Modern English (?):

 

 

 

 

 

A computer projector, being necessary for the explanation of the class material, the classroom location of History of the English Language shall not be changed.

cf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEL Ch 11

Early Modern Verbal Constructions and Eighteenth Century Prescriptivism

 

Impersonal Verbs:

          Development of “Dummy it”-subject

“It is raining”

“It seems to me” (earlier “me seemeth”)

“It pleaseth”

 

Rise in the use of MODAL auxiliaries to do much of the work of subjunctives:

can — couthe ( > could)

shall — should

will — would

may — might

mote — must

owe — ought

need — needed

dare — durst

          generally uninflected, though some later become so (owe, need, dare)

 

 

 

 

 

The Dummy do:

A lexically empty placeholder necessary in Modern English to express questions and negations; “do-support”

Questions: “Do you like grammar?”

Negation: “I do not like grammar”

In earlier English, Questions expressed through inversion:

“Like thou grammar, knave?”

and Negation though just the negative particle (not)

“I like not grammar a wit, whoreson.”

 

 

Developed from causative do:?

          “Make it so” = “Do it”

developed from vicarious/substitute do:?

“Like you grammar?” “I do”

 

 

In the 16th century, also used for non-emphatic, declarative sentences:

“I do weep” = “I am weeping”

In Modern English for strong emphasis

“I do weep” = “I really do weep, no joke.”

 

 

The Rise of Prescriptivism:

 

In the eighteenth century, for the first time in English history, people begin to tell each other what’s right and what’s wrong

Beginning of English Dictionaries and Grammars

 

Attempts at spelling reforms

 

Concerns about English Vocabulary:

Does it have enough words to express complex ideas?

(Julius Caesar had similar concerns about Latin cf. to Greek)

New massive influx of Latin and Greek terms

and creation of new Latinate / Greekate vocabulary

done deliberately, by writers

 

INKHORN terms: lexical fancifications

THOMAS WILSON, THE ARTE OF RHETORIQUE (1560)

Among all other lessons this should first be learned, that wee neuer affect any straunge ynkehorne termes, but to speake as is commonly receiued: neither seeking to be ouer fine, nor yet liuing ouer-carelesse vsing our speeche as most men doe, and ordering our wittes as the fewest haue done. Some seeke so far for outlandish English, that they forget altogether their mothers language. And I dare sweare this, if some of their mothers were aliue, thei were not able to tell what they say: and yet these fine English clerkes will say, they speake in their mother tongue, if a man should charge them for counterfeiting the Kings English. … The vnlearned or foolish phantasticall, that smelles but of learning (such fellowes as haue seen learned men in their daies) wil so Latin their tongues, that the simple can not but wonder at their talke, and thinke surely they speake by some reuelation. I know them that thinke Rhetorique to stande wholie vpon darke wordes, and hee that can catche an ynke horne terme by the taile, him they coumpt to be a fine Englisheman, and a good Rhetorician.

 

Some Inkhorn Terms:

e.g., derunicate (weed), pistated (baked), homogalact (foster-brother), suppediate (supply), devulgate (set forth), adjuvate (help), fatigate (to tire), demit (send away), eximious (excellent)

 

but also:

education, confidence, expect, dedicate, discretion, exaggerate, expect, industrial, scheme

 

Reactionaries against Inkhorn vocabulary: Saxonists

          Artificially old fashioned (like Edmund Spenser, derring-do)

extend meanings of existing words and revive archaic words:

fleshstrings (muscles), grosswitted, witcraft, booklore, bookcraft, gleeman, soothfastness, endsay (conclusion), naysay (negation), threlike (equilateral), saywhat (definition), dry mock (irony), gainrising, algate, yblent

 

Prescriptivism: Why?

          In a world of more easy social movement, maintains class distinctions

Moralistic tone of mush of prescriptivism:

proscribed usages are “ barbaric, low, ignorant, offensive”

prescribed usages are “noble, refined, educated”

 

Linguistic Insecurity and Linguistic Conservatism

In the 16th and 17th century nobody thought to ‘correct’ English

It was being used!

 

18th century: England more secure and powerful as nation

greater conservatism

Cf. Latin grammatical situation: grammatical texts which formulated ‘rules’ of Latin where written after the age of Cicero and Vergil

 

‘Enlightenment’ and Rationalist Philosophy

language should be logical and orderly, like math

Control! Manage!

The Age of scientific Laws

 

The Grammarians

 

Self-appointed experts from all walks of life and profession

All, however, me of power and privilege, and MEN

 

Literary: Samuel Johnson, c Jonathon Swift

Religious: Bishop Robert Lowth

most influential?  very conservative and prescriptivist

Scientists: Joseph Priestley

early, influential, and very liberal

Americans: Noah Webster

 

Pervious belief that English (and other vernacular languages) had NO GRAMMAR

 

in the Middle Ages, grammar = Latin grammar

Growing awareness of the mutable nature of language:

Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism (1711):

“Our sons their fathers’ failing language see,

And such as Chaucer is shall Dryden be.” (2.482)

 

Jonathan Swift, A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue (1712).

“But what I have most at Heart is, that some Method should be thought on for ascertaining and fixing our Language for ever, after such Alterations are made in it as shall be thought requisite. For I am of Opinion, that it is better a Language should not be wholly perfect, that it should be perpetually changing; and we must give over at one Time, or at length infallibly change for the worse: As the Romans did, when they began to quit their Simplicity of Style for affected Refinements; such as we meet in Tacitus and other Authors, which ended by degrees in many Barbarities, even before the Goths had invaded Italy.”

 

 

Look back to a Golden Age

but for English, when?

Shakespeare?

Restoration (1660)?

 

 

Proposals for a language Academy

as in France and Italy

favored by Daniel Defoe and Swift

hindered by kingship of George I, of Hanover

Priestley and Johnson knew these efforts were futile

 

 

Authority of Language Judgments

Often no more than personal opinion

Often violate their own ‘rule’ while discussing them

 

Model of Latin:

Linguistically illogical, but done to this day

Split infinitive

end sentence with preposition

Nominative following copulative

“It is I”

 

Etymological (fallacy)

decimate

dilapidate

between

different from

manufactured

(manuscript)

 

Reason and Logic

from philosophy

double negatives

double comparatives and superlatives

 

 

Regularity and Analogy

need and dare get inflectional ending

 

make clear distinctions between Adjectives and Adverbs

 

make arbitrary distinctions between seemingly redundant word pairs:

 

less — fewer

hung — hanged

lie, sit, fall — lay, set, fell

between — among

will — shall

can — may

further — farther

people — persons

 

 

Usage: can it be trusted?

Priestley and Webster are the only ones who really advocate usage as a guide

A lighthouse on a floating island