HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Thursday, 27th September 2012 LESSON N 2 The idea followed during the course is that of English as a Standard Language, the way in which English reached a standardization which is not yet concluded because the language is changing all the times and as a consequence we might argue that there couldnt be standard language. Its a process which on one side tries to regulate the language and, on the other, usage, the language spoken by people and, because of it changing day by day. Nowadays English is not always clear to underline ongoing changes. One has to be very aware. Change my start from a deviation from a standard language, unconsciously accepted and after a period started being commonly used. Change my start from a deviation from a standard language, unconsciously accepted and after a period started being used. Change in lexis are easier but others are not (es.phonology). We can have two kind of analysis: a synchronic (the analysis of a particular point in time, not necessary today)and a diachronic (across time) one. Notes on the handout ENGLISH LANGUAGE CHANGE Venerable Bede: a monk who lived in the north of England and wrote some 90 works, among which HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA GENTIS ANGLORUM and died in 730. This important work is a history of English people. In this work written in latin he includes a little fragment written in OE, the CAEDEMONS HYMN. Caedmon lived in a monastery but was not a priest , he took care of cows, he was a servant, and illiterate. He was inspired by the Lord to sing about Him. This is the earliest document in OE and there is no 1:1 corrispoindence between spelling and pronunciation, problem which was there from the very beginning. Now we should praise the wards, the guardians of the reign of heaven, Sculon: should / shall Weard: modE WARD, -EN (guardia) Heofonrices : heaven + ric ( # Ted Reich) Meahta: might (Noun) Metodes : the power of the maker OE is very different from the modern one because its a real complete Germanic language. The OE is written with the Latin alphabet but some letters are not used in our alphabet.

This second passage is a Late OE period. Its taken from a book called Aelfrics Colloquy Aelfric was a monk and a teacher who taught Latin to future priests, and as a teacher compiled his own Latin grammar and a series of dialogues in English and Latin. He used OE to make them understand Latin (we know do viceversa). In this colloquy there is a ploughman (a farmer) Ierling: ier > earth + -ling: suffix for small being (cfr. Dearling) u : thou (you) Hu: How What say you ploughman > What do you say. : change / variation / evolution VS. codification! As a people they had not many connection with other peoples. The most common way to create new words was compound (heofonrices). As far as Shakespere (Early Middle English) different possibility was accepted to convey the same meaning, After the idea of different options was no longer accepted and the auxiliary was imposed. CHANGE IS THE RESULT OF VARIATION. Nu / Hu > Now / How there is some constancy in change. In the third example, much easier, but the conjunction a is the difficulty because it is used as a correlative (when.then). its taken from the Peterborough Chronicles (1137 and written ), a chronicle, a history of a country, keeping it updated, compiled with data about 1137 but written in 1155). Here we are 100 years after the Norman conquest, so, perhaps not OE anymore but with ME, considering the Normans as division. Still we notice some features of OE period ( > th) dropped during ME period: language change in time but its difficult to sign when this change takes place. Gadering: gather : dental plosive (occlusiva dentale)

Generally we say that ME starts when William the Conqueror arrived but the interconnection among linguistic change and extra linguistic ones are difficult to pin point. The fourth is the general beginning of Chaucers Canterbury Tales. Its a complete different repertory. In this text the role of Latin and roman languages is crucial (ME<> OE) In the change between OE and ME English passed from a synthetic language to an analytic one: from language which concentrates all the aspects of grammar and semantic in one word to a semantic information divided among different elements. The last passage is taken from Willam Caxtons Prologue to Eneydos, one century after the Canterbury Tales. He was the importer of the printing press to UK. Chaucer used manuscript and one century later, manuscript were used but the first books were able. The introduction of this improvement had enormous impact. If you write a document, a manuscript, you will introduce differences (mistakes, changes of the 2

text, linguistic adaptations to my dialect) in your work, if we use the movable print all these were not possible anymore. The Aeneid translated from French into English. Certainly our language in use changes a lot, from that which was spoken when I was born. Caxton realized that English was changed since the time he was born. We, English are born under the sign of the moon, so our language is changing day by day! For Caxton, who printed books was a problem. Printing you have to exclude variations and change. He considers these bad not for linguistic reasons but for a practical reason! He wanted to see all over Englad but because of language change was a real problem, commercially speaking. He tells a story: there is a merchant who form Sheffield comes to London by ship: he go to an inn, in London, to eat something and asks for Eggys (North East) and he is not understood and gets angry but then she realized he was speaking of Eyren eggs but in different dialects. /g/ velar sound in the North and /j/ palatal in the south. (R)EN | -S are different ending [CHILD-REN, EGG-S] SHALL I USE EGGS OR EYREN?? Example of linguistic variation on dialectal variation. The result of the variation took the abandon of the southern version to take the northern. The existence of EN in the south gives us the idea that (R)EN are not IRREGULARITIES as we study at school. Caxton having lived for a long time in the Flanders (30 years) and came back speaking a different kind of English. This gives him the possibility to feel the change coming from outside the speaking community, being inside it would have been definitely difficult. NO SOLUTION FROM HIM In the sixth passage there is change also in meaning and not only in form, phonology and spelling.

Monday, 1st October 2012 LESSON N3 We distinguish different level of linguistic studies: morphology, phonology, lexis or syntax. If languages were fixed communication could be easier to be made but its not like this. CHANGE = DEGENERATION is not the case of linguistic change, even if it was considered so in some periods of our culture. We dont like language change because it was seen as bad, the fixity was of paramount important (Cfr. Genesis with Adam and Eve) there was a single link. After having left the Garden > BABELS TOWER The more we go back, easier it is to analyze and discover changes. The easier sector of a language to analyze is LEXIS

New situations, new objects make people create neologisms. How: linguistic change Compounding: create a new word bringing together two different already existing words. (buono pasto) Loanword: is a word borrowed from a donor language and incorporated into a recipient language (ticket)

Some option may coexist. Language change can imply not only adding something but also dropping something or change inside the language (modification in spelling, pronunciation etc.) . OE weoran /ueordan/ (cfr. Ted. werden) > ModE died ( : th) Semantic change: change in their meaning Es. BLACK means snow (OE meant shinning) WIFE means woman and not a married one. - DEER means, like in German Tier, a general animal. to starve means to die but then replaced by Scandinavian to die (so its been specialized in to die because of hunger) OE Steorfan (to die generally) > ME specialized in to die of hunger. To die came to mean the general death as a loanword from Scandinavian. In change implies many modifications, adaptations take place and the only way to make old words survive is the process of specialization. The most difficult evolution to underline is that onto pronunciation (phonology.) Any aspect of the language changes.

EVOLUTION: we imply change for the better (Darwins idea of evolution for the better) DEGENERATION: we imply something negative. FOR US CHANGE IS NEITHER POSTITIVE NOR NEGATIVE: we can, as users my like or dislike some changes but we have to simply describe it. FOR US CHAGE IS THE TERM TO DESCRIBE THE MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE IN TIME. Change in English has eliminated the subjunctive (now we have just a few fossils as in God SAVE the Queen or Dont worry BE happy) but this is not to mean that English is not able to make philosophical discussions: this function has been taken by other features of the language. We have to distinguish grammatical form from the function: you can use different form for one same function.0 We can find a date for lexical change in written language but change can be promoted by extra-linguistic factors affecting social life. Languge change is also influenced by different factors: some of them promote the change (new situations) and some other stop it (difficulty in communication). 4

If we are ready to accept language change we should also try to find the reason of it: WHY LANGUAGES CHANGE? There are different theories behind: 1. Economy principle: we want to waste no energy, minimum effort theory. This is generally what we do, generally. Italian as certain number of sound, smaller then English but it works. In languages sounds can be associated in different groups (voiced, voiceless sounds > difference in sound and meaning very economical). The fact that the sound can be root, can be tabulated shows me that the system may have gaps. 2. Analogy principle: a change can be introduced in order to fill a gap. 3. Imperfect learning of our L1: Language change is caused by our imperfect learning of other language These theories can co-exist in order to understand what happened. Recently has also been proposed an umbrella theory: the relationship between language and variation. A>B Ex. (of change) OE hm /ha:m/ > hom(e) /h:m/ > ModE home /houm/ a > o > ou possible? YES! A (back and very open) > O > OU The hypothesis is that a became o and then ou. Im sure about the last because I use it nowadays, Im quite sure about a because was the same to OE a letter, this is reasonable because starting form open toward a closer one I can argue that this is the way the sounds came along. I mix data with hypothesis based on the nature of sounds, with the fact that the vocal tract used was the same as nowadays. I can hear people saying home but not h/o/me or ham. I can say a date because I can see that in manuscript. Its not only a orthographical change, I can say that because I can analyze it using modern English. Ex. (of variation) Why did a person start saying /h:m/ instead of /ha:m/? We do not know! Its a logical movement but I cant explain why. A > O I can explain this change? As a closing process. It moves towards closer positions.

I can date it thanks to manuscripts. But the passage between A to B point its not easy because change is the result of variation! 1. only form A is used 2. the form B is used alongside A, together VARIATION (some use A and some B) 3. one of the two wins and the other dies. a. There is the possibility that both survive, rare, and there must be a reason.(specification) I cannot prove the passages of /:/ > /o/ > /ou/ because the same letter was used to be written but I can be theoretically sure because you cannot skip a passage in a system. Also in the case I cannot prove I can relay on logic and to the system. Variation is always the result of change Variation may be the result of change Variation doesnt always result in change (the variant form may be stopped by speakers) Variation may mean something else: there is a place, a speech community in which all this variation takes place. Ex. OE: ham /a/ Late OE: ham /a:/ ; hom(e) /:/ Early ME hom(e) /:/ Its not precisely that lebels. I need to relay also to place and to particular speech community, the social situation in which it takes place. Analyzing a variation I need to take into consideration time, place and social situation . Variation is more complex then change. Monday 8th October 2012 LESSON N4 One of the reason why England argued against Rome was because a translation had already been there! Our Father SPELLING : the Latin alphabet was used to write down the language. From the very beginning there is no correspondence between spelling and sounds. Fder heofonum: both written like <f> but there are two different sounds: /f/ (voiceless) and /v/ (voiced) Wovels change all the time depending on the linguistic context.

QUALITATIVE CHANGE OE stn /a:/ > ME stn(e) /:/ This qualitative change is easy to be seen because of the spelling, so it is quite easy for us to found documents of this around 1100. The /a:/ sound might have become /a/, / :/ or /:/, they are all logic options, but the example is history.

