanged Latin words, clipped or anglicized Latin words, Latin words filtered though French, and Latin words printed from Spanish and Italian through a French middleman (229-230). Nist illustrates these processes with the following diagrams: Elizabethan Loan Words Latin ENGLISH ^ French Italian ^» Spanish ENGLISH "*l — French

Nist concludes this unit by referring to Cheke's native synonyms and Spenser's resurrection of Old English terms (232), as well as a list of Shakespeare's Latinate words (233). Pyles, in his chapter on "Foreign Elements in the English Word Stock," systematically discusses most of the tributaries from which the English language drew. The borrowing process is not focused upon any one period, such as the Early Modern or Renaissance, although Pyles affirms that "the great period of borrowing from Latin and from Greek by way of Latin is the Modern English period" (319). There is no discussion of the Classicist-Purist Controversy in this chapter; the primary emphasis instead is upon providing lists of words of Old, Middle, and Modern English, taken from Latin, Greek, Celtic, Scandinavian, French, Spanish, Italian, High and Low German, the Orient, Africa, and other miscellaneous sources. Latin and French entries are compartmentalized into Old, Middle, and Modern periods. Robertson and Cassidy discuss borrowing and enrichment in a chapter entitled "Sources of the Vocabulary." Separate units are devoted to the Greek, Latin, and French elements. Robertson points out that the greatest period of borrowing was the sixteenth century, a time when classical learning

85

data of entry. Another useful feature of Hook's text is a brief table illustrating the manner in which Latin terms became anglicized: -alls usually became -ah -('CIAS usually became -ic: casual is •* casual publicus -+ public -aris usually became -ary: militaris -*• military -ivis usually became -ive: primitivis -* primitive (152) McCrum gives examples of word borrowing from other languages throughout his book. However, he describes the original borrowing of words thus: "When Tudor men of letter wrote in English, they embellished their prose with Latinate words" (93). McCrum also gives credit to figures such as Sir Francis Bacon and other Renaissance men for their contribution of introducing Latin, Greek, French, and other words into English. McKnight devotes a lengthy 24-page section to a discussion of the effects of the refashioning of English after the classical model. English writers who were "adapting to English used the artifices borrowed from Medieval Latin," and also translated many foreign words into English (86). The Renaissance world turned its eyes to the classical age to gain knowledge of art and science; thus, the schools were called grammar schools and adopted Latin studies as the main part of their curriculum. McKnight explains the effect that this Latin influence had on enrichment of the English language. For example, under the letter a in a list of Croft we see: abhor, adolescence, aggregate, applicate, and so on. (101). This practice is also mentioned in the chapter entitled The Aureate Language." Here McKnight describes how writers subscribed to the more versatile vocabulary of Latin or French, thus adding to English (50). Some examples of this are assumpt, escusatorye, explaying, and defensory (50). He adds that in the course of the sixteenth century, there was an immense enrichment of the language. McKnight does not leave this topic here. He donates another chapter to purism, the converse of humanism. While Elyot was pushing the classics, Sir John Cheke, Sir Thomas Wilson, and Roger Ascham were forces for purifying the English language (120). This opposition to the usage of "inkhorn terms," according to McKnight, protected the language from "young enthusiasm for classical learning" (123). Shakespeare is not left out as an enricher of English. McKnight states that "hard words" were being adopted from Latin in "probably the greatest single achievement of the English language in the sixteenth century" (169-170). Borrowing has continued since humanism and purism. Examples of Spanish words, Negro words, and American Indian words are given later (470-471). Myers, in his chapter on "The English Renaissance," introduces the vocabulary increase unit with a description of the "Inkhorn Controversy." Reproduced in its entirety is the famous "inkhorn letter" from Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique (185-6). This passage is numbered and discussed line by line. In addition to Wilson, quotations are also taken from Thomas Nash and Sir John Cheke. The opposite position is seen through the eyes of Sir Thomas Elyot and Richard Eden.
84

encouraged wholesale borrowing (152). The Latinist-Purist Controversy is discussed, with references made to Sir Thomas Brown and Sir John Cheke. The French borrowings are grouped according to religious terms, legal terms, military terms, and clothing terms. Scandinavian is the only other unit given individual treatment, with all the other sources grouped together in a "minor elements" subunit. In a separate concluding section, the advantages and disadvantages of borrowing are analyzed. The dissimilarities in the appearance of the borrowed synonyms, the weakening of native vocabulary, and the empty ornateness are listed as disadvantages while the wealth of synonyms, the greater precision of expression, and greater eloquence are listed as advantages. Williams cites the same sources as does Hook (Kittredge and Fries) in illustrating the greatest period of borrowing in the English language. The Classicist-Purist Controversy is not discussed. Williams makes the observation that the most significant social consequence of this large influx of vocabulary was to create a more formal vernacular (92). According to Wrenn, the power of creating new words for thoughts, which Old English had, was lost in atrophy following Norman conquest. Centuries later, the adaption of Latin and other foreign words was necessitated in expressing the flood of new ideas of the Renaissance. This and other additions to English give it a more abundant and varied vocabulary, which produces an interesting situation: to those who can use English fully and exactly to express thoughts and feelings, its copious heterogeneousness is a real enrichment; but to one who does not know exact meanings enough to even contrast synonyms, the very richness of the language becomes a course of looseness and vagueness of expression (106).

86

The English Academy
Perhaps no movement more accurately illustrates the authoritarian temperament than the effort to form a quasi-legislative body with the authority to fix the language and deliberate on matters of usage. By 1582, a tradition had been established by the Italians and the French to leave such matters to an academy. English efforts at establishing an academy reached their peak during the Authoritarian period of Modern English (1650-1800). The French Academy was established in 1634 by Cardinal de Richelieu and has existed almost without interruption to the present time. According to the Encyclopedia Britannic a, the original purpose was "to maintain standards of literary taste and establish standards of language." In 1694 the Academy published a massive four-volume dictionary which set a national standard for the vocabulary. Membership of the academy was fixed at a maximum of forty. Over the years some highly distinguished names have served on the Academy-Voltaire, Hugo, and Racine, for example. In England, Jonathan Swift was an extreme linguistic conservative. He viewed with alarm the tendency of speakers to experiment or play with their language. Among the "abuses" which repulsed him were the tendency to shorten polysyllabic words to monosyllabic ones by means of removing syllables and forming contractions, and the tendency of people of fashion to use new expressions for affectation. Swift bitterly assaulted these language "blemishes" in a letter to the Tatter in 1710. At this time, he recommended that Steele use his authority as "censor" to expunge all those objectionable blemishes. Swift was afraid that if something as drastic as censorship were not performed, the language would be totally unintelligible in a very short time. Baugh feels that it is curious that scholars such as Swift and Sheridan should have been oblivious to the historical lesson that it is nearly impossible to "suspend the processes of growth and decay that characterize a living language" (315). Nevertheless, inspired by Cardinal Richelieu's success in 1635, and following up on an earlier suggestion made by Dryden in 1664 in the Royal Society, as well as in 1697 in his "Essay on Projects," Swift made a proposal for an English Academy in 1712. This proposal was entitled "A Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue." Reiterating the alleged abuse he had made in the Tatter two years previously, Swift suggested that a group of persons meet on a regular basis to expunge the abuses and "fix the language permanently in grammar and lexicon." Swift's proposal was met by neither overwhelming approval nor overwhelming rejection. John Oldmixon leveled a caustic personal attack on Swift, claiming that Swift was no model of linguistic purity himself. Although Oldmixon was not against the idea of the Academy, his personal dislike for Swift created enough dissension at the court to drain the project of its enthusiastic appeal. Baugh feels that the principal reason for the failure of the Academy was the untimely death of the Queen. After Swift's attempt at establishing an Academy, no serious proposal was

87

ever made again. Baugh discusses both the Italian Academy and the French Academy in his chapter on The Appeal to Authority." The work of Cardinal Richelieu, the membership of the French Academy, and the function of the Academy are all discussed as models from which the English drew their inspiration. Archbishop Parker's Society of Antiquaries (1572) and the Royal Society (1664) are mentioned by Baugh as substitutes for an academy. The Royal Society's December 1664 resolution to establish a committee to improve the English language is cited by Baugh as the first of many feverish attempts to establish an English Academy. Both Daniel Defoe's efforts (in his "Essay Upon Projects") and Jonathan Swift's efforts (in his "Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue") are discussed in moderate detail. Swift felt that his proposal would have succeeded if the Queen had not died untimely. Jonathan Swift is given credit in Bambas* work for expressing need for an "English Academy" in "A Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue." This Academy was to be modeled after the French Academy. Also mentioned as pursuants of this same goal are Addison, Samuel Daniel, and Defoe. A leader of the opposition to an Academy who would "settle all controversies between grammar and idiom" (according to Addison), was Samuel Johnson. He and others like him believed that the French and Italian Academies in existence had not prevented those languages from changing for the worse (165-169). Bloomfield and Newmark briefly discuss the proposals for an English Academy, citing the impetus of the French and Italian Academies in providing models to emulate. The efforts of Jonathan Swift, in his 1712 "Proposal," are noted as being reflective of a large portion of eighteenth-century thinkers. Dr. Johnson, whose Dictionary is sometimes considered to be the first real substitute for an academy, is quoted as having claimed, "the English feeling for liberty, would never allow the restrictions of an official academy" (300). Bolton gives a rather brief yet succinct discussion of "the founding of the English Academy and their established activities." The Royal Society, which attempted to perform some of the tasks of linguistics regulation, also provided a basis on which the Academy was built. The author points out that there were academies in Italy and France, The academy provided a forum for the most learned men of the day whose rational and objective study could be directed toward early linguistic research. One main objective of this academy, as noted by the author, was to rid the language of any excesses or weaknesses of expression which would impede the communication of scientific research. In a chapter entitled "Post-Restoration Social and Intellectual Attitudes," Bourcier and Clark state that language reflects the public attitude. After the great changes of the Renaissance, society wanted a stage of "bridling" in all areas, including spelling and usage. Also, the influence of the French and Italian academies and of Johnson's Dictionary are discussed. The descriptor is covered from an antiacademy viewpoint. Bradley and Berndt do not mention the English Academy at all in their books. 88

Bryant devotes one paragraph to the proposals for an English Academy in which she lists Dryden, Defoe, and Swift as its chief advocates. Swift's proposal of 1712 is briefly discussed, both as a reaction against the corruptions of language and as a suggestion for a group of qualified persons to set definite rules "to render [the language] pure, eloquent and capable of treating the arts and sciences" (77). Rurchfield does not mention the English Academy. Cannon says that English scholars were fascinated by the Continental academies and became interested in establishing one of their own. In particular, Dryden, Defoe, and Swift all worked for academies to "fix," purify, and refine the language. Defoe's proposal for a 36-member academy ("An Essay on Projects") and Swift's persuasive letter to the Lord Treasurer ("A Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue") started work toward the formation of an academy. The project died with Queen Anne because her successor, King George I, spoke German rather than English. After this time, faced with strong opposition, the academy was abandoned. Claiborne only briefly describes the proposal for an English Academy. He quotes Jonathan Swift (whom he refers to as "the most distinguished proponent of the scheme") as saying, "some method should be thought on for ascertaining and fixing our language forever" (182). There was a mutual desire, it seems, to give definite rules to our language. Donahue gives a little background to the need felt around the 1660's for an English Academy. The Royal Society for the Advancement of Experimental Philosophy took the initiative to improve the English tongue for philosophical purposes (66). Another proposal for an English Academy came during the "Age of Reason," when Addison decided to undertake the compilation of a dictionary to shed light on the English language's ambiguous constructions (67). Emerson briefly discusses the proposal for an English Academy. He points to Edmund Ballon as having first suggested a Grand Royal Academy in 1617. He notes that Swift renewed this proposal in the eighteenth century, as an attempt to prevent further change in the language. Samuel Johnson, in his Dictionary, established both for his day and for this century "the orthography of the language" (96). Gordon does not cover this topic. Hook notes briefly the French and Italian academies as well as the early efforts of the Royal Society in 1667. Swift and Addison are identified as the most effective advocates for the creation of an academy. Concurring with Swift's belief, Hook suggests that "had Queen Anne not died in 1714, it is at least possible that an academy would have been established" (203). One unique feature about Hook's treatment of the subject is that he lists proposals for an academy which were made in the United States, first by a California congressman (203). McCrum tells the history of the English Academy in story form, mentioning John Evelyn, Daniel Defoe, and especially Jonathan Swift as the main proponents of "a committee for improving the English language" (130). McKnight discusses the attitude of authoritarian legislation for English in three chapters. He 89

