Transcript Slide 1

PART IV
(Late Modern English)
18th century
-
search for stability, desire for system and regularity  standard and
correctness
-
the codification of English falls under three heads:
1) ascertainment (to reduce the language to rule and set up a
standard of correct usage)  Swift’s Proposal for Correcting,
Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue (1712).
This means to have at least a dictionary + a grammar.
2) to refine it (i.e. to remove supposed defects). E.g. Swift opposed:
- clipped words (rep, mob, penult)
- contracted verbs (drudg’d, disturb’d, rebuk’d, fledg’d)
- recent words such as sham, banter, mob, bubble, bully,
shuffling, palming
3) to fix it permanently
• Italy and France were an important
example:
Accademia della Crusca (1582)
Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca (1612)
Académie française (1635)
Dictionnaire de l'Académie française (1694)
• Among the supporters of an English
Academy were John Dryden and John
Evelyn (in the 17th c.). The culmination of
the movement for an English Academy is
Swift’s Proposal (1712).
• It is usually claimed (after John Oldmixon)
that an academy was never set up
because of the death of the Queen.
• The early enthusiasm gave place to scepticism, see e.g. Dr
Johnson’s Preface to his Dictionary (1755):
“Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design ,
require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those
alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to
make in it without opposition. With this consequence I will confess
that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have
indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can
justify. When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one
after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that
promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice
may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no
example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases
from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his
language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his
power to change sublunary nature, or clear the world at once from
folly, vanity, and affectation.”
“With this hope, however, academies have been
instituted, to guard the avenues of their
languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse
intruders; but their vigilance and activity have
hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and
subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables,
and to lash the wind, are equally the
undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its
desires by its strength. The French language
has visibly changed under the inspection of the
academy; the stile of Amelot’s translation of
father Paul is observed by Le Courayer to be un
peu passé; and no Italian will maintain, that the
diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly
different from that of Boccace, Machiavel, or,
Caro.”
Joseph Priestley, The Rudiments of English Grammar
(1761):
“As to a public Academy, invested with authority to
ascertain the use of words, which is a project that some
persons are very sanguine in their expectations from, I
think it not only unsuitable to the genius of a free nation,
but in itself ill calculated to reform and fix a language.
We need make no doubt but that the best forms of
speech will, in time, establish themselves by their own
superior excellence: and, in all controversies, it is better
to wait the decisions of time, which are slow and sure,
than to take those of synods, which are often hasty and
injudicious.”
• The belief emerges that a standard was to
be brought about not by force but by
general consent (see e.g. Thomas
Sheridan, British Education, 1756)
• Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English
Language (1755) (which was compiled
almost single-handedly in less than seven
years).
• Johnson hoped that his dictionary would perform
the same function as an Academy (and was
perceived as such by his contemporaries, the
Earl of Chesterfield, Sheridan, Boswell):
- to “refine [the English] language to grammatical
purity and to clear it from colloquial barbarisms,
licentious idioms and irregular combinations”
- to “preserve the purity and ascertain the
meaning of our English idiom”
- to fix the pronunciation of English
• The decade beginning in 1760 witnessed a
striking outburst of interest in English grammar.
• The main aims were:
(1) to reduce the language to rule
(2) to settle disputed points
(3) to point out supposedly common errors (and
thus correct and improve the language)
• Joseph Priestley’s The Rudiments of
English Grammar (1761)  more liberal
than Lowth; he insists on the importance
of usage
• Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to
English Grammar (1762)  more
influential than Priestley; prescriptivism
Some quotes from Lowth:
The principle design of a grammar of any
language is to express ourselves with
propriety in that language; and to enable
us to judge of every phrase and form of
construction, whether it be right or not. (p.
viii)
Will, in the first person singular and plural,
promises or threatens; in the second and
third persons, only foretells: shall on the
contrary, in the first person, simply
foretells; in the second and third persons,
promises, commands, or threatens. (p. 41)
Two negatives in English destroy one
another, or are equivalent to an
affirmative. (p. 95)
The preposition is often separated from the
relative which it governs, and joined to the verb
at the end of the sentence, or of some member
of it: as, “Horace is an author whom I am
delighted with.” … This is an idiom, which our
language is strongly inclined to: it prevails in
common conversation, and suits very well the
familiar style of writing: but the placing of the
preposition before the relative, is more graceful,
as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much
better with the solemn and elevated style (pp.