From here there are three possible solutions: /a/ / :/ /:/

> stone /ou/

OE cild /i/ > ME child /ai/ > it implies that the vowel become /i:/ I know that ild has a short /i/ sound comparing it with other Germanic words, this time spelling is not useful. Not very much had changed, the change in spelling is evident, so the distinction of pronunciation became available in Modern English. We move from a short vowel to a diphthong. Logically speaking this change implied that the vowel became long /i:/. By referring to logic and relationship between a sound and another we can theoretically explain the middle stage. To prove the hypothesis we have to check the spelling, but it could not provide answers, as it happens in the second example. In some manuscript I can found the new spelling child, but no change for pronunciation, I can hypothesize that I need a long vowel sound, but I cant rely graphic representation, so I can see if other examples can confirm my hypothesis. OE didnt distinguished between long and short vowels: some other example can confirm this hypothesis. OE eald > ModE old /ou/ (the same as in stone) most derive from /a:/ which came to be /:/ EALD was an alternative to LD: this is again a qualitative difference. The // became a long vowel. LD : this consonant cluster: influenced the preceding vowel making it LONG When did this happen? We dont know the exact time, but we know that the vowel became long before stn > stn(e) , this is to say Late OE, we can confirm this in the example of cld > cld If the modern English pronunciation is /ou/, it must derive from a long /a:/ sound. The spelling ea reflect that the diphthong was alternative to a // sound, and I know it because I can rely on spelling. If ld is a variant form of eald, I can hypothesize that the // became long and the end point is the same as stone, I can say that it also participate in the evolution of stn stn stone. So I can easily say that the change took place before Middle English. So if ld became ld because of the ld cluster, ld became ld during the late Middle English period. But when the cluster become larger, for example in children, the sound is not affected. Sometimes we can rely on fixed data, and sometimes we simply say before and after a certain event. Standardization was promoted by people living abroad, alongside with the Christianization. Any linguistic change may be influenced by every single level of the language, not only lexis. 7

PRE- OLD ENGLISH OLD ENGLISH MIDDLE ENGLISH MODERN ENGLISH

HISTORICAL LINGUISTIC PERIODS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 450-700 Early Old English 700-900 Late Old English 900-1100 Early Middle English 1100-1300 Late Middle English 1300-1500 Early Modern English 1500-1650 Late Modern English 1650-1800 Present day English 1800- nowadays

This is an artificial division, but it can be useful and can also be a kind of reference. Its relative, it doesnt only reflect any data. According to some models it is easy to compare linguistic changes (this phenomenon happened after another one). They dont tell anything about external factors (extra linguistic factors), it can not be the only method. PRE-OLD ENGLISH is a part of German philology, PRESENT ENGLISH is said to have a started in 1800 (with Bayron, Scott) > we find many differences in their language. Still, the basic structure is the same (if we refer to a standard.) Round numbers are easier to be remember and artificial. Between these stages there were at least 4 or 5 generations. We can try to establish relationships between external and internal factors. 1. We cannot establish a direct relationship between an event and the linguistic change (the impact on the language after 1066 took some time to spread. 2. Caxton and the introduction of the printing press in 1475 in England took some time to have a clear impact onto the spelling habits. Cfr. Appunti Silvia Regularities of OE would soon after collapse towards the beginning of the soc called Early Middle English We are generally used to think that the Bible was translated just in the period famous as the Reform, instead some translation as already been made in some of the main vernacular languages. The claim against Rome was also based on those first translation of the Holy Scriptures. [vd. 3.40 lezione 5 reading of the Our Father] Its really very far from our language. Du: second person pronouns which could be used to build a relative clause. Si: conjunctive form of the verb to be Gewurde: form from Germanic weordan To becume: conjunctive form Syle: conjunctive form

We have to consider the different linguistic levels

In theory they had a possibility of a 1:1 correspondence between sounds and spelling, but from the very beginning this was not the case. It will be never clear enough. Fder heofonum: both written like <f> but there are two different sounds: /f/ (voiceless) and /v/ (voiced) The voiced one is placed in a voiced context, around vowel, instead at the beginning or in the end they are generally voiceless. Another problem to be faced was the use of non-Latin alphabet to convey, and write some new sound not present in the Latin language. To solve the problem they borrow the runic letter thorn to be used in Old English, but they also used the Irish letter as letter d. We dont have to confuse our nowadays situation which is different, when we use nowadays alphabetic code: in OE we do have both symbol to transcribe optional both the variety of sounds: both symbols can denote both kind of sounds. created by the connection of a+e and wanted to be represented a very open e sound! This needed a new symbol. It s between a and e Finally we have the y symbol, which we find in last line yfele, it represents the sound. In this case there is a direct and fix correlation sound and letter OE cannot distinguish between long and short wolves, as spelling is concerned. I can understand, not thanks to the spelling, but in a way, we can compare the form with some Germanic ones or later ones. Heofonum: u is short because in non tonic and final position, its unstressed. re: in a stressed position We can understand that as far as wovel, these sound on both qualitative and quantitative point of view as to be placed in stressed positions. Modern English lacks grammatical endings making words one syllable shorter, on phonology English words are shorter because what we know have are the stressed letters. Longs became shorter because dropped sooner or later. (the typical first syllabic stress of English) in time English adopted French and differently stressed words but they have not an English origin. Dealing with phonological system of OE OE has got consonants and vowels, unfamiliar vowels (some sounds were dropped) all the consonants of the text are already with us. The consonantal subsystem was more resistant and regular the vowel system. Once the consonantal system settled in OE, remained almost fixed. Morphology in OE Nowadays we have a very simple one: -s and ed s today is very poor, at the beginning English was a very inflected language: a synthetic language. Almost all of these cases and ending were dropped because not very strong, being and the end of the words and so, they were no longer stressed in the oral production. We should speak of morph-syntactic changes because the two are very strictly connected. The language had to find a different way to express the concepts not present after the dropping. 9

One way was the construction of a more rigid structure of the language (SVO structure), but also the introduction of prepositions instead of endings. Comparing the Latin Pater Noster with the English one, we can underline the tendency to be the closer as possible to the Latin version (fader ure and not ure fader). Nama / Willa : ending for nominative singular Urum: dative plural ending

Dealing with verbs we have different form of the verb to be. The modern verb to be is the result of the use of different forms used together. Here we have also a conjunctive form (today used with the infinitive form as in God save the Queen as a fossile). Present day English has not a stress on conjunctive because already in those times was not very stressed, already very weak. Lexis in OE OE is lexically speaking a fully Germanic language, still there was an author who wrote an important book who says that every language is always a mixture of other languages. Its really rare to find some community who are completely isolated. Contamination is very possible. Ex. Rice < ModE reign / kingdom but reign is a French loanword (Regnum) the translation has introduced the loanword from Latin or the OE word cyng < ModE King Y > I generally speaking, as far as this example tells me. The u > y moving form Germanic to Old German. But all came from a *u in Germanic.

Evolution of the word KING: OE CNING a syllable was dropped, being the accent on the first vowel, the second vowel sound disappeared, as a consequence to the position of the accent. CNING In particular CNING is originally made up of two different words: OE CN + suffix ING OE CN > ModE KIN (next, a relative, descendent) KIND (belonging to a root gentile (ita) The suffix ING comes form the German usage of UNG with the meaning of descendent (Cfr. Hastings the place where the descendent of a man called Hasta, in the plural, Buckingham (BUCCA + HAM, the house where the descendent of a man called Bucca lived). These examples underlines the tendency to cope with lexical problem, which is typical of OE. They were used to solve lack in lexis creating new words starting from those they had already in the language, the INTERNAL METHOD OF WORD FORMATION. Typical method, among the internal ones are compounding or derivation, as in this example using suffix. OE had CYNG and DOM (), KINGDOM but we have also the word DOOM (giudizio) represented as a double vowel. WHICH KIND OF WORD IS THE OE WORD CYNINGDOM /cuninigdum/? A compound word. The main different difference between a compound and a derivation is that the COMPOUND IS MADE UP OF TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGFUL WORD, words which can be used independently, instead DERIVARTONS ARE MADE UP OF AN INDIPENDENT WORD MODIFIED BY AN PREFIX OR A SUFFIX. 10

In ModE we say /kingdom/ and not /kingdum/ as in freedom; there is a clear phonological difference between doom and dum. What was in OE a compound, each having its own phonological nature, in Modern English as become a derive form in todays English. Not simple sounds change but also grammatical elements can change because of its phonological evolution or use. Everything can change from a period to another. How we move from kingdoom to kingdom? KINGDOM was the result of KING + DM, the tendency of compounding is to have the stress on the first syllable so the previous became unstressed, so shorter then to a schwa sound or a zero. Here we find only RICE. OE had the word, in their Celtic roots. Anglo-Saxon had to go down in their substratum, they made them their slaves. RICE is the Celtic word for reign. Why not deriving from German Reich, Its loanword to Germanic as to OE! (cfr. Asterix)

11

Wednesday, 10th October 2012 LESSON 6 Considering the first word in the PATER NOSTER: FDER how do we get to nowadays FATHER? OE fder > ModE father From the point of view of the consonant the problem is easy but a bit rare: we have a (plosive1) voiced dental sound d > became the corresponding voiced fricative sound th This process is not systematic but happens in a few word (gather) this takes place with a few words. What is more relevant is the explanation of the evuolution of OE fder > ModE father sound We move from a short vowel of one time to a long vowel of another: both qualitative and quantitative change. OE // > ME A /a/ > ModE A /a:/ 1. I can hypothesis that modern English pronunciation is the result of the lengthening of a short A vowel. 2. Is it reasonable, have we got data, of the fact that can became a? 3. Have I to imply a middle stage? I know the scheme of front vowels: as a matter of fact there is a possibility of no middle stage, so I can hypothesis this passage. Now I have relied on spelling and on common process, but also on the nature of English sounds: no historical data but on phonology. I need to provide element to confirm Hypothesis I : The starting point is a short sound so the sound may change in quantity and quality: Its unlikely to have it at the same time. The modern spelling is long <a> possibly this a reproduce a short a sound. This spelling I know that in the past may imply a short sound. I can rely on past spelling, because I have old writings, in ME I can find that ash symbol is replaced by <a> but we also find the new spelling sound. We know that this spelling was new one , the Latin as no () th sound, was introduced directly in OE. What happened when the Anglo-Saxon, Latin scribes were replaced by medieval ones? As the consequence of the Norman conquest came from France, noble people came to be scribes.