mentions both the Italian and the French academies and then turns to a discussion of the aspirations for an English academy. Dryden is mentioned as one of the driving forces behind the movement. He despairs and speaks of the English language as being "in a manner barbarous" (279). Harvey and Bolton are also mentioned as pushing for language uniformity, but the movement slackened with the establishment in 1662 of the Royal Society. In the chapter entitled The Augustan Age," McKnight outlines the activities of Swift, who put forth his proposal to stabilize English by the formation of an Academy early in the eighteenth century. This also failed (321). Ironically, Johnson, who did not subscribe to such a proposal as the Academy, is described as accomplishing much of what the Academy represented (375). Myers refers to the work of Cardinal Richelieu in 1635 as the model upon which proposals for an English Academy were based. Dryden's and Swift's proposals are noted, and Queen Anne's death is suggested as a reason for the collapse of the movement. Nist observes that "psychological belief in the fixed nature of man and his language" (274) was the force which shaped the French Academy. A similar primitive psychological belief, according to Nist, was responsible for the authoritarian resolutions before the Royal Society in 1662. Continuing in the tradition, John Dryden, John Evelyn, Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, and Thomas Cooke were all identified as proponents of the Academy. Nist devotes a short paragraph to the work of each of these men. Robertson discusses the French and Italian Academies and briefly mentions that attempts were made to set up an English counterpart. No mention is made of Dryden's, Defoe's, or Swift's proposals although Johnson's Dictionary is described as having satisfied the need for an academy (338). Williams begins his discussion of the English Academy with the December 1664 resolution of the Royal Society, noting in passing that the Italian and French Academies were used as examples. Defoe's "Essay on Projects" and Swift's "Proposal" are mentioned as the only serious efforts at establishing an academy (95). Wrenn points to this part of the history of English as the time of grammarians, critics, and a rapid growth of dictionaries, which led to a closer fixation of spelling and the beginning of a consciously standardized "received pronunciation" (96).

90

Prescriptive Grammar
Unlike the abortive English Academy, one tradition which originated in the eighteenth century and is still very much alive is the philosophy and practice of prescriptive grammar. The doctrinaire notion of prescriptivism is very much a part of twentieth-century pedagogical practice. The doctrine of prescriptivism is partially based upon the assumption that correct usage is governed by the immutable law of reason and can be tested by rules of logic. Coupled with this assumption is the belief in the concept of universal grammar, a concept which has been resurrected by the transformational grammarians. Prescriptive grammar refers to a doctrinaire notion that there are definite right and wrong usages, and that it is the grammarian's responsibility to prescribe the right ones and proscribe the wrong ones. Perhaps one of the most prescriptive English grammarians who has ever lived was Dr. Robert Lowth. In his Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), Lowth reflected many prescriptive notions. Prescriptivism has an unusual obsession for matters of usage, making One distinctions between shall and will, can and may, it is I and it is me, as well as many other fine points which usage would have eventually obliterated anyway. Baugh sums up the prescriptive notion best by stating that the "grammarians seem to have been making absolute what was a common but not universal tendency in the written language." Prescriptive grammarians based their "absolute rules" on reason, etymology, analogy, and examples from Latin and Greek. There were many leading eighteenth-century grammarians. In 1761, Joseph Priestly published his book, The Rudiments of English Grammar. His philosophy of grammar was very advanced for its time. He avoided the tendency to make English conform to Latin norms; instead, he wanted to allow usage and time to determine grammar. He writes, " . . . I think it not only unsuitable to the genius of a free nation, [but a language academy] is in itself ill-calculated to reform and fix a language" (326). Robert Lowth published his Short Introduction to English Grammar in 1762. Lowth's philosophy was more conservative and prescriptive than Priestly's. In 1756 Thomas Sheridan, in his British Education, advocated that the language be refined, improved, and fixed. The doctrine of usage, or the descriptive approach, is based upon inductive laws of observation. Joseph Priestley was perhaps the most significant eighteenth-century advocate of descriptivism. This approach suggests that custom, usage, and consensus are more important than arbitrary laws based upon the workings of a classical language. If there are laws, they are determined democratically, tempered by utility and expedience. George Campbell, in 1776, likened language to any other kind of fashion. Conformity to fashion is the most important arbiter of correctness. Campbell suggested that "whatever modes of speech are authorized as good by the writings of a great number" is the criterion for acceptable usages.

91

Baugh, in his chapter on The Appeal to Authority," enumerates and describes the aims of the prescriptive grammarians as follows: 1. To codify the principles of the language and reduce it to a rule. 2. To settle disputed points and decide cases of divided usage. 3. To point out common errors or what was supposed to be errors (333). Some of the concerns of the eighteenth century grammarians which have been carried down into the present day are the distinction between lie and lay and the condemnation of the double negative. Baugh identifies the key founders of prescriptive grammar as Bishop Robert Lowth and William Ward, to whom Baugh attributed "the full set of prescriptions . . . found in modern books" (337). Samuel Johnson reflects a typical prescriptive sentiment when he says, "Every language must be servilely formed after the model of some ancient if we wish to give durability to our work" (339). Grammarians, as Baugh points out, were not unanimous in their endorsement of prescriptivism. Joseph Priestley is described as having been an advocate of custom as the arbiter of usage, an idea which was remarkably advanced for his time. According to Bambas, prescriptivism arose from "the desire to have the English language corrected, improved, refined, ascertained (to make certain, stating definite rules in proper places), and fixed." "Reason in collective action" was to be the vehicle for ascertainment. Bambas devotes several pages of this section to prescriptive works by Samuel Johnson, Joseph Priestly, George Campbell, Lindley Murray, Robert Baker, and especially Robert Lowth. Bambas notes that "these writers and those who followed them had no particular qualifications for the study of grammar except a disposition to declare what they thought was right and wrong about the English Language." Bambas also lists points of grammatical dispute (169-177). Berndt does not discuss prescriptive grammar. Bloom field and Newmark examine prescriptive grammar in the light of linguistic science. Interestingly, the position they take is refreshingly eclectic. They reprimand "liberal" grammarians for their insistence that "they can describe without prescribing," and the traditional grammarians who "assume that the second part of the task can be done without the first" (308). The assumption is made that prescriptions can be made as soon as the linguist has spent adequate time observing recurring characteristics of current practice. Bolton gives an introduction to this area through a discussion of Dr. Johnson and his descriptivist values. The comparison of one "who did not form, but register the language," with such noted prescriptivist grammarians as Robert Lowth and Lindley Murray, who felt that they could not "offend against [any] part of grammar," is effective in presenting the issues of this timeless debate (53). For example, "both writers also follow Johnson in supplying copious examples, but Johnson gave them as authorities; Lowth and Murray give them as deplorable deviations" (71). Bourcier only briefly mentions prescriptive grammar and does not mention its pros and cons in comparison to descriptivism. However, he gives a reason for the conflict, blaming Bulokar, who tried to

92

force English into the Latin grammatical framework. This meant that there would inevitably be conflict and the desire to reform. The prescriptive grammarians opposed these changes, and "prescriptive grammar remained a preoccupation of schoolteachers and their charges throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and on into the twentieth" (207). Bradley and Bryant do not cover this topic. According to Burchfleld, Henry Watson Fowler was the greatest prescriptivist of all. Burchfield also discusses the conflict between prescriptive and descriptive grammarians. He cites many differences between the two schools of thought. Cannon believes that grammars in the beginning "adopted the classical philosophical tradition, which was later distorted into a prescriptive attitude" (128). With the Renaissance came an interest in languages, and as a result, grammars, dictionaries, and spellers were written, which continued the process of standardization. English was analyzed by Latin grammars to see if it matched favorably; it usually did not. Scholars would then attempt to force English into a more logical and systematic grammar. Although the reforms managed to bring about some changes, there still remain disordered and illogical structures in English. Claiborne only briefly discusses prescriptivism. He refers to the topic as a dispute between "prescriptive" and "permissive" schools of thought. He really does not explain it, only briefly making mention of it. Prescriptive grammar is not mentioned anywhere in his index. Donahue speaks of Samuel Johnson, Robert Lowth, James Buchanan, and other grammarians of the 1700's. Subsequent grammarians "regarded Latin as a superior language and felt that English should be paralleled in logic of canon" (70). Donahue then presents many words which were introduced into the language in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. New words came into the English vocabulary from French, Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and still other words were revived and used (71). Emerson does not discuss the topic of prescriptive grammar. Gordon has a chapter called "The Rise of the Prescriptive Tradition." He gives two conditions for prescriptive grammar: "The excessive regard for the surface values of classical education and the lack of confidence in one's own linguistic background" (253). Gordon also lists eight eighteenth-century concepts of the English language (254). In accord with these assumptions, three goals seem to have surfaced: (1) to "ascertain" the language, (2) to refine the language, and (3) to fix the language in such fashion as to inhibit the changes which he describes in a bit more detail. He makes reference to many other sources, including Swift, Dr. Johnson, Thomas Sheridan, Edward Phillips, Charles Hoole, Robert Lowth, and Lindley Murray (255-261). Hook points out that "many of the opinions, biases, and rules still current in textbooks can be traced back to the prescriptive eighteenth-century grammarians" (206). He points out that rules for the correct usage of shall and will were first formulated in 1653 by John Wallis, but greatly elaborated by Lowth in 1762 and Ward in 1765. Fowler, in The King's English, 93

is said to have devoted 20 pages to shall and will (206). Other prescriptive rules were devised for who and whom, as well as the condemnation of the this . . . Here pattern. Hook suggests that the popular acceptance of prescriptivism reflects a desire on the part of middle class speakers to "talk like their betters" (207). McCrum does not discuss prescriptive grammar or mention Bishop Lowth. This is not surprising since his book is tailored to describing only the varieties of English. McKnight examines the need for grammatical regulation in the eighteenth century in a chapter entitled "Eighteenth Century Grammarians." He liberally quotes Lowth and cites many examples of poor grammar used by authors of that time period. Some examples that are given include "what was you afraid of," "who have we got there," and "more perfect" (378). It was examples like these that stirred Lowth, Buchanan, and numerous other English grammarians to compile prescriptive grammars. McKnight dedicates a great deal of time to Lowth's beliefs about grammar. He states that "the judgements of Lowth . . . found wide adoption" though not total adoption (382). The classical belief "regarding the rule of nature in language could not be lightly dismissed" (389). Thus, Priestley's grammar is introduced; he states that grammar can only fit the time that it is taken from (39). Others that are mentioned in support of Priestley are Fell, Campbell, and Blair, all of whom recognized that although prescriptivism is too absolute, there is still a need for control (394). Myers* discussion of prescriptive grammar is largely a discussion of Lowth's tradition, "Preface," and grammar. The observation is made that Lowth's grammar is a "vital document" which summarizes what became the dominant philosophy and practice in the century to follow. Consequently, Myers devotes three pages to an examination of Lowth's "Preface." Myers warns students not to identify prescriptivism with eighteenth-century thinking. Lowth was reacting negatively to the prevailing attitude of the day that rules were not important. In his discussion, Myers credits (or blames) Lowth for a great number of "shibboleths that have been taking up a great deal of time in schools ever since." Such "Shibboleths" include the will/shall, lie/lay, and who/whom distinctions (227). Nist, who calls the prescriptivists "universal" grammarians, identifies Robert Lowth as the dominant figure, charging him with applying "classical grammar to an analytic and relatively uninflected tongue" (281). Other eighteenth-century grammars identified are those of Buchanan, Ward, Baker, Bayly, Harris, Murray, and Sheridan. Nist points out that the "logicians of Authoritarian English overlooked the fact that language is primarily psychological, that what is true for one tongue may be false for another" (281). Consequently, he implies that belief in a "universal grammar" is naive and not supported by data. Perhaps one of the most useful features of Nist's treatment of Authoritarian grammar is his 22-item list of prescriptive rules codified in the eighteenth century which still dominate twentieth-century grammar texts (282). Pyles, in his chapter, "The Modern English Period to 1800," discusses the personalities, philosophies, and contributions of the prescriptive grammarians. Bishop Robert Lowth is credited with 94