95-6)
The relatives who, which, that, having no
variation of gender or number, cannot but
agree with their antecedents. Who is
appropriated to persons; and so may be
accounted masculine and feminine only:
we apply which now to things only … But
formerly they were both indifferently used
of persons: “Our Father which art in
heaven” (p. 100)
Other influential 18th c. grammars:
• James Buchanan’s British Grammar (1762)
• John Ash’s Grammatical Institutes (1763)
• Noah Webster’s A Grammatical Institute of the English
Language (1784; in America)
• Lindley Murray’s English Grammar (1795)
More philosophical (and less influential):
John Wilkins’ Essay towards a Real Character and a
Philosophical Language (1668)
James Harris’ Hermes (1751)
• Rhetoricians:
Thomas Sheridan, British Education, 1756
George Campbell, Philosophy of Rhetoric,
1776
• Examples (see B&C: 279):
intransitive lay
had rather, had better
whose as the possessive of which
different from vs. than/to
between vs. among
larger vs. largest
more perfect
this here, that there
you was
than I vs. than me
I don’t like him vs. his doing that
multiple negatives
shall and will
Here are some examples of “bad” English from
H. Marmaduke Hewitt’s A Manual of Our Mother
Tongue (published at end of 19th century):
(1) Leave Nell and I to toil and work. (Dickens)
(2) How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this
bank! (Shakespeare)
(3) He would have spoke. (Milton)
(4) He parts his hair in the centre.
(5) This is quite different to that.
(6) ‘The boy stood on the deck,
(7) Whence all but he had fled.’ (Hemans)
• Prescriptive rules were arrived at by:
(1) reason (i.e. analogy or consistency)
(2) etymology
(3) the example of Latin and Greek (but
not as important as the former two)
See examples in B&C: 280-2.
• Priestley is much more progressive:
“It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking is the
original and only just standard of any language. We see,
in all grammars, that this is sufficient to establish a rule,
even contrary to the strongest analogies of the language
with itself. Must not custom, therefore, be allowed to
have some weight, in favour of those forms of speech, to
which our best writers and speakers seem evidently
prone […]?”
“The best and the most numerous authorities have been
followed. Where they have been contradictory, recourse
hath been had to analogy, as the last resource. If this
should decide for neither of two contrary practices, the
thing must remain undecided, till all-governing custom
shall declare in favour of one or the other.”
“In modern and living languages, it is absurd to pretend
to set up the compositions of any person or persons
whatsoever as the standard of writing, or their
conversation as the invariable rule of speaking. With
respect to custom, laws, and every thing that is
changeable, the body of a people, who, in this respect,
cannot but be free, will certainly assert their liberty, in
making what innovations they judge to be expedient and
useful. The general prevailing custom, whatever it
happen to be, can be the only standard for the time that
it prevails.”
A similar position is also found in Campbell, who defines
usage as present, national and reputable use. But
Priestley, unlike Campbell, was faithful to his principles.
• 18th c. scholars also reacted against the
influence of French vocabulary (which
however was not great).
• The period under discussion is also the
time of the rise of the British Empire.
• The development of the progressive:
he was on laughing > a-laughing > laughing
• The progressive passive (end of the 18th c.):
the house is building > the house is being built
Remember that this construction was often
criticized.
• Two spelling systems: the public one (found in
printed documents) and the private one (found in
informal letters).