Called so because produced with the mouth completely closed, the air explodes out when we open it. In the case of dental the sounds are stopped by teeth. In the fricative the air as to squeeze through the mouth. Both implies the use of teeth and the use of vocal cords, being voiced sounds.

12

As Anglo-Norman scribes were in all cases in the same situation, they seems to be unfamiliar with that th sound. They did not took that spelling > also the sound, the pronunciation as to be changed. If it works Im ok. The last think is with of the lengthening of the a sound. Hypothesis II There is no change from to a but the sound in ME is still kept and simply the spelling changed. ( the scribes changed only the letter because they did not know it.) Ex. OE t > ModE that We have to compare two words that I know were the same, they had the same spelling, so the same sounds. = sounds => =spelling If they are the same today I can propose to have been the same in the past. But if we think of st one and boat we have the same pronunciation but with different spelling: boat and stone has a story that came to be identical but with a different starting points. In our case (father and that and its OE versions) is the same idea. Spelling tends to become old fashion. Spelling are always late to phonological change: spelling moves slower that sounds. Ive got a word with a particular pronunciation in OE and the same in ModE: the logic says that this sound has never changed. For example <f> in father has never changed. I can refer to other example, I can take MAN, the same sound as THAT but :

OE MANN /a/ > ME MAN [/a/] > ModE MAN // German has already this kind of /a/ sound ad in Ted. Mann or dass. Because in Germanic the <a> as two different outcomes in /a/ and //. Another kind of evidence of the fact that this word spelt like this had an /a/ sound. OE Man in some areas were also pronounced as /mon/: that reasonable for the position of the two sounds. Again this different variant forms are related. The OE short /a/ in some areas go a bit back. This variant as nothing to do with OE but confirm the possibility to correspondence among those sounds. If I have convinced that was pronounced as /man/ and now we know /mn/ it is the prove that nowadays man, as that, have not the normal, uninterrupted evolution of the OE sound. Even though it may be logical it not historically true: the sound became more open and then went back a bit closer again OE /a/ > ME // > ModE /a/ SUMMARIZE By using different examples I have found that the OE < > // sound in ME became <a> /a/ and in ModE was <a> and the general pronunciation // again. This symbol disappeared completely from the language 13

for a while, when it came back the OE spelling was not taken again and the more common <a> was used. So nowadays we got the // sound but we use <a> in spelling. This hypothesis is acceptable. This example which looks strange is the clearest evidence that this was the real evolution. I suppose the existence of it and some other examples confirm this (maths, class, mass, path) this is the reason why the ME example was an /a/. ME /a/ whatever his origin when moving towards ME, in moving to ModE became // in most cases (that or man) or, as a variant became longer /a:/ (father) In ME this has lengthen because followed by some consonants (spirate or fricative s, d, r) the final consonant got the short /a/ sound to became longer. The phonological system changes in every single moment of the history of the language. When a change sets in it doesnt matter at all what stays behind, what was its real origin.

Can we understand the time?? OE <> // > ME /a/ <a> > /a:/ (father / glass) or OE <A> /a/ >// (that / man)

I can date it relying in spelling, because the spelling changed with the pronunciation. So in the next passage I cannot rely on spelling anymore. Theoretically I can say that ME /a/ comes, most of the time, from // but also from OE /a/ but it doesnt matter the origin . ME /a/ became before /a:/, in the example of father and only after at became that t, otherwise we would have said fther! FIRST THEN /father/ > /fa:ther/ as /glass/ > /gla:s/ / at/ > / t/

Can we say /glss/ in English? Yes, in US English we do. Why? Because some people left UK crossing the Ocean, they spoke English but because of the place differed also the langugage changed. This sound had to move somehow, the American corrispondence tells me that this passage of lenghthening took place before 1620, otherwise they would have brough the /a/ pronounciation. US English as the reflect of a more traditional variety of the language. Early US English was not involved in some changes taking place in UK. Emigrants are generaly speaking very conservative. Before 1620 in a particular phonological context the / / > /a/ an type of conditioned change. So I can have a date, can I be more precise? We know the dates of the documents with evidences of it. I again refer to spelling: NEGATIVE EVIDENCE2. The printing press help me because if Caxton did not mark in spelling the evolution of the /a/ this evolution has to be taken place after the printing press was introduced. People was already used to that kind of spelling.

Changed not followed by other feature of the language

14

Before the introduction of the printing press spelling was much more variable. OE RE > ME OUR(E) > ModE OUR / u/ OE > ME THOU [dau] (you) > ModE THOU / u/ OE S > ME AUS > ModE US We are now dealing with long vowel sounds, instead of short one. The same sounds with three diffeerent phonological evolutons. The first two share something with the spelling: its an example of spelling change, not a phonological one. Here there is no phonological change but only a spelling one. We can imply only an extralinguiastic change. French had a // sound but they spelt it <OU> the Norman French scribes used their conventions. OE N > ModE NOW : the sound did not change but the spelling yes! First -OU > -OW I can say that the OE sound changed spelling that did not change again but dealing with pronunciation I say that form OE > ME nothing changed but a lot happened ME > ModE OE > ModE thou /u:/ > /au/ GVS started from Late ME and went on to Early ModE called GREAT VOWEL SHIFT. It involves LONG VOWELS. It was a systematical change in the LONG VOWELS We say our nowadays, as a diphtong because the influence of the final R, we do not pronounced. Before it was dropped it modified the preceding vowel (Early ModE, very late) OE S > AUS /u:/ > ModE US /^/ (short!: its chaged in quantity and in quality) One single sound cannot make two step in a time; there has to be two steps. I can say that the long sound shortened or I can say that the /a/ has to have something in common with the /u/ to go back to /u/ In this case the spelling reflect the pronunciation. Spelling followed pronunciation. The long sound has been shortened before the <a> set in, so before the introduction of Caxton. At the end of ME period found usual <u> spelling. Why of /u/ > /u:/ ? Because this is a pronoun which stays in an unstressed position: its position gives this particular evolution: vowel in unstressed position tend to be reduce, a long vowel can be reduced but a short one may become a . At the time of the GVS the vowel was short and so was not involved in the process . The // became an /a/ around 1650 in the process of delabialization

15

Thursday, 11th October 2012 LESSON 7 Phonology of ME We will consider it in its evolution in variation and change in the language. Cfr. ME Grafia e fonologia The evolution between OE > ME has to be seen as a continuous, without gaps. We can understand ME phonology can be understood, having no ME speakers alive: comparing with French: the ME was first written by Norman scribes. We can rely on Latin spelling to try to understand how English was first pronounced. The comparison with French is, in particular, important also because the French scribes did not know the Anglo-Saxon conventions: they could have tried to have a kind of phonetic transcription to French . Spellings varied a lot because it depends on what the scribes felt of the language they used. The very fact of the differences in the local variety of a single word. Spelling variety implies definitely something if we find riming words the vowel sounds must be the same even thou they are actually spelt differently: but the sound has to be remained the same A monk wrote the Ormulum ORMULUM A monk called Orm wrote a book called Ormulum: Orm (the name of the author + speculum, a type of Medieval Latin work which was a text reflecting on some topics) paraphrased as Orms book. In this case is a re-writing of the Gospel, he made a story, in English, out of the Gospels. Here we have the very beginning of this book, with an interlineal translation in English. This text is not important at all from a linguistic, a literary point of view neither from a religious point of view also because its the only copy, its the autograph copy, this means that: o the text was not successful because no one wanted a copy.

But this text is important because Orm was very consistent in the spelling used in his text! This is very uncommon for those times. He introduced some rules: he marked short vowels by adding two consonants after it es. Kaserr this means that and if you compare with min (mine) this must be long This is an example of the north-eastern variety of ME, where Orm lived. The problem is that not everything is underlined ex. Nu had long sound both in OE and ME but he had no way to mark it, he did not. 16

Kde > ME kinde > ModE kind: the macron was used in those time as an abbreviation to some words. OE gecynde /iekunde/ > ME cynd (gecynd(e)) > ModE kind A convention was this to have a macron on the vowel and this says for a nasal, to save time and space in writing. Especially for grammar words, words with no importance in the sentence. With Orm we can understand the specific situation of vowels in that specific area: we can prove some specific change already took place (for example some vowels were already become long) -----------------------We can analyze ME sounds by referring to OE or both OE and ModE and also compare Late ME sounds by studying the first book in the Renaissance period about pronunciation because especially school masters were interesting in orthography and orthoepic (good pronunciation) TABLE : GRAFIA E FONOLOGIA ME From these data we can analyze the relationship, correspondences between spelling and sounds, as far as consonants and vowels are concerned. I can interpret it starting from the symbol , which in OE were ambiguous (1 spelling > 2 pronunciation, but we can understand the relationship among those sounds.) CONSONANT SYSTEM <c>- > <k> but without a phonological change, only substitution of a spelling version. In ME <k> is used, because of French influence , in front of <e,i,n > and came to be pronounced as in French cite with an /s/ (ModE city) this came to involve also pure OE words which began to use <c>/s/ as in mice, lice or once. If a French scribe met a word like this I could convert the ambiguity by having a <k> to disambiguate it. The spelling sound relationship in city or grace came from a French model: scribes wrote English with their own conventions. Its not to be consider this for the French loanwords! But this relationship was passed into ME spelling conventions (cfr. OE mus> ME mice, it was not useful or necessary) NO PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE but ONLY APPLLYING CONVENTION ADOPTED. OE Anes (gen. of one)> ME Once The French scribes introduced also the <ch> sound for /t/ sound so OE cild > child <cw> (labiovelar) was dropped and in change came to be used <qu>, of French origin, it was not available in OE, no phonological change occurred. <cg> (affricate /g/ [gioco]) soon dropped and substituted by many options, with no consistency. French influenced when French used this sound much more the English, in ME it was much more frequent ever. ModE justice /bridge different spelling, perhaps because of the position they are, but in the example of the never spelt I in the endits a possible different rappresentation. Also here there is no phonological change, spelling only.