universal grammar—a concept that has been reviewed in our own day by the transformational-generative grammarians" (226). Pyles observes that the prescriptive grammarians often resorted to over-extended analogies to prove that their grammars were based upon reason. Lowth, for example, uses a mathematical analogy (two negatives cancel each other) to censure the use of the double negative. The observation is made by Pyles, as has been made by Nist, that the Lowth ian tradition still dominates a great portion of usage handbooks, even though modern linguistic science has demonstrated the perishability of many of these rules. Robertson and Cassidy have also branded the kind of grammar taught in today's schools as "prescriptive" (309). Much of the tempest created by the prcscriptivist, implies Robertson, seems to be over seemingly trivial issues such as the propriety of shall and will. Even the outlines and summaries of such rules would, according to Robertson, take up more space than should be devoted to its discussion. The point is made that "such a code of discrimination between shall and will and should and would (a code that Jcspcrscn takes 118 pages to outline) is an act of folly" (312). To illustrate the fallibility of prescriptive rules, Robertson devotes several sections to illustrating divided usage with -fy words, the final preposition, and contractions. Actual usage and prescriptive rules are demonstrated to be far apart. Williams, in a very short, perfunctory page, designates Lowth as the keynote speaker for the prescriptive grammarians. Lowth and his followers are described as having "set up an unincorporated academy," deciding matters of usage by resorting to past practice and a "kind of rationality of language" (96). Williams asserts that a rather small portion of the total structure of language was used by the prescriptivists to make rather major social judgments. Having asserted this, Williams does not go into a discussion of specific prescriptive rules as have Nist and Robertson. Because of the perceived loss of linguistic discipline, many authorities insisted on teaching English grammar, bringing in a new set of grammatical terms. The new description lacked the security of tradition (201).

95

Semantics
Much disagreement exists as to the territoriality of semantics, both as a branch of linguistics and as a portion in a language history textbook. In a language history textbook, semantics would be concerned with both etymology (the origins of words) and philology (the study of changes in meanings historically). Within the philological context, the laws of semantic change are usually introduced, including generalization, specialization, elevation, and degeneration. Certain texts, falling within the domain of symbolic logic, attempt to describe "laws" or "rules" under which language may be regarded as meaningful. (General semantics extends the boundaries of meaning study into the province of philosophy and psychology, insisting that meaning cannot be divorced from the human nervous system.) Even without the dimension added by general semantics, semantics or semasiology claims a rightful position in the family of linguistic studies. Baugh briefly discusses the linguistic study of semantics in a short unit entitled "Changes of Meaning" (373-8). Some of the areas of inquiry within this unit are "extension, narrowing, degeneration, and regeneration" of meaning. Two or three examples are given for each kind of meaning change. Bambas discusses semantics in a section entitled "Semantic Change: 1700-Present." He lists several causes and areas of semantic change, including: (1) Words broadening in meaning. (2) Confusing or changing etymological meaning of borrowed words. (3) Older meanings surviving as metaphors. Bambas' attitude toward semantic change is negative, and he suggests that "the frequency with which the pejorative change occurs has led some to wonder if this aspect of language reveals a dark side of the human mind" (199). He also suggests a psychological origin for some semantic change, stating that man's "fault-finding [disposition] accounts for a number of pejorative semantic changes" (196-200). Berndt states that a change of word meaning is the easiest, most economical way of meeting needs in the lexical resources of a language (76). This semantic change can involve either the addition of a new meaning to a word or the alteration of existing meanings. These demands for change come from social, scientific, and technological progress. Even psychology is explained as part of the motivation for semantic change. Also discussed are "specialization" and "generalization" (81). On page 87, Berndt includes a section on the substitution, regrouping, and expansion of the semantic shift. Bloomfield implies that much more is involved in a study of semantics than simply the classification of meaning change. He mentions, however, that the field is still somewhat amorphous and unorganized, with many "confusing and conflicting theories of how to analyze the effects of language (events, beliefs, superstitions, and so on)" (352). Bloomfield reiterates the important point that words cannot be studied in isolation. A warning is also given regarding the "etymological fallacy," the naive belief that the real meaning of a word somehow exists in a "root word" of a foreign language. The specific categories of meaning change treated in Bloomfield and Newmark are extension

96

(357), euphemism (358), degeneration or pejoration (359), and elevation or amelioration (360). Bolton makes little if any mention of this aspect of linguistic study. Discussions of the change of meanings from the initial etymological roots to those of the present day are only briefly interspersed throughout the book. Bourcier doesn't discuss semantics. Bradley devotes an entire chapter to "Changes of Meaning." He discusses extension and narrowing of meanings, then he expounds on expansion of meanings by giving examples of words having certain similar qualities. He includes a brief summary on the development of slang. Generalization and specialization are then touched upon. Bradley also mentions changes in meaning as a result of their literary meaning being misunderstood and also a reversal of meaning as a result of ironic language. Bryant devotes a separate chapter to the topic of semantics. She provides a concise but thorough historical overview of the principal forerunners and mainstream personalities in semantics, such as Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, I. A. Richards, and Alfred Korzybski. The popularizers of the second- and third-generation semanticists, such as S. I. Hayakawa and Wendell Johnson, are also highlighted. Bryant devotes considerable attention to explaining the goals of the "practical semanticists," the group whose aim is to unify the disunited house of science, in hopes of integrating all knowledge (359). Actually, the entirety of part four, the unit on "words," is concerned with the findings of traditional semantics. Individual subunits discuss and illustrate methods of word formation and change. Separate units are devoted to imagery and functional shift (307), degeneration and elevation (321), generalization and specialization, exaggeration and understatement (330), abbreviation and extension (335), metathesis and folk etymology (340), shifts in association (344), and radiation of meaning (348). Burchfield states that stability of meaning is rare in language (114). Environmental changes have played a large part in semantics. He asserts that every major historical, political, or social event, every discovery, and every new belief has brought change to the meanings of words. He cites many examples of words that have changed meanings. Cannon devotes a page to explaining five ways a word can change meaning: generalization, specialization, degeneration, elevation, and splitting. As the occasion arises when analyzing the samples of Old or Middle English, he explains the change in meaning and, if possible, what caused the change. His lists of loan words are effective etymologies for those words. Claiborne does not refer specifically to the study of semantics, but he briefly discusses meaning in the final chapter of his book. He writes, ". . . clear communication of meaning is the most fundamental criterion of good English" (287). He also declares that changes in meaning are fact and must be recorded as such. He also asserts that if two different meanings are current, they can become " . . . a source of ambiguity" (287). Donahue defines semantic change as "the change in the meaning of words" (87). She spends an entire chapter on these changes in the English language. Donahue notes that "most kinds of semantic change are examples of linguistic innovation" (87). One exception to this occurs when a word retains its
97

original form but changes in meaning because the object it describes changes (87). She also points out that words change in scope, or meanings become generalized or specialized (89). Education and degeneration is another way semantic change has occurred (80). "Some words have been almost or completely forgotten while others have acquired new associations" (93). In other cases, certain adverbs and adverbial phrases have been weakened with time (94). Donahue concludes this chapter by noting that some slang has become standard English (98). Donahue provides numerous examples to support her points. Emerson, in his chapter "Growth of the English Vocabulary," devotes only a short paragraph to the "undeveloped science of semasiology" (117). In this paragraph he lists four examples of words that have been affected by semantic shift: 1. Shade-shadow (enlargement) 2. Electricity-electron (different context) 3. Villain, knave, uncouth-villager, bay, unknown (lost caste) 4. Right, wrong, spirit-straight, twisted, breath (taken on spiritual significance) Gordon describes semantic change in about six pages. He covers denotation and connotation. He believes that the "commonest cause of change is the development of new connotations," giving words emotional coloring (24). He briefly touches on functional shift, euphemisms, contamination, generalization, fading, specialization, elevation, degradation, and radiation (25-29). He also examines the influence of prominent individuals and successful authors such as biblical writers, Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton. After J. N. Hook provides etymological information about the word semantics, he suggests that the word has "different but overlapping meanings" for logician, linguist, and practitioner or student of general semantics (235). Hook suggests that the most significant contribution to the field has come from the work and thought of Alfred Korzybski and his followers. Reflecting a sympathetic acceptance of general semantics, Hook suggests that semantics may "turn out to be as important a linguistic contribution as any other of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" (236). General semantics, according to Hook, adds not only a paralinguistic and non-verbal dimension to language study, but a social and cultural dimension as well. Some of the current concerns, such as "newspeak" and "doublespeak," are treated briefly in the eighth chapter, "The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries," with four examples from the language of public officials and advertisers (250). McCrum does not deal with the issue of semantics at all; semantics is implied, though, in areas where he mentions that certain words have changed their meanings over time. McKnight does not mention semantics in his text. L. M. Myers, in his chapter "English Spreads Out," devotes a short section to "Changes in Meaning," in which the four most commonly discussed kinds of semantic shift-specialization, generalization, elevation, and degeneration-are given light attention. Other areas also sparsely treated, two examples being "literal and figurative language" and "euphemisms" (249). 98

Nist discusses the problem of "etymological fallacy," described as a mistake made by a language user who attempts to discover what the "real meaning" of the word is by tracing it back to its original use. Nist recognizes the living and changing characteristics of language, realizing the futility of trying to isolate or contain meaning. Regeneration rather than degeneration, according to Nist, seems to be the appropriate metaphor for describing linguistic change (314). Nist defines and illustrates the various forms of semantic shift, including specialization, extension, pejo ration, and amelioration. euphemisms, many provided by H. L. Mencken, concludes this unit. Pyles presents one of the most thorough and detailed chapters on meaning and meaning change. In the subunit, "How Meaning Changes," Pyles treats generalization and specialization, pejoration and amelioration, social class distinctions, and "learned words." In the subunit, "Transfer of meaning," he discusses figurative devices such as metaphor and synthesis. The transfer of concrete to abstract meaning is amply illustrated with examples (355). Taboo and euphemism are given adequate penetration as a particular kind of meaning change. Pyles concludes the chapter as well as the book with a rather emphatic pronouncement about the inevitability of semantic change. Robertson and Cassidy exclude the study of general semantics, which they conceive to be more closely related to philosophy than to linguistics. Consequently, the province of Korzybskian semantics is excluded although the first footnote of one of the chapters includes an extensive list of basic general semantics books and publications. Robertson suggests that while meaning change cannot be fully studied, its manner of change is subject to certain linguistic processes which can be traced. The processes of generalization and specialization are first described and then fully illustrated. In his explanation of these twin processes, Robertson points out that cultural need is largely responsible for their direction, illustrating that while Eskimos require many different terms for snow, Polynesians require a more precise vocabulary for the ripening stages of the coconut (240), Elevation and degradation are illustrated by examples of words which have risen and fallen on the societal scale of value (250). Other types of meaning change treated in this text are metaphorical transfers, folk etymology, and slang, which Robertson defines as "words altered by popular etymology" (256). After a brief discussion of some of the leading contributors to American slang, particularly Walter Winchell and Ring Lardner, Robertson describes the perishability of slang and traces the usual fate of novelty expressions-acceptance, disappearance, or permanent thirdclass status (264). Although Robertson and Cassidy deliberately avoid any excursion into theories of meaning, Williams probes several theories of meaning and instruments devised to measure meaning, such as the word-association method, sorting, and the semantic differential. The types of semantic change, such as narrowing, widening, metaphor transfer, and shift, are all illustrated with the aid of select ional features. A short list of

99

No textbook surveyed in this section has more graphic diagrams and models than that of Williams. One of the most fascinating theoretical constructs in the unit on "semantic change" is the model for metaphor transfer (179):

GRASP -faction + physical -i- iinimulc + contract flexible appendage* around object

(GRASP;)

Vivid constructs are also provided for euphemism (202) and synesthesia (209). One of the most fascinating and unique features of Williams* text is a table of semantic laws which attempt to explain and predict semantic change as precisely as the earlier laws describing phonological change. Among the semantic "laws" listed are: 1. Words for abstractions will generally develop out of words for physical experience: comprehend, grasp, explain , etc. 2. Words originally indicating neutral condition tend to polarize: doom, fate, predicament, luck, merit. 3. Words originally indicating strong emotional response tend to weaken as they are used to exaggerate: awful, terrific, tremendous (207). The best feature of Williams* text is its inductive approach. Long lists of data are presented to the student to enable him to reach his own conclusion. The following is a sample problem on page 184 involving metaphorical transfer: As you inspect the list (consisting of 96 words), (1) Pick at random four or five different kinds of words and try to state in non-metaphorical language precisely what features the original sense and the metaphorical sense share. (2) Are there any generalizations about how certain classes of words are susceptible to metaphorical transfer? Wrenn briefly mentions semantics, stating that it fills the need for distinguishing the various shades of meaning and connotation which words have had throughout the history of language. Semantic science seeks to find the "exact nature and the causes of change of meaning in words" (108).