Johnson: chymestry, compleat, ocurrence
• In informal letters, a “non-standard” grammar is
also manifest:
them admirers you speak of (Lady Mary Wortley
Montagu)
Don’t it put you in mind of any thing? (Walpole)
19th & 20th centuries
19th century:
visible change (industrialization and
transport)
vs.
myth of stasis in (written) language
• This myth is linked to the rhetoric of
standardization:
• ‘the Teacher should point out to his pupils the
erroneous expressions of their own locality, and
endeavour to eradicate them’ (Pearson, The
Self-Help Grammar of the English Language,
1865).
• But variability also existed in the writings by
educated people (e.g. variation of or/our).
• A further interesting example is the loss of
the be participle with unaccusative verbs
(e.g. She is arrived vs. She has arrived).
E.g. George Eliot: ‘Mr Lewes is gone to
the museum for me’ (1861).
• Prescriptivism also dictated the use of a
singular anaphoric pronoun with pronouns
such as everybody, while the use of a
plural anaphor goes back to the 16th
century and continues into the 19th
century.
• Notice also that post-vocalic /r/ became a
marker of the standard language only in
the 2nd half of the century. Previously, it
was commended as essential in ‘standard’
speech.
• Writing also influenced pronunciation:
waistcoat, hospital, humble, humour, herb
(/h/-less variant still possible in AmE!)
• Some pronunciation features dictated by
the myth of standardization (in the latter
half of the 19th century):
hand /h/ vs. ø
running /IN/ vs. /In/
bird /:/ vs. /r/
butter /V/ vs. /U/
• But alongside subjective approaches to
language (i.e. the prescriptive agenda), there
were also those who were interested in an
objective study of linguistic facts: e.g. the
London Philological Society (founded in 1842).
• The phonetician Henry Sweet realised that the
notion of ‘correct speaker’ remained elusive (‘he
is an abstraction, a figment of the imagination’).
As Ellis observed, register, gender, age and
status all influence pronunciation choices.
• Objectivism also lead to an interest in local
dialects (which were felt to be in danger of
extinction), e.g. the English Dialect
Society. But dialects were often
condemned by the supporters of the myth
of standardization.
• In more subjective approaches, a
distinction was sometimes drawn between
rural dialects (viewed positively) and urban
dialects (viewed negatively).
• Renewed interest in spelling reform in the
latter part of the 19th c. (both in the UK
and in the US). But such efforts were not
very successful (but cf. the American
spellings program, catalog).
• Purist efforts are always present, see e.g.
The Society for Pure English (founded in
1913).
The Oxford English Dictionary
www.oed.com
1857: meeting of the Philological Society in London with a view to publishing a
supplement to the existing dictionaries of English
1860: “Proposal for the Publication of a New English Dictionary by the Philological
Society”
The aim was to record and trace the history of all words from about the year 1000 (by
the use of quotations).
1864: foundation of the Early English Text Society (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~eets/),
which made early English texts widely available
1879: the OUP decides to finance the project. James Murray is appointed editor.
1884: first instalment (part of the letter A) is published
by 1900: four and a half volumes published (as far as the letter H)
1928: 1st edition (after 70 years!), 10 volumes, 15487 pages, 240165 main words
1933: supplementary volume published
1972-1986: four-volume Supplement (incorporating the 1933 one)
under Robert Burchfield
1989: 2nd edition (1st ed. + the Burchfield Supplement + about
5,000 new words) in twenty volumes, 290500 main entries
1992: a CD-Rom version is published
1993 & 1997: three Additions Series volumes published (in
preparation of the 3rd ed.)
2000: launch of the OED Online (quarterly updates:
http://www.oed.com/help/updates/)
20th century:
A deliberate intervention on language is
politically correct (PC) language:
- Everybody should button their coat.
- Ms
- Flight attendant
- chair(person)
• Grammatical tendencies:
- You were (for You was)
- It is me (for It is I)
- subjunctive
- nonstandard he don’t
- Who do you want?
- the get passive (He got run over by a
car)
- phrasal verbs