17

<f> in OE referred to the voice or voiceless sound. In ME the OE grapheme was kept (ME father) when the voiced sound /v/ was involved, it depended. On Latin root in the first period the <U> was in use, then it moved to <V>. <> /beige/ starting of an instance of 1:3 possibilities (/g/, //, /j/) a situation which is complicated. /g/ - / /: here we have as in /c/ and /k/ the corresponding voiced-voiceless sound. Here we have some kind of regularity. The letter <> (augh) it was used very frequently in ME. Every nation in Europe in this time had some spelling preferences. GRAPHEME is the corresponding written form of a PHONEME /g/ - <g> , the way in which sounds are actually represented. <> was the special GRAPH for the <g> grapheme. We do not have it anymore because they have closed it becoming a g Naturally this spelling did not survived and it was replaced by the so called minuscola Carolina (from Charlemagne). This is not a substitution of a grapheme but more generally of a graph, of the way of writing a grapheme. // (palatal sound) (Yeats) survived a bit more because it was used to indicate the semi-vowel. It disappeared because it was unfamiliar, it was only English, it was substituted by <y>. OE CYNG > ModE KING OE /g/ > <> replaced by the usual <g> OE // > <> replaced by the <y> because a phonological change set in and the /y/ sound was not present in the language. (OE CYNG > ModE KING) Y symbol came to be part of the list of the possible representation of /i/ sound this came to be representing the semi-vowel! // the gamma sound was the greek G. in English this is a spirant sound (Lock Ness) when its between two back vowels the passage is not completely closed and we have a spirant sound. It will be equated to the back semi-vowel /au/. We have a phonological change with a consequence in a substitution with another letter. Es. OE lagu (//) > ME lawe > ModE law OE dragan (//) > ME drawen > ModE draw OE dagas (//) > ME dawes > ModE days - Cfr Dawn the same concept and evolution. NO PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE, BUT A SUBSTITUTION. The same spelling sound correspondence. <h> it depends on the context in which its situated. h +0 / h+ vowel : ME house its ok, not aspirated in ME , glottal sound. vowel +h : the pronunciation is different (Ted. Nacht) it had different form depending on the position it had. 18

PHONEME and ALLOPHONE (variants depending on the context. Phoneme /h/ produced at the beginning of words/ syllables had allophone depending if its was followed by back or front vowels. Front vowels: // Back vowels : /x/

OE did not distinguished, as nowadays Italian. In Early ME it replaced <> When h+ consonant: this consonant cluster came to be reduced, the h element was dropped. Monday 15th October 2012 LESSON N8 <s> both voice and voiceless sound -> /s/ continues from the OE at the beginning and in the end -> /z/ inside the word and between vowels.3 This phenomenon has something to do with a variety of ME, the Kentish, the south-east variety. It behave differently from the rest of the Isles. OE distinguished the sibilant from the affricate sound OE <sc> -> ModE <sh> <sc> (affricate sound) ex. ModE fish but also sugar. 17 different possibilities. < ; > (dental fricative) voiceless and voiced ones. The first from the runic alphabet and the other from the Irish one( the thorn and the eth). We have no longer these spellings because nowadays we use <th> . both the spelling could be used for both voiced and voiceless sound. Phonologicallly they were distinguished by the context: -> // (voiceless)at the beginning and in the end of words -> / /(voiced) inside the word and between vowels. They soon and gradually replaced, for practical reasons, by the faster Y which became very similar in writing. ME Ye Olde Tea Shoppe Ye = THE This situation had to be overcome and the TH became the better way and it was generalized. <y> (velar semi-vowel ) was substituted by the <w> symbol VOWEL SYSTEM When we talk about basic vowel sounds we refer to the letters at the edge of the triangle, then weve got intermediate sounds. OE doesnt fully reflect the triangle. All the cardinal vowels are present, because they are the basis but not everybody. The situation is very frequently unstable.

Same situation of /v/ and /f/ where in OE have the same letter to be used. 19

What a change disappears some sounds, may disappears so a gap is created and the system becomes not stable. Soon the gap will be filled. Another theoretical evidence can be when a sound pushes off another ones place (displacement) The language always tends to be unstable. Other languages may have sounds which are not present in English (ex. /y/ sound). We start from the close sounds. <i> : its a close and most fronted one. English had a spelling represented both long and short vowels because OE had no distension because Latin didnt. In the scheme there is no indication of sound, because thinks changed a lot and no always this is the direct evolution from OE . We have one spelling in OE and three in ME. <j and Y> are possible to be found instead of the <i>, the <y> was dropped from the /y/ sound so it was available to be used. More than one letter that can be used : but still no distinction between long and short already in ME. No modification in sound but only in spelling <y; u> when the sound is short the <u> can be supplemented by <o> (ex. munk > monk, cuman > come)because of Latin influence. We have an <o> which represent in ModE a sound. The more we get into ME the more people started reading English. All these are represented by minims, simple methods of writing in the easier way. Still in ME no distinction between short and long sounds. Form a practical point of view ME <o> -> ModE <>, sometimes coming from OE <u> /y/ Again Latin,as a model, in initial position <u> was replaced by <v> without change in pronunciation (cfr. vs, vnder) ME was influenced by scribes of Latin origin was those who wrote the language. The impact of French is clear in the case of // which became to be spelt following the convention <ou ; ow> (cfr. doun) in OE the <ou>, we can say has been preferred internally (hs; house) and in final position <ow> was the one (nu; now) but in ME was the same. What do the French scribes do? They disambiguate the short and long variety of the sound. No phonological change but in some cases orthographical ones. We are taking about the closest sounds, the /y/ sound was creating when moving form Germanic to OE because of the phenomenon of i-umlaut, metafonia. I-UMLAUT: the Y sound is the result of a phonological attraction caused by the front sounds, acting on back sounds. Ex. OE CYNG > ModE KING Old Ted. KUNEC > Ted KNIG this is a middle sound. // somewhere in-between /o/ and /e/

20

*U > Y prehistoric process Y > I historical process of delabialization 1. Both and y are mddle souds 2. These sounds came into historical language in the passage between history and prehistory. When we meet the very first text these sounds were present, now, we dont because they set a bit uneasily in the system so the movement towards the front was completed (> e was a passage from OE to ME) What happened to /y/ sound? In some areas the OE sound is still kept for the first part of ME and, as a consequence it was replaced by the French convention to express this sound. Where the sound was delabialized became <i> where remained <y> the French convention was used so <ui> (cfr.fruit). The same happened to the /y:/, it became /i:/,delibialization, no qualitative change. Where it was kept was spelt <uy>. We notice the modern discrepancy between buy and build. The first process was completed but the spelling reflect the past situation. We say to buy (it remains us to a /i:/) the spelling goes back to something different and the pronunciation get right to the winning part. (cfr. Mod /taime/ and the spelling is <time> (going back to the past /i:/) Wednesday, 17th October 2012 LESSON N9 PATER NOSTER HEOFON testing of the example: OE heofon > ModE heaven /e:/> /i:/ <e> which is to say a short and open <e> so we can interpret this way <> which stand for this evolution /e:/>/i:/ so evidently the ME sound (long and open), became shorter and so did not evolved into /i/. This confirms the non-synchronic evolution between spelling and sound, because, as we said spelling tends to be slower in catching up pronunciation. For some reason the ME /e:/ > /e/. Heaven Meat Meet = pronounciation spelling = spelling <ea>

I dont know why but in some words such as ModE heaven there must have been long and have got shortened. As far as the text of the Pater Noster is concerned, Im interested in it from a lexical point of view because Latin tells me that meant sky (in coelis) it has modified its meaning > HISTORICAL SEMANTIC. Heaven took on a specialization in the Christian vocabulary. Why? 21

OE word for Sky was replaced by a Scandinavian loanword, sky! Sky in ON was meant cloud and the OE word for nowadays cloud, cld, meant little hill. What can we get from this? Its the evidence of the strong relationship between the two langugages and not simply loanwords to fill lexical gaps but also if not necessary because already present in OE. If a word specializes it reduces its semantic area of action.

Ex. CANDELA it was present in century but one day it took the meaning of an item of the engine. TO KICK OFF meaning to start a football match but was then generalize into to begin a meeting. ON came to be used in the language and so the semantic field of those word was to be reorganized by the specification to the religious term. We also have the French paradise, which could be a synonym in specific contexts. GEHLGOD a verb form GEHLGOD Prononciation: its a past participle *GE : its used for the past but also a collective meaning. This is how we can define a morphological and also as a lexical prefix. It disappeared and became ME <y> but being weak, because not stressed was soon dropped. The only fossil is to be found in ModE enough (OE genog /ienog/) not far from Ted. genug (and its pronounced /i/) Its one of the possible ending for the past participle of the weak (regular) verbs. The ending for the weak verbs in the past and past participle in Mod /d/, /t/, /id/ spelt <-ed> The strong verbs are represented by the strong change in the base of the verb (cfr. come / came) instead the weak ones add a suffix. Weak verbs had a root on other words, other nouns, adjective or verbs. Nouns > verb -> weak verb. This is the reason of the co-presence of two possible function of a word. (cfr. work (v) or work (n)) One of the main word formation is by conversion (we use a noun as a verb thanks to the addction of to prefix before it). Synchronically it doesnt matter what came before. English lexis is so reach because by having a word you can have both a new noun and a verb: English can be much more easily productive then Italian. This potential richness, is also the result of the fact of being the possible root for other words. In OE words were morphological distinguished: the infinitive had an at the end. 22

If Anglo-Saxon had contacts with Latin and ON, was a isolated speech community, they hardly took material from outside: from there came later. The internal method of word formation was crucial. GEHLGOD : this being a weak verb its lexical root is based on another word. 1. OE HL : this sound in initial position has no problem: a long a > o and in the beginning of ME is a long and open sound. OE HL > ME HL (long and open)4 >ModE WHOLE : w- is a peculiarity because it reproduces one variety of south dialect.5 It meant integro, sano. The OE noun was the basis for a corresponding adjective created by adding the IG suffix > HLIG (vowel + semi-wovel) this is what ModE is HOLY. It happened because Anglo-Saxon took their own words, using their own resources. (cfr.SILLY, HAPPY, ending to create adjectives) HLIG was the source for the corresponding noun HLIGA /ala/ (holy person): -A suffix in OE was a nominal suffix to create nouns. Do we still have it? We dont. ModE has the ER suffix which came from the Latin ARIUS. Its interesting because OE took very little from abroad, only what was basic, but evidently the influence of Latin to OE has been high because took also a suffix. Perhaps the OE community had too many words in ARIUS that they could not distinguish the suffix from the root. (CUWINGUM pronounce /cewingam/, because we do not distinguish their components.) TO MANY ARIUS SOUND WHICH THEY UNDERSTOOD THE FUNCTION IN LATIN. The a suffix was too weak phonologically without consonant to protect it and, also, in the end of the word. It was some sort of contrast between the unstressed position but that as to be stress to be distinguished from HALIG: probably the ending was less important. This suffix did not work anymore. (ModE hunter > OE hunta) OE <-A> /a/ -> <-A> // then dropped for -ER They tried to make A phonologically relevant; instead of ALIA we can find the spelling HALGA: the middle vowel was dropped so that the most important vowel were put nearer. But that did not survived. 2. *HL + *JAN (possible suffix to create weak verbs) The Germanic root unchanged into OE, that was the source of OE hlan. When moving from Germanic to OE the long a vowel got palatalized cause of i-mutation because the <j> semivowel caused the previous root vowel to be fronted. > (by i-mutation) A general reason why is economy of the language, but also psychological reasons. What we got in OE is hlan, the souce of ModE heal, to make someone holy, sane, integer.
4 5