100

American and British Compared
No history of the language would be complete without a description of dialect features, including pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling. The two leading dialects of English are the American and British varieties. Baugh indicates that it is a general principle that the language of a newly colonized country will always tend to be more conservative than the language which remained in the old habitat. In terms of conservatism, the r is preserved in the "General American" dialect while it is no longer used elsewhere. Either is pronounced /iOr/, retaining the pronunciation of the seventeenth century. In terms of vocabulary, American English uses the older fall for the season autumn, and rare (that is, not fulty cooked) for undone. The expression / guess goes back to Chaucer's time, but it is no longer used in England. Americans still use mad in the sense of angry. Grammatically, American English also varies; for instance, we have retained gotten as the past participle of get. Following is a contrast of ten British and American words: British hooter mudguard windscreen silencer dynamo American horn fender windshield muffler generator British accumulator petrol buffer bonnet spanner American battery gasoline bumper hood wrench

American pronunciation for the most part retained the "flat a" pronunciation, as opposed to the evolving "broad a" sound. Consequently, the a in man rather than the a in father is the most acceptable. According to Baugh, the retention of r before consonants is an old north England influence in our speech. Also, in words like hot, top, lot, and so on, the vowel has lost its rounding. In American speech, there is more of a tendency to pronounce all of the syllables, while the English will telescope syllables together, as in secretary or laboratory. The position of primary stress in many English words falls on the second syllable rather than on the first. Baugh claims that the chief difference between American and British English is in vocabulary. Words and expressions describing aspects of the automobile, railroads, and communications are presented in pairs to illustrate the contrast and mutual incomprehensibility. Baugh suggests that the difference between the two vocabularies seems to be lessening because of the increasing number of American words which are making their way into English. Some American words which Baugh has cataloged as entering the British vocabulary from American are prairie, typewriter, fpaft, and blizzard. In a chapter entitled "The Sounds of English," Bambas discusses physical differences in 101

pronunciation between the American and British dialects (45, 50). He gives a thorough comparison of American and British English in the chapter entitled "American English" (206-219). Three main subheadings of the chapter are phonological differentiation, vocabulary differences, and spelling and grammar. Berndt does not cover this topic. Bolton makes only one mention of any difference between these two dialects in his book. This is found within a paragraph that touches on American spelling and pronunciation. The point being made is simply that "literary English remains subject to the same arbitrary rules throughout the world, although pronunciation differs greatly within both dialects." Bourcier and Clark give no discussion of this descriptor. Bradley contrasts spellings which occur in Webster's Third New International Dictionary with those which occur in the latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Differences in pronunciation of the two countries are grazed over. Bradley does not make any specific or detailed distinctions between American and British. Bradley brings in the point of immigration and its effect upon the American English language. He presents it in this way: "So great are their numbers, however, and so secure is their political position that they may force America to become bilingual, and if they do, it will mark a division between American and British speech far surpassing anything previously known." Bryant does not illustrate vocabulary or pronunciation differences between American and British English although she discusses the work of H. L. Mencken, calling his The American Language "one of the most thorough systematic comparisons between American and British English" (83). Burchfleld does not compare American and British English. Cannon notes that there are differences between American and British English which have led to publications attempting to help the one understand the other. The main differences between American and British are in nouns and prepositions. American and British sometimes use different words for the same thing, e.g., pram and stroller, on other occasions, one word may refer to two different things, e.g., football The British tend to treat the determiner differently in prepositional phrases, most frequently by omitting it. These are, however, superficial differences that seem to be disappearing with education and the pervasive mass media. Claiborne does not say very much about the differences between American and British English. He states that American English "differs noticeably from the mother tongue in phonetics" (199). He says that syntactically, the two are "indistinguishable apart from a few minor points of usage" (199). He gives examples of the British English different to as opposed to the American English different from. Claiborne gives some examples of British criticism of American English. He states that in 1808 an English magazine denounced the ". . . 'torrent of barbarous phraseology' that threatened to 'destroy the purity of the English language' " (222). Another critic found American writing loaded with "a great multitude of words which are as utterly foreign as if they had been adopted from Chinese or Hebrew" 102

(222). In Donahue's comparison of American and British languages, she makes it clear that American English has kept many characteristics of "seventeenth century English which do not survive in presentday British English" (78). British English has retained other features of early English which American English has lost. Donahue compares vocabulary, locutions, and spelling differences, then concludes her comparison by pointing out that since 1929, the unifying factors of a shared media have made the divergence in British and American English "narrower and narrower" (83). Noah Webster is recognized by Emerson as the author of the American Dictionary of the English Language and as having established the American pronunciation rules. He also claims that American English and British English are parallel, with only slight differences in diction and syntax (in the literary aspect). The differences in the spoken language occur in the use of colloquial words, such as the British clever versus the American smart. Emerson finds a more uniform social class dialect among the Americans than is to be found among the British. The U.S. standard of English is established for the country as a whole by the dictionaries (109-110). Gordon compares the different reactions to the "Americanized" version of the English language. He describes American independence and Americanisms (284-287). He also reflects on the comparisons of how the dialects differ today. He feels that patronizing British observers exaggerate the real differences between the two varieties. He discusses the differences in the back vowels, consonants, length, and a few minor points of grammar. To conclude, he feels there is no real breakdown between the two: the British individual is irritated by some of the American slang, and the American is amused by the British person's "way of putting it." Rather than compare the two dialects, Groom discusses American words adapted by English and the controversy in so doing. He also describes American words as representing "smart business methods, and general modernity" (189). J. N. Hook, in his chapter on "Developments in America," systematically discusses word choice, spelling, and syntax as well as differences and similarities between British and American English. McCrum explains that the beginning of the rift between American and British English originated on the Pilgrims' voyage across the Atlantic, when all the regional differences in the speech of the Puritans began to intermingle, later blending together during the settlement that followed (117). McCrum gives several examples of new words introduced into the American vocabulary by new circumstances and by borrowing from the American Indians. He also gives examples of how the pronunciation of certain vowels differs from British to American English. He particularly mentions Noah Webster and his influence on American spelling and speech patterns. In the chapter entitled "Beginnings of American English," McKnight explains that the English which was brought to America was English of seventeenth-century development (461). He points out 103

that linguistical studies carried out by James Russell Lowell and outlined in the Biglow Papers show that it is the English pronunciation from this period that has survived (461). He uses examples such as the New England words varmint, critter, ketch, git, along with forms like cur'ous, experunce, Ulustrous, notorous, and varus (461-2). McKnight also shows the relation between New England spellings and those of seventeenth-century Britain. He then switches and links a few characteristics to the present New England dialect (462). In the southern colonies much the same thing happened, but with greater British influence (463). From the research of H. L. Mencken, Nist has borrowed a 25-item comparative list of British and American word pairs (24). Nist, in a short unit on American-British pronunciation, illustrates differences between the two varieties, without the aid of phonetic transcriptions. Much of Pyles' ninth chapter is devoted to differences between American and British English. After discussing the conservatism of American and the mutual intolerance between the users of the two varieties, Pyles systematically illustrates the likenesses as well as the differences in vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and spelling. Following a study of American "infiltration into the British word stock," Pyles mentions many British-American equivalents, though not in long comparative lists. Syntactical and morphological differences, although they are discussed, are termed "trivial" by Pyles. A short list of British locutions with American variations placed in brackets illustrates the triviality of these differences (254). American and British differences in pronunciation are illustrated by phonetic script (263). In the short unit on British-American spelling, the -ourl-or, -ref-er and -cel-se distinctions are systematically illustrated (268). Robertson suggests that the vocabulary differences between British and American English have been highly overrated. Most of the differences, he suggests, have resulted from separate technological developments in the automobile, aviation, and communication industries (381). In further emphasizing the similarities between the two varieties, he suggests that "although American retains a secondary stress which British discards," both follow the same trend of "obscuring unstressed vowels" (384). Robertson admits that while it is easy to compile long lists of paired words showing differences in vocabulary, "a careful examination of lists of this kind leaves one unimpressed by that sense of a great gulf between the vocabularies that the lists are tended to convey" (270). Robertson concludes his discussion with a severe censure of linguistic intolerance on both sides of the Atlantic. Williams devotes very little attention to American-British differences, including only a brief comparative table of systematic differences in spelling (364). Wrenn compares American and British dialects in a limited sense. Although American has developed new elements in vocabulary, phrasing, structure, and pronunciation, it has also maintained some archaisms which have even disappeared from British, e.g., gotten and faucet (190).

104

American Dialects
In 1929, under the sponsorship of the American Council for Learned Societies (as well as the Modern Language Association and the American Linguistic Institute), Hans Kurath set about surveying the dialect areas of the New England area. Kurath paid close attention to the following matters: 1. A preliminary survey of the area (settlement history, topography, and travel patterns) and the informants was made. According to Atwood, Kurath determined that informants should be divided into three educational categories: (I) grade school, (II) high school, and (III) above high school. Other demographic data were also to be taken into account (age, sex, etc.). 2. A questionnaire was carefully prepared with questions relating to topography, dwelling, and weather. 3. Fieldworkers were carefully trained in the science of phonetic transcription by Kurath. Kurath originally compiled the data on a linguistic atlas consisting of 20"-by-28" maps. Later, symbols were affixed to the map instead of the transcription itself. The allas-thc Dialect Atlas of New England-was published in the years 1939-1943. This was the first segment of an envisioned larger project: The Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada. The work of Hans Kurath and the field workers of the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada is given attention in Baugh's chapter, "The English Language in America." At the time this edition was compiled, seven regional dialects were identified: 1. Eastern New England 2. New York City 3. Middle Atlantic 4. Western Pennsylvania 5. Southern Mountains 6. Southern 7. General American (439-441) A map indicating the dialect boundaries is provided with descriptions of the most distinctive features of each dialect area. Settlement and migration patterns are discussed as part of the fieldwork. The section on regional dialects in Bambas* text is introduced with a fairly lengthy background on history and general characteristics of dialects in the United States. He treats the following dialects: Eastern New England, New York City (and environs), Middle Atlantic (Philadelphia, Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey, Delaware, and Northern Maryland), Southern (from Virginia to Florida, and west to East Texas), Southern Mountain, Southern Central (Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas), and "General American." A dialect map is included. Berndt does not cover this topic. Bloomfield briefly discusses the data compiled by the field workers of the Linguistic Atlas of the 105

