Grammar & Early Modern English grammar
Grammar
·
descriptive: the language as it’s really used
o
e.g. some speakers use seen as a past tense: “I seen
it.”
o C18th speakers used written, wrote, and writ as past participle forms of the irregular verb write (OED entry gives different forms/dates)
· prescriptive: the language as people think it should be used (“proper”, “right”)
o e.g. the rules for standard English do not permit seen as a past tense
o C18th grammarians promoted written as the past participle, and tended to
§ rationalize their choice on such grounds as etymology (OE gewriten), politeness, rationality
· privileged literary authors’ language (conventional)
· promoted one-form one-function, and to ignore or to proscribe the others
Grammar or “morphosyntax”
· morphology: word endings (English doesn’t have many), word forms
o e.g. She love-s cat-s
§ inflexions for 3rd person singular present tense verb, plural nouns
o e.g. she, her
§ different forms of the 3rd person singular feminine pronoun
· syntax: word order
o e.g. She loves cats
§ in English, unmarked sentence order is “SVO”: subject-verb-object
o e.g. on the mat
§ in English, prepositions precede the nouns they govern
o e.g. Can you believe it?
§ in English, questions are formed by inverting the subject you and the finite/auxiliary verb can
Grammar terms and concepts
§ A. G. Rigg, Traditional Grammatical Terminology
Early Modern English
Morphology
Inflectional suffixes as in Modern English, but with a bit more variation:
· noun plural –s
o imposed on most loanwords, e.g. Gk->Lat heros -> English hero
o replaced some older native plural inflections
§ e.g. shoen ‘shoes’ (mad Ophelia), i3en ‘eyes’
· survives in oxen
o but not always
§ e.g. fishes later becomes fish (by analogy with sheep, deer, etc.)
· possessive –s
o from OE –es in many nouns, generalized to others
o not from reduction of his to is to s, despite widespread C16th /17th “the King his foole” (and Juno hir bed &c.)
o apostrophe a later development
· regular verb past ending –ed
o imposed on loanwords: Lat. aestimare ‘estimate’ conjugated regular as estimated (and see determined below)
o eventually imposed on some previously irregular verbs (but not yet here):
§ “Three times today I holpe him to his horse” (now helped); “by strong hand wrokne” (wreaked)
Foreign inflexions
· some learned nouns
o seraphim, antennae, cacti
o sometimes generalized to other learned nouns, e.g. octopi (Gk. octopodes)
· fewer learned verbs – forms now obsolete
o My bonds in thee are all determinate [‘determined’]
§ -ate adaptation of Latin past participle -atus
Pronouns
Loss of one pronoun
· e.g. 2nd person singular pronoun (and verb -(e)st)
o thou
§ in ME, thou marked status (more fixed): lower
§ in EmodE, it marked attitude (more unstable): intimacy, condescension
o kept by Quakers
o compensation for its loss:
§ c18th: you was alongside you were
§ PDE dialectal youse, yiz, y’all, you(se) guys, yins
Levelling of some pronoun cases (though pronouns are more conservative than nouns in retaining case distinctions)
· object form you replaces subject ye:
o “ye schulden not ete” -> “you should not eat”
o “Hear ye! Hear ye!”: in earlier English, the subject of the imperative could be expressed
· in Quaker usage, object form thee replaces subject form thou
o cf. earlier “I commanded thee / thou shalt eat”
“Reflexive” pronoun in –self/-selves develops
§ subject and object refer to the same thing, e.g. “They made loincloths for themselves [older texts: them ‘themselves’]”
Different/variable forms of irregular verbs (e.g. speak, spoke, spoken)
· e.g. in past tense “Jesus spake” -> spoke
· tendency to level the vowel in the past and participle (like regular verbs)
o in speak, (spake->) spoke, spoken
§ e.g. stand, stood, stood
§ e.g. hold, held, held
o originally strong verb participles ended in –en
o still around in spoken, written, etc.
Some now-familiar verb forms had moved down from the north
· are (replaces be, etc.)
· verb present 3 sg. –(e)s replaces –(e)th
o variation might be regional, social, stylistic
o Nevailainen & Raumolin-Brunberg: using “Corpus of Early English Correspondence” to identify and interpret variation
Syntax
Early Modern English
· OE had been more “synthetic”, relying on inflexions to indicate a word’s function in a sentence
· subsequently English has become more “analytic”, relying on word order
o tendency for single words in older English to correspond to phrases in more recent English
Variation between synthetic (word endings) and newer analytic (word order) strategies, e.g.
· noun ‘possession’: ‘s vs of
o the ‘s is more likely with higher animates & subjective function:
§ the boy’s arrival
§ John’s painting (vs. the painting of John)
o more exceptions to this tendency in earlier texts, e.g.
§ Syracusa’s sack ‘the sack of Syracuse’
· adjective comparison: -er/-est vs more and most
o nothing certainer, feller
· different strategies from PDE?
o “most unkindest cut of all”
· both strategies at once?