If i put a dot, that would be an close sound. HW cluster was unclear and this adopted a dialectal pronuociation, it took a dialectal variant from the south

23

3. OE HLIG + JAN (other option to JAN) > HLIAN The i-umlaut here did not take place because it takes place because the <j> has to be immidiatly in the following syllable: here the <o> creates an other syllable, so its the third. From this we have the authorized version which says hallowed be thy name > Lat santificetur nomen tuum. Cfr. Halloween: Hallow + -een : the night of the Saints, (31st October) That a derivation process, but we can compound (holiday) or many family names (Haliweell, not Holly because by compound a has became short because a sequence of vowel was made) OE RICE Its a Celtic term, nouns and adjective, reorganized on the French version. The only fossil of this is present in BISHOPRIC, the Dioceses, the reign of a bishop. OE SWA OE SW > ModE SO /a:/ > /ou/ No surprise on the spelling. What is strange is the dropping of the semi-vowel W, quite regular Ex. Sword /s/ the cluster is written but not pronounced anymore. Answer OE ANDSWARU > ANDSWERIAN (v.) morphological distinction in time became irrelevant and the two forms became one only. ER / AR became = in ME (cfr. Person and Parson) Dropping of the U ending

The second element is the root of ModE of to swar and the prefix is Greeck ANTI (against someone else) We say answer because there has to be simplified the big cluster. Wednesday, 24th October 2012 LESSON N10 During the course of MODULE C we will now concentrate on morphology and morpho-sintax in order to implement what we have said about phonology, providing evidence for: Standard language is the result of variation, dialectal variation in ME. That only one side of the point, because change depends on synchronic variation but also the evolution of language per se. Even when phonological change takes place, that could be a sort of variation. This remark may be strange on the morphological level. There is no discrepancy among the different linguistic levels. We generally tend to focus on stressed syllable but also unstressed sometimes make some word evolution change.

24

NOUN EVOLUTION OE stn (m.) Singular STAN STANES STANE STAN Plural STANAS STANA STANUM STANES

NOM GEN DAT ACC

They were divided into group, they had GRAMMATICAL GENDER (as in Modern German) OE GRAMAMTICAL GENDER > ME NATURAL GENDER The table is one of the most detailed system of endings in OE, but some other may be different. This were not very useful, the nominative and the accusative is not different. Excluding the Genitive the other were also very weak. We still have the s for the Saxon Genitive and for the plural: these were the strongest. Strong simplification in time. When the different systems starting to collapse the strongest system, the stan system, attracted all the others, or most of them. There are exceptions, or irregualar ones (ox, oxen child, children) which came from the other system, the weak one based on nasal which were usually dropped in final position. (-N) Why do we still use the form OXEN? Definitely thanks to the high use. But also because being so short OX an extra syllable was a necessary. Ex. CHILD, CHILDREN OE cild > ME cld We have commented on the lengthening of the <i> thanks to the consonant cluster <ld>. It belonged to the class which had the U suffix, a very small one. ModE plural form has three particular form: a. N b. R c. Phonological change /ai/ > /i/ The R sound is not strange at all because come from the OE ending but it was so unfamiliar that when the system collapsed the speakers did not recognized it as a plural anymore and so a much stronger plural was added (-EN) useful to avoid very heavy consonant cluster. Evidently they started use R as part of the root, so the r element was kept inside before the adding EN. This is not an exception at all!

25

Ex. OE FT > ModE foot; feet The i-umlaut has created the distinction between o /e. ALL ARE / Singular FOT FOTES FET FOT Plural FET FOTA FOTUM FET

NOM GEN DAT ACC

DAT. FET ?? this is not relevant for ModE but we can hypothesis that, by analogy among singular and plurals. The i-mutation is a prehistoric process, we have no data but we can pre-suppose that in this case the original plural ending was * FTJS (back vowel + J in the following and this attracts the pronunciation of the back becoming a front vowel.) after these process the ending was not useful anymore. The grammatical system get simplified thanks to phonological evolution involving endings, this hids the distinction among endings making them not efficient. This is not connected to dialectal variation: some of them were more ready to adapt it but this process is not connected to this process. (Vd. Handout OE morphology)6 Thursday 25th October 2012 LESSON N 11 TABLE : GRAFIA E FONOLOGIA ME (2) <>All the system could be both in the long and short variety. Its important to specify because moving towards the open sounds, something changes because coming nearer and nearer we have gaps in the system. In OE if a sound was open it was also short and if it was closed was also only long. Similarly the back wolves. The system was filled in ME: new sounds are to be found. The ME situation sees a change in both spelling and pronunciations. A new open sound, long and open may derive from vowel lengthening. Open syllable: a syllable ending with a wovel, a close one ends with a consonant. 1. OE beran > ME beren > ModE to bear. 2. It could be related with the evolution of the sound, which came to be rappresented with an <e> was unfamiliar for the scribes and possibly merged. Here we can say a pure change in spelling only. 3. <a> that came to be a monothonge OE da > ME de
6

33 mins. Lezione 10 (24.10.12)

26

This gap had to be filled and this category attracted different kind of sounds. In theory moving on to the next step did not matter the origin of that sound: this is a law in phonology, still we can say there are three final ends. The long but close OE sounds, which had no change in ME: we have to refer to spelling, OE gren > ME (often) green, gren : long and so, by definition close There is no change in pronunciation in ME If I consider ModE spelling soon the <ee> will come but also the OE spelling could be found, or we may also find such a spelling like grene , the so called discontinuous grapheme, <e C e> the second e stands at the end to remind that the previous vowel was long. Discontinuous because the spelling relies on not continuous ones. Cfr. ModE TIME / MAKE /MATE (-MAT) the E is only there to make us know the character of the vowels. (its a standard option in Modern English. Historically its true but in OE TIMA : we find the result of the OE final unstressed vowel, that then came to be generalized. OE TIMA > ME TIME > ModE TIME /a/ > / / > We have OE bissyllable but the final was unstressed: if originally it rapresented a full wovel, it came to be pronounced as an unstressed one til it completely disappeared but some fossil in spelling were kept. This orthographical fossils was used for something else: they came to be used in this context ORIGINALLY it represented something -> CAME TO BE ADOPTED WHEN THERE WAS NO ORIGIJNAL SOUND in OE. GREN came to be spelt both as nowadays or also as a discontinuos grapheme: green or grene (cfr Gram Greene, where the long vowel is marked twice.) In some cases the French scribes influence this long and close /e:/. When we have brief, chief, this pronunciations has a Norman pronunciation. In this spelling-sound relationship we have a French loanword. But this was also introduced in Anglo-Saxon words as in friend, thief (dealing with the diphthongs as <O>. In ME we have the continuation of the old long and close sound and the introduction of the new long and open sound this competition came to an end because now the further evolution put the two together in /i/: the modern spelling reminds us of a long and close sound <-ee> (see) instead a long and open one (sea). Cfr. MOdE deep < ME dp ModE Death (-th) not productive !

Keep Kept (different in quantitive, evident but also qualitative). ME kp > ModE keep, kept (now short) 27

Difference in quantity is normal, the qualitative is to be found: the difference in quantity was the cause of the qualitative one because only the // > /e/ . so the keep is a perfect regular verb. The regular ending for the past tence was not ED but: /d/ /t/ /id/

<y> it did not last: the ME evolution was generally <i>. there was, in OE also the correspondent mid-back vowel which was <> between the /e/ and /o/. this sound was very little used in OE and before the y > I everything here was done. < > OE was short and open and in ME short and long: the same to /e/. the long and open /o/ sound derived in Early ME from the /a:/ and did not involved north dialects. When we meet them we can find this location. Long and open now sound, generally <o> or <oa> but ModE Stne (e means a )is an example of discontinuous grapheme to underline the long sounds of the vowel PROCESS: /a:/ > /:/ (long and open o) = qualitative change, but not qyantitative because remains long. As usual the may derive by lengthening from a , in from of some consonant cluster or in bisyllabic words. OE > ME generally the spelling double OE gd > good but I could find also gode (cfr grene) A new sound, because close but short, to be found in ME used with <o>, in front of some cluster and bisyllable. Ex. WSDM OE WS > ME WS (I had no change in sound still written long with an <I>) [now written WISE because of the discontinuous grapheme] and ModE pronunciation is product of the diphthong /ai/. OE DM (long and close o sound)> ME spelt with the <OO> NO CHANGE IN PRONUNCIATION until in ModE came to /u/ <doom> /o:/ > /u:/ Phonologically two long vowels and in OE a compound word but we now pronounce it differently, when two words are compounding, something happens in phonology. It happened this: ModE <Doom> long sound because its not stressed then has to become short and pronunciation change. DM > DM (because not stressed). < o because if it were U < u As a consequence the pronunciation changed, the vowel became short, we say now / NULL, / where does the schwa sound comes from? Form an /o/, not an /u/ because it came from EarlyModE , then it shortened and moved.

28

Synchronically no one recognize the origin of doom! The process has blurred the etiological evolution. What is important is that the process has transformed a compound into an example of derivation. Because doom is now a suffix because <-dom> is not present anymore in the language. What was a noun as became a suffix, the evolution had an impact on the grammatical nature. Why are we saying /wais/ and not /waisdom/? The > ai the stress was still there. Because of the cluster created by the compound <sd>, WISDOM. Cluster may be in the root or be created by the addiction of two words.