United States and Canada. Three major groupings with two subgroupings are mentioned on pages 194-195: 1. Northern 2. Midland a. North b. South 3. Southern Bolton and Bourcier give no discussion of American dialects in general. Bradley mentions American dialects only in passing. The following are dialect areas which he mentions: New England; the region of New York City; the South, from the southern Appalachians west into the Ozarks; and the Pennsylvania Dutch country. He goes on to say that with standardized public education, the press, movies, radio, television, and the mobility of the population, especially during WWI and WWII, the regional and social diversities have to an extent been removed. Burchfield does not cover this topic. Cannon speaks of four American dialects: Northern, Midland, Southern, and "Negro Speech." He considers the first three of the dialects together, showing the possibility of misunderstandings even within the same area, due to inconsistent variations. These word differences, however, are limited. He also believes that because of education and mass media, the dialects are slowly disappearing. "Negro Speech" is considered separately. Cannon does not believe that it is actually a dialect since blacks can usually speak standard English as well. He does not think that Black English is incorrect, but that it is non-standard and, subsequently, usually unacceptable to intolerant people. Claiborne speaks of two major dialect areas: New England and Midland. He states that Midland subdialects have blended into what is called "General American," which extends to the Pacific (241). He explains these two dialect areas in detail, saying, "For dialects that don't follow the MidlandGeneral American pattern, it makes more sense to look at individual cases, rather than seek a general explanation" (245). With regard to the number of American dialects, Claiborne states that American English has anywhere from half a dozen to over a dozen dialects, depending on how finely one chooses to draw distinctions (228). Claiborne refers to Hans Kurath as " . . . the high priest of American Dialectology" (229). On page 229, Kurath describes three social levels of American speech: 1. Cultivated speech, which is most widespread in urban areas. 2. Common speech, the language of the large middle class. 3. Folk speech, which is found in rural areas. These points lend to the fact that dialect is affected by social class. Donahue dedicates only half a page to American dialects, in which she specifies three main types: "Northern, Midland and Southern-with many different blendings of these as one travels westward" (79). Donahue continues by noting that all regional types originated with the "British Standard as it
106

existed in the 1600's when language was less rigid" (79). Emerson, in his chapter "English in Modern Times," mentions three American speech areas. At the time this edition was compiled, these regions were New England, for the East; the upper Mississippi Valley, for the West; and Virginia and the Carolinas, for the South (109). A map of the dialect boundaries is not included. Gordon says that dialects are recognized as regional even though they are applied to social levels as well. Changes in city and rural pronunciation is given as an example. He gives ten evidences called early regional consciousness (289-291) and six evidences of the differences in today's dialects (292294). Dialectal variation is not really discussed in Hook's text although he states that "regional dialects exist mainly because those who settled in the various regions came from different areas of England and other countries" (269). Linguistic geography and dialectology are not discussed. Although McKnight does spend a short time on American dialects, he really does not deal with this topic in great detail. He introduces the New Englanders as having a dialect which is a result of the mixture of many seventeenth-century British dialects belonging to the first groups of settlers to inhabit the country (462). He says that the speech of the "Southern colonists might be expected . . . to retain earlier features of the English of the mother country" (464-465). McKnight concludes that the diverse origins of those who settled west of the seaboard, having mixed, formed the present dialects of the areas today (467). He also describes how various words, such as tomahawk, toboggan, burro, etc. were adopted into the language (469-470). Nist, in his chapter on "American English," lists the three American speech areas as Northern, Midland, and Southern, subdividing these general areas into "ten leading regionalisms" (367). Under the Northern group, Nist lists and describes the most distinctive features of Eastern New England, North Central, and Southwest. The same procedure is followed in the Midland group: New York City, Middle Atlantic, Western Pennsylvania, Central Midland, Northwest, and Appalachian. No subdivisions are made for the Southern region. Pronunciation features are presented in phonemic script. A map illustrates the dialect boundaries (371). Pyles discusses the work of Hans Kurath and the compilers of the Linguistic Atlas of New England and Handbook of Linguistic Geography. The speech boundaries of the Eastern United States, along with 18 subdivisions, are depicted on a map reproduced from Bolinger's Aspects of Language (272). In his chapter on "Pronunciations, Variations, and Standards," Robertson discusses linguistic geography from the time of Wenker to the work of the linguistic geographers at the time the text was published. Some of the general features Robertson discusses are the r-less dialects. The [as]/[a] distinctions as well as the [hw]/[w] distinctions are given individual attention. As to the [ae]/[a] distinction, it is suggested that New England stands apart by having [a] in all phonetic categories (394), 107

Since dialect variation is most pronounced in vowels and diphthongs, individual vowels and diphthongs are treated as the focal points. Generalizations about consonant clusters are made as they are seen interacting with vowels and diphthongs. Williams treats vocabulary differences between three dialect areas with data provided from a survey of students from the three major dialect regions. Williams asks the students to identify the area they are used to. Although three major dialect areas are identified (Northern, Midland, and Southern), Williams chooses to examine in detail characteristics of "eastern New England and the rest of the North and the Tidewater and Piedmont areas in the South, areas which illustrate those dialect features that characterize various American dialect areas" (358). Five features are illustrated in phonemic slashes. One unique feature of Williams' text is that one set of problems is devoted to Black English (107). Wrenn shows that rhythm, intonation, and punctuation hold differing factors in dialect. He presents an interesting point to ponder: is it possible for English, with so many dialects spoken by so many people all over the world, having the tendency therefore to disintegrate and fragment, to be strong enough to continue to have a standardized written language, resisting all fragmenting forces? After all, language, by its very nature, will inevitably change (195). Similarly, how much of an effect will various dialects have on the language? In the appendix starting on page 131, the degree of penetration is indicated by the number of pages devoted to each descriptor. One major generalization that can be made by looking at the chronological table is that descriptors denoting structure and internal history seem to be increasing while descriptors relating to external history are losing ground.

108

Appendix A

Tables of Contents (Compiled from the surveyed textbooks)

109

Table of Contents
Historical periods cited Prehistory (Indo-European) Old English Middle English Modem English Early (Renaissance) Authoritarian Mature Present SYSTEMATICALLY DIVIDED Separate units for Grammar Morphology Nouns/Verbs/Adverbs Inflections Syntax Sentence pattern Phonology (sounds) Vowels Consonants Pronunciation Dialects Lexicon Vocabulary (Words) Semantics Spelling

BA

BL

BK

BT

CK

FR

GN

HK

MT

MC

MY

NI

PE

PY

RN

SV

SG

WI

X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X
X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X

X X
X

X
X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X
X

X X
X X

X

X X

X

X
X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table of Contents
Special units 1. English language in America 2. Language: a. Origin of

BA

BL

BK

BT

CK

FR

GN

HK

MT

MC

MY

NI

PE

PY

RN

SV

SG

WI

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X
X

X
X

X X

b. Nature of c. Theory of

X
X

X X

d. Definition of 3. Pedagogical application 4. Summaries of important persons, events, and features of language 5. Glossary of terms 6. Writing and printing 7. English dictionaries 8. Development of English punctuation 9. Index of Modern English words, affixes, and phrases 10. British English 11. British and American differences 12. Phonetic symbols: key words Bibliography End of book By chapter Pagination provided Annotation Exercises provided
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X
X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X
X

X

X

X

Appendix B

Baugh's Model of a Historical Outline of the English Language

112

Historical Outline of the English Language

I.

Introduction A. Nature and Origin of Language* B. Definition of Language C. Characteristics of a Language Family 1. Cognate words 2. Morphological and Syntactical Similarities

II.

Prehistory or Ancestry of English A. Indo-European Origins 1. The Discovery of Sanskrit 2. The Discovery of the Wulfila translation 3. Indo-European Homeland and Culture 4. Indo-European Family Division* 5. Centum/Satem distinctions 6. Indo-European Cognate Words B. Germanic Characteristics* 1. Grimm's Law* 2. Verner's Law

III.

Old English A. External History (450-1150) 1. Celtic History 2. Roman Occupation 3. Germanic Tribes (invasion of) 4. Norman Invasion 5. Scandinavian Influence and Danelaw* 6. Christianity (effects on language) B. Internal History-Grammar and Grammatical Change 1. Morphology of Old English (morphological changes from Old to Middle English) a. Grammatical Gender* b. Inflection in Old English* 2. Syntactical changes from Old to Middle English 3. Phonology of Old English a. Vowels and Consonants of Old English b. Dialects of Old English 4. Lexicon and Lexical Changes (vocabulary) a. French Influence b. Germanic Influence c. Latin Influence d. Celtic Influence

113

IV.

Middle English A. External History (1100-1500) 1. Effects of Norman Invasion 2. Caxton and Printing* 3. Chaucer's Influence 4. Classicist-Purist Debate 5. Inkhorn Terms (resistance to) B. Internal History 1. Grammar and Grammatical Change from Middle to Modern English a. Morphology (inflectional decay)* b. Syntax 2. Phonology and Phonological Changes a. Dialects b. Standard English (London) c. Great Vowel Shift* 3. Lexicon and Lexical Changes (vocabulary) a. Middle English Vocabulary b. Latin Influence c. Norman French Terms 4. Orthography and Spelling

114

V.

Modern English A External History (1500-present) 1. Renaissance (1500-1600) a. Enrichment* b. Classicist-Purist Debate c. Inkhorn Terms d. Spelling Reform e. Shakespeare's Influence 2. Authoritarian English (1650-1800) a. Ascertainment (fixing the languages) b. Proposals for Academy (efforts of Swift)* c. Johnson's Dictionary d. Efforts of Prescriptive Grammarians* 3. Mature Modern English (1500-present) a. Spread of the Empire b. Influence of World War I c. Influence of World War II d. Spelling Reform Efforts e. Oxford English Dictionary Internal History 1. Grammar and Grammatical Change (Early to Late Modern English) a. Morphology (1) Early Modern (2) Authoritarian (3) Mature Modern b. Syntax (1) Early Modern (2) Authoritarian (3) Mature Modern 2. Phonology a. Early Modern b. Authoritarian c. Mature Modern 3. Lexicon and Lexical Resources (Vocabulary) a. Early Modern (Enrichment) (1) French Influence (2) Latin Influence (3) Classicist-Purist Controversy b. Authoritarian (1) Fixing Language (2) Johnson's Dictionary c. Mature Modern (1) Oxford English Dictionary (2) Influence of Science and Technology d. Orthography (Spelling and Spelling Reform) e. Semantics and Semantic Shift*

B.

VI.

Developments in the United States A B. America and British Compared* U.S. Dialects-Linguistic Geography*

*Denotes major descriptors used in this text.

115

Appendix C

Ready-Reference Index to 34 Textbooks

116

Author

American and British Compared

American Dialects

American Indian Influence: Vocabulary
9, 350, 420

American Indian Language

Bon-owing: Earty Modem 1500-1650
257-7* 134-42

Baugh Bambas Berndt Bloomffeld & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchffeld Cannon Claibomc Clark Cook Donahue Emerson FeraaM Francis

453-5 206-28

436-46 219-28

214

67-8 194-5 363

363

176

26 169
202-3

7. 9-11. 13, 19-21, 23, 25, 38-40, 43, 46

192-3

79. 192

56 83 6
289-92

83

11-W
162-78 179-88 22, 91, 97, 179, 228-9, 240-3,245

163-4

133-40

76-9, 199, 222

18-9, 28, 92, 117

39
281-95 77-82 lOSrlO 49-50

104
105-10

79 172-4

56-62 84-8, 120-2, 186-90, 285-6 235-51

238

6-7, 237-40

10, 151-2

5

109, 137-8

117

Author

American and British Compared
294-5

American Dialects

American Indian Influence: Vocabulary
288

American Indian Language

Borrowing: Early Modem 1500-1650

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rulon McCrum McKnlgbt McLaoghlin Myers
NLst Peters Pyles

58-60 261-9 270-1,283-6

20

148-53, 184-90 180-3

309
331-41 191-209

31-8, 40, 120-3, 235-H 343-51 527-38, 548-50

236-40

IBM. 235

93-5

460-94

470

104-5, 119. 169, 470-1 62-6

233^ 24-5 239-47, 252-4, 2*0-73, 229-74 336-73 63-6, 105-19

234 274-5 274-5 33*40 19, 21 16, 64

182-201 226-33 263-8 319-21, 329-39 153-6

272
386-400

Robertson & CassMy Stevkk Strang Williams Wrenn
194-9 18, 35-8, 40-4, 73-8, 92-4, 118-9, 206, 282

169

231-44 120-2. 124-31. 185-9, 333-4 103-9, 357-61 190-4

104 80

92
42-8

118

Author

Caxton and Printing

Celtic Influence: Vocabulaiy
84 7«
16, 67 104, 119, 125-6, 139, 202

Centum-Satem Distinction

Chaucer

Christianity: Effect on Language
94

Baugh Bambas Berndt Bloomfield & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant BurchtleM Cannon Claiborne