· for ‘contrary-to-fact’, inflected subjunctive vs other strategies
o inflection: If it be thou
o modal periphrasis (if it could, might, be …)
o word order: had it been …
o semantics of the subordinating conjunction (if it is…)
Continuing proliferation of phrases
· multi-word prepositions and conjunctions like on account of
· not evident in these examples:
o “They called us, for our fierceness, English dogges”
o “Let’s assist them, for our case is as theirs”
· noun adjuncts:
o Hackney coach, native village, university professor
o MAD COW FEED SCARE, JELLIED EEL HEALTH ALERT
§ prominent in newspapers where space is an issue!
· ‘group-verbs’, ‘multi-word lexical item with verbal function’ (Denison/Beal)
o Look up (= behold)
o Go back (= return)
o Sit down (= recline)
§ earlier formations tend to be semantically transparent: out means ‘out’, up means ‘up’
§ often correspond to a single Latinate word of higher register
o Wise up! Don’t mess it up! Deal with it! You can’t get away with this!
o Luck out: good or bad?
§ meanings can be very idiomatic / nontransparent
· some verb phrases indicating ‘aspect’ become grammaticalized
o progressive or continuous aspect (=ongoing action): I am lecturing
§ That thus he suffers for ‘that he is therefore suffering for’
§ What do you read my Lord? ‘What are you reading?’
· in earlier English, you’ll find simple forms (suffers rather than is suffering)
o progressive passive becomes possible: the students are being oppressed
§ the grammar is printing ‘is being printed’
§ Now showing at a theatre near you!
§ early occurrence in Southey’s private letter of 1795 describing dental pain: like a fellow whose uttermost upper grinder is being torn out by the roots
· auxiliary DO becomes obligatory in negation and in questions
o negation: I do not smoke (DO NOT + V)
§ earlier strategy for negation (V + not):
· : “She doubted not”
o questions: Do you believe her? (AUX + S + V)
§ earlier strategy for questions (VS):
· “Why commanded God…”
o by analogy with modal constructions?
§ I will not work -> She did not work
§ Will they do their homework? -> Did they do their homework?
· other functions
o now obsolete: optional “dummy” auxiliary, no meaning, useful for adding an extra syllable in metrical texts
§ “What we do determine, oft we break”
o for emphasis:
§ I do believe in fairies, I do, I do!
· auxiliary be with intransitive verbs -> have
o “whanne the eventide was come” -> “when evening had come on”
§ intransitive verbs don’t take direct objects
o during the change, variants could be selected to stress state (be) or action (have) (cf. Are you finished? Have you finished?)
§ ‘Grammaticalization’ of modal verbs: from ‘lexical’ to ‘attitudinal’
§ lexical: e.g. OE willan ‘to want’
§ attitudinal: e.g. “That will be the doctor”
· tension in EmodE between the two
· Hamlet: “I would I had been there”
· (lexical: desire)
· Horatio: “It would have much amaz’d you”
· (attitudinal: hypothetical prediction)
Lots of variation generally (from PDE perspective!)
· e.g. irregular verb forms OE wrītan, wrāt, writon, gewriten
o I wrote, I writ
o
I have written, I have writ, I have wrote
·
e.g. adverbs without and with –ly
o
“She will speake most bitterly and strange”
o
“Excellent, excellent well”
o
“to knocke you indifferently well”
·
e.g. emphatic/redundant negation
o
“This was no Damosell neyther”
·
e.g. emphatic/redundant comparison of adjectives
o
“This was the most unkindest cut of all”
·
‘codification’ of English grammar began later
·
‘control’ of variation in the C18th: stay tuned …
Are
there any patterns? Adamson has synthesized some of the changes
·
development
of possessive its (in OE it was his)
o connected with replacement
of ‘grammatical’ with ‘biological’ gender in English
·
specialization
of other pronouns: who for persons, which for ‘non-persons’
o blurry areas include
infants, pets, personification …
·
“the
senseless windes … who in contempt shalle hisse at thee again”
·
“John
Mortimer, which now is dead, …”
o interrogative: who vs
what
·
decline
of certain impersonals: it dislikes me -> I dislike it, it
yerns me not
·
specialization
of prepositions by and with
o ‘He was torne to pieces with
a Beare”
o “I saw him put down the
other day, with an ordinary foole
Main
sources and/or further reading
Lass,
Roger. “Phonology and morphology.” Volume III of The
Cambridge History of the English
Language.
1999.
Adamson,
Sylvia. “Understanding Shakespeare’s grammar: studies in small words.”
Reading Shakespeare’s dramatic language: a guide. Ed. Sylvia Adamson, Lynette
Hunter, Lynne Magnusson, Ann Thompson and Katie
Wales. London: Arden, 2001.
Adamson,
Sylvia. “Animacy, animism and ‘natural’ language.” Paper presented at LMEC,
30 August 2001.
Blake,
N.F.. A grammar of Shakespeare’s language. London: Palgrave, 2002.
Hope,
Jonathan. Shakespeare’s grammar. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2003.
Barber,
Charles. Early modern English. London: Andre Deutsch, 1976.
Beal,
Joan. English in modern times 1700-1945. London: Arnold, 2004.
Görlach,
Manfred. Introduction to early modern English. Cambridge University
Press.
1991.
Nevalainen,
Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. Historical sociolinguistics: language
change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman, 2003.