<a> OE <a> both a short and a long sound. The short <a> was not very common because /*a/ usully became */a/ > / / in some cases unless> a + a, o, u in the following syllable (a back vowel in the following, process of fronting.) OE faran /a/ + /-an/ > ME change this was especially with nasals. As we all know /a:/ > // if we are dealing with dialect a gap is created. In a way it is it not. The gap given to the /a:/ is filled by other /a:/ from another evolution. For example a /a/ >/a:/ or French words entered the language with a <a:> as in dame. OE macian > ME maken /a/> /a:/ around the 110 ca. the /a/ > /a:/ Any linguistic change start and ends. May take longer but its not forever. In every stage of the language, any system is looking for an equilibrium which is shaking. The tendency to regularity is very strong in a language. <a> /a:/, // long and short. was substituted by <a, e, ea> the short/e/ move to /a/. the e system was completed so the short /e/ was pushed because not stable. The trend is that the long is not stable and the sound tent to overlap with either the close or open variety , depending on the root in Germanic. Monday, 29th October 2012 LESSON N12 ORRMULUM Its an Early ME text, we are analyzing this text for two reasons:

1. Its a text where the author adopts particular and innovative spelling conventions and these remains exceptionally regular in the whole text 2. Its a good example of the northern variety at the start of ME period. We have the autograph, the copy written, for sure, by the author, whose name was Orm who was an English monk writing between East Midlands and the northern area, in Early ME and who can be 29

considered the first reformer of the English spelling. English had a sort of standard spelling in Late OE based on Anglo-Saxon conventions, put aside when the Normans came and there was no more power in English. His name suggests a Scandinavian origin, if he was from there its a novelty because Scandinavians were illiterate and Orm represent the mixing of cultures together. The part with the interlineal translation, says that the text is dedicated to this brother Walter, also a fellow monk. It is a collection of homilies, or better a paraphrase of the Gospels. There is a mixture of narrative stories of Jesus and a theological explanation. It could be intended to help pristes to teach, and culturally is important because meant that Latin was very difficult for them who already read it. Its linguistically interesting because its idiosyncratic system, he was as consistent as we are nowadays. The idea of consistency in spelling was completely now in those days. The system was probably devised by him to help the reading aloud of the homilies in public, in church in a time when English was changing fast, and phonology was very uncertain. The title ORRMULUM the RR indicates that the preceding vowel (o) is short, If it is meant long the consonant is written as single. When he write a close syllable a consonant after is needed and when an open one is needed the consonant is double. When long vowels are in open syllable he marks them which a small s under. He uses heathen. Its the only copy we have, it was a failure from a communicative propose but linguistically is very important ,to see his consistency. We can expect a very strong Scandinavian component but its not so difficult because of the content is known but also because even thou MOdE was the result of the mixing based on the South, still aspects from the north are to be noticed. [READING OF THE PASSAGE AND TRANSLATION: 15.00 min] WORDS ANALYSIS:

Romanische (now Romish, from Rome): because Romanische took a bad connotation during the Restoration period. Kaserr : Ted Kaiser < lat Caesar OE Kasere ehatten: is still use as part of the e OE prefix to from the past participle forms. e- cfr Ted. geOE httan cfr. Ted heien now not used because its used call < ON callan Interesting the use of this verb in an area of high Scandinavian influence, perhaps because in this specific function was not used yet. Wass: the verb to be OE wsan cfr Ted Wesen from which was and were came from. The modern form comes form a northern variety of the language. Now we say was/were: these forms are there to remained us that the infinitive in OE had the singular and the plural forms.

30

OE WSAN (ModE be was/were/been) WSAN WAES WRON WREN

OE DRINCAN (ModE drink drank drunk) Infinitive / present Simple past Past participle DRINCAN DRANC DRICAN GEDRUNCEN /ie-/

If we now have 3 forms for irregular verbs. We can say that the past participle disappears because only the other survives. If its obvious that ModE past came from the OE participle, and the two pasts merged or one was dropped. But everything is possible. The evolution and the dropping of the ending have consequences on the morphology of the language. OE ws // > Early ME (Orm) Wass cfr. OE t // > that /a/ > that // OE ws // > Early ME (Orm) Wass /a/ > ModE was // OE hwt > ModE what Further evidence to the tendency of come and go tendency. Was must have been derived from the same starting point but the middle stage must has been an /a/ sound because of the vocal tract expressed in the triangle. This is because of the pervious bilabial sound (w) which attracted it. It would have made the normal way but the influence of the preceding sound attracted the // the other way. // is commonly in an unstable position, this made it move totally on the other way. Wurren: from Ted werden: to become OE weoran Mannkinn: ModE mankind OE GECYNDE */iekunde/+ (used as a collective noun)> CYN, KINDRED (middle form stripe relatives) geprefix here used to mark collectives nouns cfr. Ted Gebirge Italian gentile < Lat. Gens (of noble origins.) Yann /gann/: its the short form for biyann , past tense of the verb OE gin its an example of unstressed syllable preceding and not accent at the first place, because not important (vd. Above) Its another form to mark the past tense, translated thought its an auxiliary for the past of the following verb, used for rimes. Himmsellf : not very used in Early ME, only during the ME period it became standard, its a kind of novelty. In OE the reflexive pronounce where the personal pronouns.

31

enkenn: we could say ModE to think cfr. Ted. denken with two forms : to think / to seem (possible uses in Defoe) ModE to think / thought / thought total regular because the final t sound is the usual dental sound for weak verbs. In fact all the series were regular with his verbal morpheme ending in dental. Modern <-HT> was a particular way of creating the past in these verbs. Miccle: (short /i/) ME miccle > ModE Much There were different forms in OE MICL / MYCL example of phonological variation in OE <c>/t/ Evidently already in OE there was some kind of variation /i/-/y/. this was uncommon but we now know that Kyng > King y>I but it was not yet ready. Early ME forms reflects the winning and general trend for the north and East Midlands part of the country Also the MICLE pronunciation reflect also the tendency of the use of velar in the north (cfr Church / Kirk) ModE Much: if the OE /y/ generally > /i/ in north and East Midland we also have different pronunciations. To distinguish the place where a ME text comes from we have to important signals: /a/ ham > hom /y/ y> I If it has the <y > its of the south east (Kent) Ex. OE lyft > ModE left ; OE yven > ModE even

The West Midlands and the South West the OE sounds stayed on, still used in the Early ME, spelt as <u>,<ui> or <uw> especially If long. Why? Because its typical French spelling . Later these sounds moved to the winning /i/ pronunciation. In modern English generally speaking the /y/ all became /i/ But its not enough because now we say /mach/ but spelt with <h> , why? The modern pronunciation is completely different and comes from /u/ , so it come from <much> /u/. The /u/ is not in the possible evolution of the /y/: in the area were the sound was kept the <u> . evidently there is a strange influence of spelling on pronunciation, generally the opposite. Its as if people had forgotten the source and so they re-interpret the pronunciation as in come (ME /cum/)cut(ME /cut/) or put. The same can be said for such. The difference in meaning (translated large) the modern meaning is related differently but the same.?? Rice : loanword from Celtic meaning kingdom , still used by Orm in these areas. Kinedom = rice Mikell - micle : some variation present Swa : OE long /a/ > ME // (long and open) , the previous consonant cluster <SW > got simplified.

32

Yodsepell: an important word, the spelling by Orm gives the confirm of the original GD (ModE good), because there is only one <D>: the original words is a calque on Latin EVANGELUIM (buona novella) OE GDSPELLE was a calque on Evangelium, there is a very heavy consonant cluster, by creating the compound, even thou the stress on the <> it was shortened because of the consonant cluster, also if afterwards it was simplified to two syllable. The form used here is a middle form, the vowel is short but the cluster is still there. The calque was more important from the religious point of view. When adopting a loanword we cannot understand their parts, for the calques was much more evident. Witten: ted Wissen, in English to know . ModE remains only WIT, arguzia, with a restricted meaning. Wel ()!: WL > ModE WEAL(-TH) (bene comune) the pronunciation is short because the <-TH> suffix shortened the syllables Hu: ModE How () Fehh (: even thou feel (theoretically < :) OE feoh (a diphthong became a mono.) > ModE fee (bestiame) the major source of richness ModE cattle (loanword from Norman French): other way to call cows ModE chattels ( Parisian French) the form that afterwards took the place of the old Norman variety :beni mobili Wednesday, 31st October 2012 LESSON N 13 (cfr notes on the HANDOUT OE personal pronouns) Monday, 5th November 2012 LESSON N14 ORRMULUM (II parte) <Ill>: is related to Ich normal evolution OE ylc > ME illc (normal evolution for the Northern-East variety) ModE each < ME variant form becoming a monothonge, overlapping with the long and open /e/ OE lc > ch (/e/ long and open, spelt in French as <ch>) > Late ME each Something particular is the loss of the /l/ sound already present in such cfr ted Solche: the cluster <LC> tends to be simplified. <Penning> : source of ModE Penny . the ING suffix is there to create the kind of words. The plural are both: ModE pence (seen as a collective) Regular ME penningas and then the middle unstressed syllable is dropped and we had the final CE ending of French origins 33

Mod E pennies (as a sum of single coins) now form on the basis of the singular, a later one.