234-7

39. 43 34-5

146
35. 38, 102 177, 230, 304-5

62, 98. 1 1 1 , 119, 176
34-5.37

78-85 21, SO-3,59

118-21, 124, 126

305, 331

17-22. 27. 30, 38 140, 1*4, 169 54-5

2,57-9 58-9

10-3, 15-6, 18-20, 35-7 36, 39, 157, 191

152

33
27, 29. 31

34 129

50, 128, 130, 145-6, 151-2. 183 31, 57, 161-3, 165, 221, 244, 255, 290, 307 17, 63, 77, 111 30, 289

53, 68

22. 25, 147, 176-7 100, 102. 104, 127 146, 153, 1% 51, 137 27-8, 42 26-9, 229, 234

103-10. 112-22, 127 92, 108, 1 1 1 , 114, 125. 139, 143, 146. 180, 222,287

52-3, 96-7

Clark Cook Donahue Emerson

122-3, 178-83 147-224 53-4 73-4, 77-* 81-2, 165-4 29-30 17-20 145-6

22-3 7, 18, 147. 173, 175 44-5 51-2. 60-1, 77-9. 96, 127, 162-3, 180-2, 187, 234-7, 257-8, 295-7, 315, 320-31, 354-5, 368, 376-7. 379-81. 383-4, 388 13S-80 82-5, 103, 105-4 126, 128, 141. 147 76-7. 135-6, 199 21-4 145-8, 155-6, 162-3, 251, 268-9

Fernald Francis

196
85-6, 103, 105-7. 138, 147, 204-5, 211-2

69
145-6

119

Author

Caxfaxi and Printing

Celtic Influence: Vocabulary

Cenlum-Satem Distinction

Chaucer

Christianity: Effect on Language
98-9 18, 19, 25 62-3, 117-8
200-3

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardl Martin & Rulon McCrom McKnlght Mclaughlin Myers
NLst

166-7 40, 69, 75-6, 123 142-5

94 15, 17. 16 60-1
196-9,202

132-46

27, 50. S4, 103, 172. 254 3-5, 33. 35, 48. 69. 71, 73-5, 89, 107

24

105-6, 113-4 241, 263-9, 273-5

14

14

47. 82. 85-8, 93, 133, 142

47, 53-61, 140-2, 164-9

11, 50-1, 77, 79*. 122, 142-3, 172, 234, 272, 313
17-55. 72, 122

20,64-8, 165 110-23, 222

17, 57, 59, 256 8-9, 175, 182 171-2 17-8, 372, 305 18, 136, 181

25
50,61,63

40, 49. 57, 111-2
121, 141-56
79

33 63, 67, 103, 105 90

76-7
43-6, 51, 264-5, 278

163-4, 169-72, 181-2, 202-4,227-8

Peters Pyles

46 95

10, 12, 63
60, 64, 70, 78, 156-7, 161-2, 170, 173, 176-7, 197, 222, 227. 233, 277. 292, 308, 310, 320, 323. 327. 329. 348, 361-2 48-50, 100-1, 117-8 216-7, 333, 337

113

114, 116

Robertson & Cassldy Stevkk Strong Williams Wrenn

50,222,327

20-4, 39-40, 46

20

40-1, 152

234-5 157-8, 161, 197, 267 185-6, 282-3, 357-8, 391-3 159*0, 173-4, 20fr«, 231-2
47-8

235-6 354-60, 366-7, 370-1, 374-6,394-6

91 27, 94-5. 121

51-2 12, 75-6

5, 29-30, 75, 80, 85, 349-50

56-7 1504

12,40

56, 91, 105. 112, 123-9, 148,165-6

120

Author

dassfciatPurist Debate
246-50

Cognate Words

Commonwealth English
384-8

Danelaw

Dialects: Middle English
228-31 118-20

Baugh Bambas Berndt BloomfleM & Newmark Bollon Bradley Brook Bryanl Burchfleld Cannon Clalbome Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fcrnald Francis

20

110
87-90

138

50
106 210-9

7, 11-3, 17-3, 23

196 56
70-1

2 204 79
62-3 46, 84, 123-30

157-8

13-5, 30, 73, 138, 229

171-8

55-6, 94 89-91, 147

103
146-7

206

39, 5fr4 B8-42 29-33 42-4, 62 51-60

84-8

153-7

87

241

79, 146

84-5

121

Author

OlmmicM Purist Debate
248

Cognate Words

Commonwealth English
13

Danelaw

Dialects: Middle EngRsh
100-11

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rulon McCnun McKnlght McLaughlln Myers Nlst Peters Pyles Robertson & Cassldy Slevkk Strang Williams Wrenn

79-82

32
120, 149 24-5 233, 319 67-8

4, 30-45, 49, 69-79
103-5

192
218-9

239-42. 308

11

19

30

23, 1ZS, 351

71

78-80
1-16, 36, 66-7, 73-4, 76, 83, 166-9, 186-7

110-23, 175

64-8 192-6 1-10, 41 231-3 25-7 42-3 91-3 153-5

3S-*

58
140-1 154-7 60-2

63,68-9
95-6 55, 59

224
269-72, 278

107

24,421

39-41, 117-9

36-9

223
101, 123, 279, 402-3
87-9 320-1 17-*, 73-4, 78, 125, 217

320
239, 282, 320, 330

17
156-350 64, 86, 245-7, 343-4
22-6

59
188-99

59

199-202

122

Author

Dialects: Old English

English Academy

Fixing Language

French Influence

French Influence: Early Modem English
272-3 142 63 1TJ-82

Baugh Bambas B«rndl Bloomfleld & Ncwmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfield Cannon Clalborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fcrnald Francis

60-1 80-1.88-96

316-26, 423-4 165-9

308-9

200- 16 4-6
57-63

135-42, 149

299-300

300

177-82

1-2, 7. 31 7-10

47-50

8-13, 19-22, 24-5, 33-8, 43.51,58 24, 41.60-6.96 47-9

24-5, 33

2S-9 46, 84, 123-30 48-50 76,231 51
155-7

77

46-9, 52-3, 5^60 14-9, 26, 47

46-9, 74-9

14-9 134-5

128. 154-61

101-2, 134-5 28, 117 205

182 205-6

n-&
18,20-1 38-50 68 191-5

222-3 38,65,72 36-7, 53-8, 68. 70-83. 136-7, ISfr^e, 347, 369-70,372-3 65-72 36-7, 53-8, 68, 70-3, 136-7, 156-68, 347. 369-70. 372-3

77-9

81-2, 101-2, 106-7, 132-3, 136-7, 139-44

142

123

Author

Dialects: Old English

English Academy

Feting Language

French Influence

French Influence: Early Modem English

Gordon Groom

96-7 17-8

282

255

103-18, 148 4, 27, 36-44, 123, 132, 141, 162-3, 170-1, 181-4, 191, 199, 203, 209-10 123, 141, 162-3, 170-1, 191, 203, 209-10

Hook Marckwardl Martin & Rulon McCnun McKnlght McLaughlln Myers Nlst Peters Pyles Robertson & Casskty Slevkk Strong Williams Wrenn

84-5, 336

203-4

116-20, 150, 196, 271, 313 186-91

116-20

19

220

233

60-4

129-33

804
230-1

44, 47, 84, 95, 124-5, 131, 200, 203-4, 235, 282 4, 5, 8, 31, 64, 221-3. 272-4

73-8

279-80, 321-6, 375

272-4, 407

30
65-8 76-7 54-5. 57 120-1

81
211-2 274-5

79
216-7

48-55 113-5. 118-9 163-4 228-30 263-95 38. 47. 61. 190, 320, 324-8 328-30

276 273 225

184

37-9

331-9

208, 336-44

155-61. 169-70. 176

44-51

17
306-7, 309-10, 322-3, 337-8, 341-3, 364-S, 382-3, 38S-8 94-5

237-40 25-9, 31-2, 77-8, 92-3. 216-9, 227-30, 258-9, 314-6

95

81-2 52-62

81
52-7

204

96

124

Author

French Influence: Middle English

Germanic Characteristics

Germanic Tribe*: Invasion*
54-5, 67

Grammar Authoritarian, 1650-1800
351-5

Grammar Early Modem, 1150-1650
290-304

Baugh Bambas Berndl Bfoomfield & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfleld Cannon Clalbome Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

200-17 93-118 57-62 177-82

35 33
69-70. 174-7, 188-9 113-4

28
16-21 134-7 307-$ 310-3 225-87

8-13

5-8, 13, 58 1-5, 39, 45. 86-7. 115-9 37-40

1-2

42-5, 51-5

40-1 26-8 77-104 48-9, 55 14041 187-215 77-104 104-22

59-60 14-9 93-8 109. 117, 156

17-21 4,10,19 31, 48-51, 55, 137-8

46 23

8-9
204-5 202-8 20-1 10-4, 27, 34-42, 106-7

222-3 35-41 36-7, 53-8. 68, 70-3, 136-7, 156-68, 347, 369-70,372-3

249-51 11-5 10-4, 27. 34-42, 106-7. 170-2, 275^84

45
103-9, 13*44 92-5

13-41 74-6

110

110

125

Author

French klfluance: Middle English

Germanic Characteri.be*

Germanic Tribes: Invasions
95
15-6 62-3

Grammar, Authoritarian, 1650-1800
252-6

Grammar Early Modem, 1150-1650
187-242

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardl Martin & Rulon McCrum McKnlght McLaughlln Myers Nisi Peters Pyles Robertson & Cassldy Stevkk Slrang Williams Wnnn

146-50 4.3W4 116-20 245-51

87-91 15-6, 211

29-30 278-81
15-7

201-10

158<6
214-8, 224-7
33-7

196-9. 279-81
18-20

73-80

70

56-9

377-W

92, 168

28
128-33
160-2

144-65 222-8 293-8
223, 242 201-2 2W-61

sz*
79-86
4«-7

62-S 7S-7 52-4 114-7 36-9

186
195-228

324-8
44-51

102-12 25-34

195-228

237-41

16
405-19

319-21 377-9, 381. 3«
53-4

«, 39, 145-6, 154 247, 249-52. 262-5, 273-4, 280-1. 284-5
135-9

81-3, 135-6

49-51

57-62

13-9

15-20

126

Author

Grammatical Gender

Grammar Mature Modem, 1800-1900

Grammar Middle English

Grammar O4d English

Grimm and Grimm's Law

Baugh Bambas Berndt Bloomfleld & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfleld Cannon Clalbome Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

65-6 61, 65, 67, 93 115-8 169-77

189-200

63-77 62-74

20-2 32-3

154

225-87

152-7, 160-70

108-15. 127, 1*5-6

47-8, 64 3-4, 6, 34-6

34-7

31-4

58

51
34-5, 54-5, 208, 239 6, 10 78-82, 100-1, 117 13. 79, 113-* 84-6, 143 77-104 79-80, 191-3, 196-9 11, 70, 152, 160

50-2 187-218 77-104 100-1, 104-22

43-4 187-218 77-104 63-72, 75-90 78-9

38, 77-8 20-1, 129

31-5, 108, 231 46-7, 58, 60 20, 22, 25-7, 91-2,102-3 30-1. 33

113

144
232-7 37-41 51-60 264-70

265 41

37
38-50 14-5, 306

92-3

110

102, 105-6

92

127

Author

Grammatical Gender

Grammar Mature Modem, 1800-1920
187-255

Grammar Middte English

Grammar Old English

Grimm and Grimm's Law

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rulon McCrnm McKnighl McLaughlln Myers NLst Peters Pyfes Robertson & Cassldy Slevkk Strang Williams Wrenn