< fe> : its the conjunctive of GIEFAN (to give) ModE gave <badd> past of OE biddan > bidden (now for to forbid) the meaning was to ask, to prey someone for something. <settan> ModE to set , its a weak verb based on the OE sittan . Weak verbs are crated on nouns , stong verb Since the OE root ended with OE T > the typical ending for the past was - TE instead of typical DE or EDE <o> ModE <on> <for-to> double preposition ModE to <lokenn> OE lcian /k/ is a weak verb of the II class, ending in IAN in the infinitive. The root vowel was long from Orm spelling. Its confirm by the modern one, <look> but now is pronounced with a <>. We say also <looked> /t/ unvoiced in front of a velar sound, traditional. <Mihhte> source of ModE might . the /h/ sound in mid-position was replaced by / h / gh and so easily ModE might but ModE / mait/ Its the result of the /i:/ as in time: OE-ME /mihte/ the consonant was dropped and the vowel became long when the /t/ sound was lost. On morphology we have to note that its part of the class in which nowadays modals belong. OE magan (may/might) they created the past with the weak verbs morpheme. mg > may (it comes from the present and not from the infinitive form.) <Werrelld> : OE weorold, werold > ModE word which is originally a compound word where the first element is WER (Lat VIR ) cfr. werewolf + OLD ( ald, old, elde) meaning age

It would be meaning mans life, the age of men. Its interesting because a word is what I perceive till I die but also connected to Lat seculum (next life) on a Christian perspective. <of> OE and ME preposition to form passive (nowadays by) OE Of but : 1. Of (a weak one) /ov/ marked in spelling 2. Off (strong one ) /f/ <Reccnedd> to calculate <ta> OE a > ModE then in colloquial its used with <t> cfr. line 23 <Whr summ> ModE wherever or whenever , OE sum > ModE some . 34

<Where> is of Scandinavian origins <wendan> OE wendan (to go) weak verb, the past tense is wente. Which now is used to be the past form of the verb to go. OE GN > ME G (open) >ModE GO very regular What is strange is the root: we are used to have AN ending, here the <a> (semantic vowel) is missing. And also the form for the first person present was (ic G E)and also the rest of the root vowel was different from the common one, in fact: IC G (-E) GST (-EST) GD (-E)

A > with an i-umlaut. Evidently the ending were <ist> . The original past tense of the verb was EODEN, a different root. (ME yede, yode) this were replaced by went. <sculon> one of the modals OE sculan, scolde , the <-DE> ending for the past. <tn> : OE tn . // was spelt with <OW> spelling by Normans in mid-position cfr. ModE town <beran> : OE beran > ModE bear this spelling <EA> -> ME / :/ > ModE /i:/ we dont say this because of the influence of the <R> <Hfedd> OE HFOD > ModE HEAD / : / long and open> // open but short lately, after the <EA> became standard like: Ted. Haupt which would refer back to OE <ea> or OE beam > ModE beam / ted Baum or ted. Augen Then all merged in something long at the beginning , the reason why now we pronounce /hd/ <n> OE onn > ModE again where <a-> is the result of what was <ON-> then we have what in German is gegen. ModE again / against survive because they received a different grammatical rule. <Nohht> from here two forms derived: NOT : the unstressed and so a weak form. The simple negative form in OE NOUGHT : (zero) strong form.

<felle> : OE fallan from the seventh class. <I (in) Wte>: punishment, in misery . the accent is because the vowel is long but the syllable is open. 35

CONCLUSION: A simple text, full of repetition, language its interesting for the regularity, the text reflects the northeastern variety. We have noticed some important element form the north, the use of velar, like miccle. We have lexis of Scandinavian origin, no French loanwords and a few words which are not survived. A clear sign of the early time and of its being too far away from the future standard of the south.

Wednesday, 7th November 2012 LESSON N 15 (Cfr. HANDOUT OE STRONG VERBS) Its make to show the regularity behind the nowadays called irregular words. OE had many more strong verb then Modern English, the tendency to towards reduction. This can be the reduction of a not using or new verbs in ME created, but only very rarely are created as strong ones. Newer verbs are regular or weak verb , not surprising because weak verbs are easier ones, the most regulars. Exception is to strove the French word from <escrive> was very similar to the regular evolution of OE RIDAN.

EARLY MODERN ENGLISH Early Modern English is the period in which syntax was regularized and codified as we now know it. Its the most important period for the codification and standardization of the language. We do not refer to phonetics because this evolution is in speakers so, talking about codification and standardization this cannot be done using phonology: grammar and syntax are there written. English became todays one starting from the written variety. There is no variation, or very little in the educated use of the language whereas there is much more in the colloquial situations. The story of English in Early Modern period is that of codification of the standard made in writing. Dealing with this we speak of an ideology which drove the standard, a standard, cultural influence. Social factor here is much more relevant than before. The linguistic choices were decided by extra-linguistic factors. 7 We start from the 16th century England. We have to look at the attitude of the people, which totally changed. During the renessanince there was the massive influence of Classics, Italian , Latin and Greek on English culture. Educated people became aware of the defects of English, by comparing they understood that it was: barbarous, rhetorically lacking (in strength) and not ruled. Also because classical languages were fixed, instead English in those times was changing.
7

Cfr. book chapter:general introduction to the period.

36

There was also a paradoxical situation: Italian etc was a model for English but then the culture of the period promoted the use of national languages (in courts Italian sonnets were studied ). New and more adequate version of classical were published but was also the period of the birth of some main European national states. Another important element was the religious reform and with it the breaking of the link with Rome (this against the idea of the period), and also the Scriptures in national languages were promoted : but English was not ready enough. A lot of religious debates took place among the different points. Language had to be a suitable tool . Theology has always been discussed in Latin. English had to grow. Finally it was the century in which England moved outwards of the isles > colonialism started. For the first time English started to be spoken abroad. Thursday, 8th November 2012 LESSON N 16 OE // In both cases, long and short, the sign is the ash and in ME is replaced by <A, E, EA> we dont know something for sure, what we actually know is that OE /a (:)/ also /(:)/ but the /e/ was open but short and close if long. In ME a long and open sound and a short and close sound were added into the system This is one of the reason of the disappearance of the < > because they merge becoming much more regular. It was also influenced by the complex situation dealing with the dialectal situation, which was not regular. The most complex situation is that of the long sound. There was an input from the original Germanic sound. / :/< either a monothonge or from a dipthonge. As ME is concered we can have both an <e ; ee> spelling, even if the <e> and <ee> came to be distinguished around Late ME (1400) like this:

<e> came to correspond to the close sound /e:/ <ee> came to correspond to the open sound / :/ At the moment there was no difference.

37

We have to distinguish Quantitative phonological changes: vowel lengthening/ shortening Qualitative phonological changes: vowel moving along the various direction in the triangle. (back> front or open > close or vice versa) We must be aware of the timing of the change: when does it start and finishes? Underline also dialectal variations Is the phenomenon conditioned or not conditioned by the place or the neighbor sounds?? Relationship spelling and sound variation (spelling tend to be more conservative then sounds)

QUANTITATIVE CHANGES Vowel lengthening 1. A short vowel becomes a long one if followed by some consonant cluster 2. Open syllable lengthening ( in ME the root vowel in open syllable, which are short, tend to become long in ME.

1. A short vowel becomes a long one if followed by some consonant cluster OE cld > ME chld > ModE child OE /u/ >ME /i:/ > ModE /ai/

Spelling doesnt help us. In both OE and ME there is no difference, in spelling, between short and long vowels. We can guess what happened with the use of other examples. OE eald / ld (north and middle) > ME ld (long and open) we can think that the short OE vowel became long before we could close and pronounce /o/ the qualitative change can be seen in spelling. OE stn > ME stn(e) > ModE stone : its been reproduced in spelling that around 1100 OE /a:/ appeared as <o> The only possible explanation, for the example of old is that this /o/ is the result of a qualitative change of a previous /a:/ OE ld (short vowel ) that must have become longer, whatever is reproduced in spelling or not. Stn > stn(e) (from manuscript around 1100), so the vowel lengthening from /a/ > /a:/ has to be take place in Late OE, before the stn. This is relevant for different reason: o o Dont be too rigid in the analysis of data and with the periodization. Chages can take place in any time in history of the language. Phonological change takes place in OE even thou we say that West Saxon was the standard of OE variety. Exactly because of this, its standard nature of it could hid the changes taking place. 38

OE cld > ME chld in LATE ME We need to check the presuppositions that we made: we think that <LD> cluster did influenced the preceding vowels as the preceding <a> in the other examples? Is this a conditioned or non conditioned change? Its a conditioned one. Can I generalize? Why does it happen? I can say this for all short vowels, we could prove it! But one must consider it. Why did it happen? Because the cluster is based on <-L> which as vowel-like character ( ModE normal/light/dark L ) <LD, -ND , MB, -NG> lengthening cluster generally with a nasal or a liquid. OE fndan > ME fndan > ModE find /ai/ because <-ND> suffix . Dealing with place, this cluster made the vowel longer, but different cluster had different strength but not necessary wide spread. We may find differences in places. This is the general result but not always. ModE wind /i/ (n.), wind /ai/(v.) Windan > wind /ai/>/i/ Wind (n) took the long vowel but then came again, its possible because change is the result of variation. Some people used one or the other form and one resisted. Someone said that this resist because we often use wind in compound ,so we have an heavier consonant cluster which makes the lengthening impossible (cfr.WINDMILL ) OE cld -> OE plural childru <-LDR> prevented the <i> to become long. It might become something like childre so the N plural ending was added, following the common ox/oxen. Languages are not interested in the fact that words can be part of lexical addiction but the sounds conditioned the evolution of sounds. OE lmb > ModE lamb OE lmb the short vowel may become long in LATE OE and in ME we do find lmb but this word had the same plural as child and the vowel must has been maintained short . (plural lmbru - cfr child) This is another instance of variation which did not succeed. OE and why did it become/a:/ and then /o/ <ond>? Because of stressed vowels, it was not stressed, unless we need it to specified something in particular. 2. Open syllable lengthening OE tlu > ME tle > ModE tale /ei/ OE tan (open) >ME ten (open) > ModE eat /i:/ OE hpa (open) > ME hpe (open) > ModE hope /ou/ Interesting because they shows the tendency to recreate symmetry in the phonetic system. 39

In the first /a/ > /a:/ in Early ME there was no /a:/ because in OE , /a:/ > /o/ so the gap was filled by the lengthening of a /a/ > /a:/. (stan > ston(e) and talu > tale) The long and open front and back vowels, were creating by the lengthening of the correspondent short vowels. When there is no consonant cluster the short and open sounds are maintained and we have also the long sounds. All these examples share a common word stress, and the fact of being an open syllable. Timing: this lengthening must have happened before /a:/ > /o/ between OE ME. We stay on spelling evidences. Early 14th century, but we are not sure because it first started in the north and took some generation to spread in the south. Its a conditioned phenomenon because we need a short vowel in an open syllable of a bysyllable. Modern pronunciation tells me that the root vowel got longer in ME, I can also understand from these examples that also that the AN ending for verbs disappeared in ME (we no longer have it) and this ending in ME had to be pronounced, in ME! otherwise we would not have an open syllable and bi-syllable at the same time, but itd be like nowadays . (cfr 1.02min) Morphological endings are made of sound, but also because OE cr/del > ME crde > ModE cradle /ei/ (culla) open syllable This is bi-syllable but , using it in the plural it became a tri-syllable. cradles there were not the condition anymore. But for us there is no problem, this is not relevant! The Modern English form is based on the singular but if I compare it with another example: OE crn cr/nes > ModE crane (ita. Gru, animali) /ei/ We have no bi-syllable, we have one only from the plural. The use is much more in the plural so, the evolution took the plural as a basis. The last example is one in which both singular and plural remained in the language:

OE stef //> ME staff /a/ > staff /a:/ (cfr evolution of that) but differently now we use a /a:/ . The sound is in the close syllable. So nothing of the discussion above. But using the plural: OE st/fas /v/voiced between vowels */a/ > OE // unless the presence of a back vowel (a,o,u) in the following syllable. This kind of difference, quite often were regularized in the following period. Because it was difficult. In the plural, the there was the condition for the open vowel lengthening, so: OE st/fas /v/ > ME stves > ModE staves /ei/ ME stves form which evolved regularly, and was the source of the new regular form in the singular (stave, piolo) [OE staf (bastone) = ModE staff (persone giuda)] 40

The phonological difference were not regularized by analogy but both the form were taken and used with a restructuring. Wednesday, 14th November 2012 LESSON N 17 We were dealing with the general evolution of the language between linguistic and extra-linguistic elements from the Renaissance onwards. Its a different evolution from those before: From the possible availability of data We have the birth of meta linguistic study of the language and so everyone could comment on his language. We have much more information about society and culture of these period thanks to literature.