132-45

187-242

89-90

8-9
82, 115. 248, 322 92-5, 289-90 20-5 53-152

1144 251-62 29-34

71, 7*85, 295-6, 305-* 287-305 22-8

25-6

278
16-7

46,52-3 218-«3 14, 166

6-8
255-81

12-5, 177-9 52-7, 104

266
86-7

324
24442

184-200 232-5 157-ao

122-31 126-72, 233-42 128-50

80-1 48-50 87, 105-9 29-31,86

127
126-7, 167-8 44, 119-88

179
141-2, 263-71, 294-5, 301-4 238-9

128-42. 1 * 1 , 172, 194 6, 16, 5ft 67. 73-155

156-352 204-5, 362-3, 347-50

125, 157-9, 167, 184 349-50,3*4-6,392-3

16
370, 411

121-3, 125-31, 235-t5, 254-6,289-90 U6-42 137-42

320

110-1. 134-42

128

Author

Indo-European

Indo-European Family DMetons

Inflection: OW English

Inflection: Decay in Middle English
190
114-8 129-32 183-5

Inkhom Ten™

Baugh Bambas Bcmdl Bloomfleld & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant BurchHeld Cannon Clalborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Femald Francis

40-5 15,20, 32

22-38 20-1

63-71

260-7

60
122, 127-9 148-9

31
114-28

31
114-27

176

58

58-9 3,21 14-8

30-7

30-7 9-11

50 197
4, 7-12, 15, 17, 58-62, 108. 138, 157, 174

50
53-8

58
71-3 5. 20, 27, 81, 91

7-8

12-5, 24-3*

25-32

20, 43-4. 46, S3, 59, 66-7, 75-83 12,92-3 85-94 264-5

100-1, 117-8, 122, 133. 145

129. 133, 232

32, 45, 77. 139 27,43 19,22,84 20, 29 9-10 1-31. 116-20. 231-4, 278-81, 289-90, 310,382

186-7

20-1

141-8 264-9

9 1-9

40-1 278-92

260

70-2

72

92-3

129

Author

Indo-European

Indo-European Family Divisions

Inflection: Old English

Inflection: Decay in Middle English
132-45, 187-211

Inkhom Terms

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Union McCmm McKnlght McLanghiin Myers
Nbt
9-14

83, 87

60-1. 132-45

248

11
22-3,333-4 70-84 100-1. 108, 114-*, 250. 284-5 136, 250,284-5

18-26. 32-5

120, 149, 311

27*41
6, 10

278
12-S

287-305
22-3

185 219

52-3 3, 580-1

53

70
33-4, 78

70
34-7, 78-87

95. 102
108. 121-2, 169-92
64

25
36,46-6
78-9 43-7 92-3 15-22

23-4

183
73-102 85-7, 118-21
127-8

48-50
78-9

183. 188, 192-5
224-5 270-2.278

149-50

Peters PyJes Robertson & Cassidy Stcvkk Strang Williams Wrenn

43-6,94-5 93-102
22-4

126-47. l«-7 109-4J

166-7 143-4

153-4, 241-2

16
396-9. 401-7, 409-18

16

118-9, 157-9, 165, 183 294-301, 308-310. 341-3, 365-6

179
196-7, 201-5, 237-8, 259^0, 269-73, 294-301, 308-10, 341-3 254-6 106-9. 143-i 128-30

46-7 9-18

47-8 9-18

235-42
7-8, 2<W

130

Author

Johncon'* Dictionary

Language: Origin and Nature
1-3
3-24

Language Family

Latin Influence: Middle English

Lafin Influence: OM English

Baogh Bambas Berndt Bloomfleld & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfteld Cannon Claiborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

327-30 7ft 187-91

222-6 5. 16-7 53-4 78-85 50-2
94

292-3, 30ft 319-20

3-24

179-W

46, 49-55. 57, 64

8-101 21-2, 25

1-2, 20-1, 31-8

149

3
11-27

57-8, 61, 65, 163

30 5-6 61
26-7 12-8 95-7, lift 116 29-31 11-2
48. 51-6, 72-9

77-8

5 2

160-1

1-6, 8-22, 232, 237-42 8.25-6

183. 185, 195. 286

118-9
18

85

204
38-46 6-13

181
222-3 38, 46-9

2ft 29-30

67
23 73-8, 144-8

69
95-8. 126. 130-1. 141

5-7 1-3
99-132

1-9

73-8. 144-8

90, lift 213

1-4

70-2

109-10, 113-39

131

Author

Johnson's Dictionary
256-fi
1-3. 6, 64, 86, 95 105, 116, 140, 158-9, 162, 172-4, 179. 186-7, 201 213-5

Language: Origin and Nature
2

Language Family

Latin Influence: Middle English
15<W

Latin Influence: Old English
101

Gordon Groom

11

42

Hook Marclcwardt Martin & Rulon McCrum McKnlghl McLaughlln Myers Nisi Peters Pyles Robertson & Cassidy Stevlck Strang Williams Wreno

10-4 32 79-81

18-21. 276-91

120-1

65-7

180-6,199-203

223-5

2

128, 133-40 351-74, 428-9, 432, 448, 560
74-5, 77-8, 81-3

64-8

74-6

3-4.577,580

43, 49. 92-109, 114. 172-3. 260-1

23 :H 46

62-6 130-1 104-7

216.22, 232 276-9
287. 290

l«-7
1-4 41

89-92, 98-9

263 318-9
152-5 316-8 152-5

7, 62, 73, 86, 202, 224-6 174, 223-f, 337-41, 354-*

1-2
1.3-9

ao-3
15-7

6.13
79, 81, 99, 107-8. 131

16
400-5

235-* 196-7, 192. 152, 254

235-6

5-6, 8-9, 14-5, 17, 104, 297

95, 97, 165

15
1-6, 14

45 1-3

87
42-8

57
37-42

96-9. 123-S, 148-50, 168

132

Author Baugh Bambas Berndt JUoomfield & Newmark Bollon Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfield Cannon Claiborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

Lexical Resources
354M1

Lexicography ft Dictionary
279^0, 395-400

UnguMicAnas

Linguistic Qeooraptiy
436*7

Norman French Terms
200-16 95-100. 107-8

436, 457, 465

4648 167-9, 333-65 318-24 194-205 194-205
173-8

10, 42-53 79-112 45,48

47-9 75-81 168, 170

59
14-9, 26, 47

71-5, 115-7. 143-4. 172-5, 189-90. 194-6

64-5, 132-3, 154-5, 160-2, 172-3

37, 50, 180

37, 5ft 180

93-9. 101-4, 106-9, lift 116

210, 27S, 284

95, 101, 108

204

204-5 279-95

55
279-95 222-3 38-40 36-7, 53-5, 283-4

62 95
46, 104

152-64

90, 110, 124

232-40

232-9

80-2, 86, 101-2, 136-7, 139-41

133

Author Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Ruktn McCnun McKnlght McLaughUn Myers Nisi Peters Pyles Robertson & Cassidy Stevlck Strang Williams Wrenn

Lexical Resource*
23
2-3. 19, 53, 55, 134. 193, 196, 213 292,318 162-8, 177, 180-203

Lexicography 4 Dictionary
262-73

UnguMfc Attaa

Linguistic Geography

Norman French Term*
149 27, 38-9. 41-4

210-2 69-76

101-2 187, 189

189

7, 1«

95
428-59

130* 172, 174-7, 237 249, 361-2, 433-59, 476 72-5

51-2 35-7,464-9

71-6

4-5

231-54 306-14 27^8 275-312 146-278

208, 212-21, 242. 287 276-9 280-94 223-5. 259, 269, 271-3 154, ITS. 335-41. 344-53. 401 270-1 107-8 270-1 386-90 28,374 28,374

128. 130 152-3 263-78 154-5 41. 45, 47. 156

225-41, 245-64, 269-71 39-42, 188-92, 257, 331-2, 334-7 19-S2 99-101 15, 23, 29. 38, 41-3, 62. 81, 107, 164, 333, 418 164-6 98-101

387-90

317-9 226-7

237-40 188-9, 216-9. 227-30, 239^0, 250-4, 314-6 72-81 53-5

226-7

134

Author

Norman Invasion

Orthography 4 Spelling: Middle Engltoh

Orthography 4 Spelling: Early Modem
250-7

Oxford EnglMi Dictionary
395

Phonology: 1650-1600

Baogh Bambas Berndt Bloomfleld St Newmark Bollon Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfleld Cannon Claiborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

127-35 93-100 13,23-30 96, 137-8, 168, 172-3, 177-80 1, 7-8, 13, 19, 26, 29, 33-5,37 7-8, 11, 22-3 113-4

146

209-13

289-90

320

293-5

15-8, 26-7, 41-4, 52

23 47
S, 27, 46-7, 290, 365

169
21, 50-2. 108-12

169
J12-4

129

14-9,83 89-99

81, 374 5. 42. 77, 89-90, 115, 131, 137. 141, 188

162-3

93-6, 98. 101-2

100-1. 104-22. 165

129-33, 140-53

160-1 195, 237

131-32, 136, 151-4

78

206
222-3 35-44, 47-9 37, 49-68 95-*, 191-2 95-6, 191-2 147-51

18 103

173-90

31, 182, 184-6. 188-90, 198-9, 223

77-96 79, 99. 136-7. 139-41, 211

105

110

124

135

Author

Nonnan Invasion
103-6 4,22,24,28,30. 35, 48 63-4.99-105

Orthography ftSpeNng: Middle English
248-51 77-8 SOW 245-9

Orthography & Spelling: Early Modem
248-50 156-7 143-5 213

Oxford English Dictionary
263-4 2-3, 19, 53. 55, 134 193, 196, 213 234, 327 70-4 228

Phonology: 1660-1800

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Ralon McCmm McKnight McLaoghlln Myers Nisi Peters Pyles

197-8 207-14

29

7J* 4 41. 43-4 67, 69, 113-5 5-6. 104-107 5*-8 58. 61, 1S3, 179, 324 133-5 176-9 273-4 29-49, 181-94 177-9 319-20. 349-50 171-3 171-3. 206-11

19, 47. 326, 351 281 91-130 217, 242, 287 319 159 21, 7i, 201, 207, 209. 213, 218-9, 242, 244-5, 25L 253, 255. 266. 268, 277, 279, 284. 288, 292, 297, 304, 309, 319, 324, 327. 329. 331-2, 335-4 339. 348, 3*1 159, 194, 222, 27t 298. 337, 345-6 33-4, 72. 75-6, 80 M 15-4 2*4 29-34, 39-43, 56, 91, 97. 133. 194-5 99. 109, 134, 143, 166, 211,215 91-105 100-1 23 44-6. 123-4, 138-9, 196-9, 226-32, 235-9, 262-4 226-9 291 97-106 181-94

Robertson & Cassidy Stevick Strong Williams Wnnn

44

330-5

353-6

3-1,277-9 188-9, 216-9. 227-30, 239-40, 2SH 314-6 63-6 52-«

91-101

277-80 27, 29-30, 33, 45, 51, 55. 80-4. 107-9. 111-5

312-6 9M

136

Author Baugh Bambas Berndt Bloomfleld & Newmark Bollon Bradley Brook Bryant BurchfleM Cannon Clalborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

Phonology: Middle English
284-90

Prescriptive Grammar
335-4S 169-87

Purist Bforts: Mature Modem
394
169-77. 19W

Roman Occupation
50-2

Bunk System

111
ITS, 179-99 211-9

S 16

307-8

204

133, 136

41, 53, 55 71, 76-7 83-9 1*2-3

64-5

209
78, 189 5, 51. 54, 88-9, 91-2

208

40

106 16, 177-9 7-9, 174-5

27

104-9, 117-8, 120-2

128, 154-61 280, 301 182,207

4-8
62,96

30,55,234

125

211, 236-7 69-82 182, 184-6, 188-90, 198-9, 223 84-8

17
38-4ft 145-6

74

73,200

137

Author Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rnlon McCrum McKnight McLaughlln Myers Nlst PeUrs Pyles Robertson & Cassidy Stevkk Slrang Williams Wrenn

Phonology: Middle English
126-31

Prescriptive Gramme/
252-61

Purist Efforts: Mature Modem

Roman Occupation
94-5

Runic System

112-4 250-1

206-10

61-2

45, 50

414

18

56-7 400-16 79-8* 19-39. 91-126 162-3, 177-84 87-94 15845 52-106 212. 22£4 257 281-2 188-91 225-8 309-13 357-60 228,418 25-8

61 320 51 113 39

66

12, 319

58 89

33-4.99-101 12-3. 44-6, 52-3, 55-6, 138-9, 262-4 335-42 106-9 61-2, 109, 142. 149 284. 331, 358-9, 361 395-7

95-6 135. 200 135, 200 72-3

315

138

Author Baugh Bambas Berndt Bloomfleld & Newnwk Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchlleld Cannon Clalborne Clark Cook Donahue Emerson

Sanskrit
19-21, 23, 41

Science: Influence
357-8

Semantics
372* 196-200 76-102

Shakespeare's Influence
123, 287, 290-2, 301-2
39. 140, 156, 174, 186

Slang
376-8

15, 21, 2S, 34

200

201-4

30, 99, 104, 107, 118, 343

364

352-7

10, 70. 181, 279-81, 290, 309

188-9

2,57-9

9, 15-6 18, 28, 40-1, 44, 54 71. 76-7

113-49 165-97

40, 89, 159*0, 189, 191 26, 57, 72, 126, 128-30, 167-% 180-2

123
183, 195, 201

31,35

9

35242

4, 32. 70, 76, 82, Ml, 218, 220, 239. 253, 273, 311,366 22, 25. 64, 77, 94
127, 141-51, 175 26, 16S-6, 237

308, 336-7

113-23 13-4,17. »
134-6

84, 130-6

66-88, 100-1

287
19-21

195, 26ft 273-6

93
172, 193, 319-22, 195-6
74-S, 88

30 SB
116-8

61-2,98 114-5, 125-6, 128. 181, 268-72, 275-7, 291-2, 309. 317. 323-9, 330-4. 336-42. 351-2. 372, 37940, 382

15-24, 255-7. 279-81

148-50

Feroald Francis
89
112-3, 118-31 112-3, 118-31

139

Author Gordon Groom

Sanskrit
262-3

Science: Influence

Semantic*
24,33

Shakespeare's Influence
24, 33
S6*. 93-102, 105. 106, 115, 121. 131. 149, 155, 176. 201, 203 235-6, 245-9 168-75

Slang

9,11

151, 193-4, 197

64-«

61-3

Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rukm McCrum Mcknight McLaughlin Myers Nisi Peters Pyles Robertson & Cassidy Slevkk Strang Williams Wrenn

23

238-9,244-5

235-6,249-50 166-75

290-9

15

56

56

51-2, 67, 325

128-9

21, 84, 87, 91, 95-6. 98-106, 112-3, 122, 128, 272
152-65, 235-43, 270-1 271-331 4. 44, 121-24

28, 37. 95, 226, 265, 279, 288, 290, 302-3, 338, 348-9 12t 252, 372, 507, 551-2

541-2 23-4 50-3

236
306-8

245-9

172-3
5. 40, 60-1. 232-5, 244-7, 254-60, TSM

249-51, 295

314-8

316-9

43-4 86, 96, 336

185, 199, 302

275-6 306-9

300
151-2, 155

346-63

17, 64, 72, 184-5, 204-5. 210-1, 297, 307, 345

22.24,30

232-78

88, 91. 126, 153, 174. 179-SO, 218-20, 224, 265. 295.304,313

257-8, 261-6

243-4 H 127. 403-4

265-70 39-44. 98-9, 149-50, 190-3. 195-6, 207-8, 255-6. 389-91 153-211 30, 58. 91, 133-4, 141-5, 148-52, 328

269-70

61, 89, 130

12, 20, 22, 44-7, 320

5. 30, 169, 249, 323, 349, 351 31. 44, 73, 91, 114, 125, 147-50, 15fr*l

204-7

79

30, 106

190-4

140

Author Baugh Bambas Bemdt BloomHeM & Newmark Bollon Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfleld Cannon Claibome Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

Spelling Reform
250-7,336-9

Standard English
234
210-1. 220, 124<>

Sw«
310-4. 316, 320-6. 329, 424 S3, 1*5-8, 174

Usage: Levels of
379

Venter's Law
21-2,69

53

73

196
289-90

217-9

300

188-9

102, 110

52.60, 64

2, 16-8. », 44, 4-X50, 52, 64, 66 24,48, 169

48-50, 53-5, 57, 65

42-3,48-9

58

24, 148, 169
103-9, 209

55, 102

17. 2W
77, 86, 235, 288, 335-6, 338

200-2 264-79

79
24, 39, 129

182

29
4-5, 33, 124

34-5, 151 15^8 160, 183-8 35, 108, 236

99-lOOi 103-4, 127 131-3, 1*1

183-%, 234

182-3, 186, 197, 210, 280

180
150-2

163
224-5
88-9

25
17-8 152-9

31

43
95-* 191-2

38-112

93-4, 126, 130

25-9, 30-1, 349-50, 366

246-8,262

257

218-23

n

141

Author Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin &Rulon McCnun

SpelPng Reform
248-50 77-8, 156-7, 174 266.32W.327

Standard English

Swift
18-9, 225, 25Wk 176-9 58, 144, 158, 161, 165, 171 193, 198, 203-4, 222

Usage: Lewie of
5-6

Venter's Law
90

111
179-214

200-1 70-4,83,308-13

26

239-42,306, 312 3, 220-1

17

46-7. 85-6. 105, 132-3, 240-2, 245, 317

13, 21, 24, 27-8, 38, 45, 121, 127-8, 144-6, 149, 168-9, 172, 195, 309-24, 330,336-40,350

131-3, 173-5, 23ft 346-7

McKnlght McLaughlln Myers Ntel Peters Pytes Robertson & Cassidy Slevkk Strung Williams Wrenn

561-4

3-4

312-9, 321 79, 81

69
135, 177-8 319-20 272-4.290-3 62,97-104 155-6, 185-6, 201-2 356-73 37, SO 140-1

212
273-6, 284-5,294-6

285-8, 249-53

370 5-6
17-8 279-325

81, 84-5 48-50, 320-1 108-11, 141, 210 30-2

307
190-1, 225-6, 309 158, 179, 181, 204, 263, 329,343

278-80 107-9 362-8 85-94

34-5 104-5, 156-7, 160-5, 213-5 16, 66, 80, 90, 130, 140, 142-3

321-5 148-50, 203-7, 274-8, 280-1, 334-5, 364-5 411-2

86. 92, 105, 344-5, 357 94-7, 120. 187-8

95
96, 148

321

142

Author

Vocabulary: Mature Modem English
356-78 200-1

Vocabulary: Middle English

Vocabulary

Vowel Shift

World Ware: Influence

Baugh Bambas Berndl Bloomfield & Newmark Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant Burchfleld Cannon Clalborn« Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis

200-27 99

356-78 213-7

287-9 148-9 195-202

200

331-2

331-2

58. 233-4. 293-5

360

25-7, 40, 43-4, 46-7, 51

8-11, 13
188-93

16
15-8 54,89-92, 126 166-7

193 364

54-8

42-54 S9-61

26,58 283-357 105-36 51-9, 63-88, 96-101, 104-21, 133-51, 162-7

105-36 172-3. 181-2, 189-90, 194-6 4, 11, 16, 70, 184-5, 306

105-36 96-101. 104-21

46
99, 102-8, 122, 153-4, 192,231 153-4, 178 24, 123, 189-201 174-5

95

38-40. 46-51 113-24 191-222

142

139-44

1ft 112-3, 118-54

143

Author

Vocabulary: Mature Modem English

Vocabulary: Middle English

Vocabulary

Vowel Shift

World Ware: Influence

Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin & Rnlon McCrum McKnight McLaughlln Myers Nisi Peters Pytes Robertson & Cassidy Stevkk Strong Williams Wrcnn
81
111-4, 125 147-231 231-54 308-14 130-1 167-77 26S-6, 278 318-9, 324-8, 341 4S-9 26. 38-9, 47, 236, 347-51 61,64-8 228-30 116-31 186-91

11-23

168-9, 177-8

1S3-4 162-203 247-9 29, 36,53

289-90

47. 347-51 469-70

12
75-6

31, 264

186

238
231-54 306-14 276-8 275-312 147-231 168-9 221-2 99-101 183-9, 191 86, 99-104, 333

311

300
214-S

265-71

234-40 40, 120-1, 128-30, 183-4, 239-40, 251-2, 393-4, 418-9

102-14 178, 410, 417-8, 446-7

99-102 109-10, 114

115-52 l(*-29

343-8 91-4

201

144

Author Bangh Bambas Bcmdt Bloomncld Bolton Bradley Brook Bryant BurchfleM Cannon Claibome Clark Cook Donahue Emerson Fernald Francis Gordon Groom Hook Marckwardt Martin McCrum McKntght McLaughlin Myers Nfet Peters Pyfes Robertson Stevkk Strong Williams Wrenn

Uffilas
35 28

120

10, 15

6

73-4

26

IS

58

110, 130

23

383 48

145

Selected Bibliography Primary Sources

Bambas, Rudolph C. The English Language: It's Origin and History. Norman, Oklahoma: The University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Baugh, Albert C. A History of the English Language. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1957. Berndt, Rolf. A History of the English Language. Verlang Enzyklopadie Leipzig, 1984. Bloom fie Id, Morton W., and Leornard Newmark. A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. Bolton, W. F. A Short History of Literary English. London: Edward Arnold, 1967. Bradley, Henry. The Making of English. New York: Walker and Company, 1967. Brook, G. L. A History of the English Language. London: Andre Deutsch, 1958. Bryant, Margaret M. Modern English and its Heritage. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Burchfield, Robert. The English Language. Oxford Universtiy Press: Oxford, 1985. Cannon, Garland. A History of the English Language. New York: Harcourt, 1972. Claiborne, Robert. Our Marvelous Native Tongue: The Life and Times of the English Language. New York: Times Books, 1983. Clark, Cecily. Rev. of Georges Bourcier's An Introduction to the History of the English Language.

Chellenham: Stanley, 1981. Cook, Albert B. Introduction to the English Language. New York: Ronald Press, 1969. Donahue, Delia. Outline of the Growth and Development of the English Language. Rome: Bulizoni Editore,

1979.
Emerson, Oliver F. The History of the English Language. London: Macmillan, 1924. Fernald, James C Historic English. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1921. Francis, W. Nelson. The English Language: An Introduction. New York: Norton, 1963. Groom, Bernard. A Short History of English Words. New York: MacMillan, 1934.

147

Gordon, James D. The English Language; An Historical Introduction. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972. Hook, J. N. History of the English Language, New York: Ronald Press, 1975. Marckwardt, Albert H. Introduction to the English Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1942. Markman, Alan M., and Erwin R. Steinberg. English Then and Now. New York: Random House, 1970. Martin, Charles B., and Curt M. Rulon. The English Language: Yesterday and Today. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973. McCrum, Robert, et al. The Story of English. New York: Viking Penguin, 1986. McKnight, George H. Modem English in the Making. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1928. McLaughlin, John C Aspects of the History of English. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Myers, L. M. The Roots of Modern English. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Nist, John. A Structrual History of English. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Peters, Robert A. A Linguistic History of English. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Pyles, Thomas. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1971. Robertson, Stuart, and F. G. Cassidy. The Development of Modem English. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Stevick, Robert D. English and its History: The Evolution of a Language. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968. Strang, Barbara M. H. A History of English. London: Methuen, 1970. Williams, Joseph M. Origins of the English Language. New York: Macmillan, 1975. Wrenn, Charles Leslie. The English Language. London: Methuen, 1952.

148

Secondary Sources

Kent, Roland G. "Review of A History of the English Language," by Albert C Baugh. Language 12: 72-

75.
Laird, Charlton. The Miracle of Language. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett, 1953. Palmer, Rupert E. Jr. "Review of A History of English," by Barbara M H. Strang. Language 48: 941-946. "Review of The Origins and Developments of the English Language" by Thomas Pyles.

Language 42: 122-134. Plotkin, V. J. "Review of A Linguistic History of English" by Robert A. Peters. Linguistics 84: 85-89. Sledd, James. "Review of A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English" by Morton W. Bloom field

and Leonard Newmark. Language 40: 465-482. Smith, Henry Lee, Jr. "Review of Introduction to the English Language" by Albert H. Marckwardt.

Language 18: 250-252. Voight, Donald. "Review of The Roots of Modern English,* by L, M. Myers. C C. C. C 19: 43-44.

149

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.