We can enlarge our view on linguistic analysis . Renaissance movement had an important impact on the language for many reason but mainly because they tent to compare English to Italian and classical languages. If William the Conqueror was not interested in Language, now it became important and an important way to bring people together, creating a common conscience. The knowledge of languages has become more and more important because of the need of them in Mercantilisms from which the middle class grew very much. This brought a new attitude to language. Urbanization was crucial: people got together and it brought an important factor in merging different variety of the language and the most evident differences were reduced. The Colonization became to be important and so people began to travel connecting new places in the world and getting to know other people, culture and languages . These phenomena had an important impact on language and, in a way it came to modify speaker attitude to language, and with it the way towards standardization became faster and faster from the 16th century onwards. We can notice that there are many local differences in ME works, but still these has yet to be reduced. Develop became more conscious in the following centuries but it all started in the 16th century. Last time we picked up some morphological examples of ME> ModE morphology to see which was the general tendency. We leave aside phonology because it developed in independently: - because its much freer that nowadays (I have not to be literate to speak) Also today phonology is the most liable to change, generally speaking, in reality nowadays written language fixes phonology a lot.

41

In those days written language was only important for high classes: the phonological system was independent. New English is more regular and subjected to rules when we speak about morphology then phonology and spelling. TYPOLOGICAL CHJANGE Its a good way to explain morphological change. The general concept is a re-fashion of the language as far as typology is concerned. In most cases the evolution went towards regularity and simplification (formal correspondence and analogy) -> TYPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS (general ModE tendency is SVO, which is the evolution for the (S)OV structure, typical of OE/ME ) Word order became more rigid because endings became less frequent. Es. New grammatical form also created to fill gaps. Birth of the pronoun its not present in the language. The main idea is that in the 16th century great changes took place and was the passage from the Middle Age to Modern language: people realized it! Important role was also driven by religious reformation (translation of the Bible) and the abandon of Latin, seen as the language of the Church of Rome. The link to this kind of attitude towards language is also well expressed by the role played by the so-called antiquarian studies. They were the consequence of the religious reform, Henry VIII after the reform sold all the ownerships of the Church sending away priests. There were a lot of ancient libraries, scriptoria, convents . there were docs which were in Latin or unknown languages (OE). As in Europe Romantics were interested in ruins and ancient things, on the island a lot of important places and books were destroyed. This was a lost until those people understood this texts had to be studied and understood that by studing these texts they could discover the authonomy of England form Rome, before feudalism connected strongly with the center: these texts could prove the reform to be a good going back to the origin. HERE HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS STARTED. Some scholar were asked by the king to go and collect the books, this is the reason of the name antiquarian they went back because of political implication in the present. The first comparing dictionaries were compiled (OE Mod E ; Latin Anglosaxon) Historically speaking the most important events were the civil war (1642-1651) a long period of severe strikes and There were a lot of important factor also linguistically because the different parties has their own fashion to carry their ideas. 42

These ideas were driven in English and no more in Latin. The conflict brought many social changes, when many people die, social changes took place. After that for the first time since the Middle Ages the king was killed and the idea of the divinity of the king was into discussion and with this also some topics such as individual liberty, private ownerships. The main change was the importance of ones faith which on since Henry VIII because the confession meant the possibility of an higher education and entering the elite. Thursday, 15th November 2012 LESSON N 18 Phonological changes in ME Vowel lengthening in ME (Open syllables and bi-syllables) Es. OE bakan > ME (short vowel in an open syllable became long) [during ME at least from 1215-1249] We are sure because if short <a> vowels had become long earlier we could have moved to <o> We have ex. of short /o/ and /e/ The very fact of short vowels in open syllable became long is the reason why we ModE Bake (the presiding vowel is long)general convention in ME because ME came to have disyllable with long vowels and the final sound wasnt pronounced and so the final letter came to mean that the preceding vowel was long . Also extending OE Wridan (bisyllable)> ModE write The long vowel was still long and there were until ModE no change but the past wrt // > // now spelt with the final <e>! it was added on the base of the example before. Short /a/ ; /e/ ; /o/ Short /i/ ; /u/ became longer in disyllable but had also a qualitative change not simply a quantitative one: short /I /> long and closed /e/ short /u/ > long and closed /o/

In the triangle the vowel moved towards more open sounds. This was a combined change. Ex OE wicu > ME weeke (long and closed) > ModE week OE wudu > ME wudde > ModE wood This new evolution did not correspond to the evolution of the sounds. Thats why HOPE [OE hopa > ME hoppe] (lengthening O ) and EAT ( lengthening E) We say eat and week because open <EA> (open) <AA> (closed) -> ModE<E> but spelling tells that the source was different. This last evolution took place a century later than the one before. 43

Nowadays we pronounce at the same way both EAT AND WEEK but actually the two come from different sources: EAT < <EA> = open one WEEK < <EE> = closed one

THE SPELLING TELLS US THAT THEY WERE DIFFERENT. *change around 1450s + We have dealt with quantitative change (vowel lengthening) because of either a consonant cluster or because of the position. VOWEL SHORTENING: reasonable due to the fact that language tends to compensate the structure of the language. This tendency is much more irregular, not general related to local areas. We list some examples: Change is the result of variation: why does it takes place? Perhaps because some speakers tended to pronounce some sounds shorter, but this is not easy to recognize. SOME CLUSTER CAUSE A SHORTENING : <-FT >OE sft > sft the original vowel was long because in Germanic was sanft (the long v. was the result of the action of the N, in a second period the letter was dropped and became short in OE to become long again after) <-ST> (sometimes) OE fst >ME fst (y>I, generally but its long and so ). In Germanic the word was Fust with a long vowel there. We are sure the v. was long. Other similar example could be ModE dust, rust (U spelling and dilibiaized /a/. BUT if we compare ModE prize, priest, here we have long sound, so the <-ST> was not always successful!.

More regular and interesting examples can be made (because helped to find grammatical distinctions) for OE cepan > ModE keep , a weak verb with a past with the dental suffix and the root syllable is ending with a voiceless, so frequently the suffix of the past was <-te> instead of <-de> . OE (p) ceapte > ModE kept clearly shows the v. shortened. ModE Lead, led , led < ME (p) LEDDE (the first part of the root and the second the suffix so merged ) today LED Interesting is that they underline the impact of clusters on the evolution: the consonant cluster could be original or the result of grammatical inflection but phonologically it does not matter. By adding a past morpheme a new cluster is created and as a consequence the pronunciation is influenced. Also with a compound or a derivation this can be noticed: Ex. OE deop > (long diphthong became a long and closed mono-) ME deep > ModE deep The corresponding noun (lexical morphology): OE >>ModE depth (short sound)

44

In OE the term wife was the general term for a female ( ModE woman)then the term moved to a compound of WIFE+MAN : Wifman [compound] (female +human)>ME assimilation in wifmman (difficult to articulate)> ModE Woman (no doble consonant now) 1. ModE wife now used for married women 2. ModE woman is the result of this process: >Early ME (Ormulum) Wifman . the two consonants became one and the vowel became short. The vowel is evident in the plural where remained like it was, but only in the plural form. The ModE spelling pronunciation for WOMAN : OE uifmonn ( labial+i+labial, implying a rounding but the I wants another movement) so it was changed to /u/> woman the O is a good option from a orthographical point of view. Also FIVE and FIFTEEN, the second has a cluster which makes the vowel short. Formal opposition between: OE wse OE wise-dom (compound ) the second part comes from doom but we pronounce /wisedm/ because in compounds the stress is on the first part. We distinguish doom as a lexical item and a suffix. But the root I vowel also became short because of the cluster, as well. OE hs >ME hous> ModE house (on French orthographical model) House + wife = housewife Here we do not have consonant clusters! Why do we pronounce so if we do not pronounce /wisedm/. The starting point was the same: compound words with the full accent: the second lost it. The first did not lost it!.... it actually did because the normal evolution for that was: hussy is the generally evolution, perhaps housewife was a reconstruction also because has 2 accents!

Monday, 26th November 2012 LESSON N 21 DAN MICHEL, AYENBITE OF INWYT (1340) This text is a translation from French of a famous religious text called Somme des Vices et des Virtus compiled by Frre Laurence (the preceptor of the French king). This was completed in 1279, it was part of the work done by Franciscas and DOmnicians in creating a series of compendia.

45

Linguistically is particularly interesting because its one of the few texts which have a precise place and time (1340 in Canterbury , Kent) also we have to add that our copy is the authograph, so the language is homogeneous. EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUTH-EAST DIALECT in MID -ME (1 generation before Chaucer). Its a translation so its also an adaptation, we can find some kind of influences of French, not from the first part (introduction) but, in the second (which is an adaptation). THE TEXT : not easy because has some specific istances of the region. Phonology and spelling Line 2: et hatte -> this came from the regular OE (short) > ME (typical of Kent) OE /y(:)/ > /e/ in Kent Line 6 OE cyn> kin (nord/west UK) BUT HERE ken Line 7 : zen is the normal syn, synne (sin)-> HERE the voiceless S > voiced Z at the beginning of words and syllable. (cfr. zen, yzed, zaule) Labiodental f (voiceless )> v (voiced) in Kent (cfr. Vor, vader, vram, voul)

The voicing of f,s and the evolution of the is typical of all the southern part of the island. The evolution of /y/ is typical of the South-east. We always have to overlap different features in order to contextualize. Morphology Y-write > ModE wrote : y- is a reproduction of OE ye- (past participle) In Bere (/berie/), line 8, the final ending in N of the infinitive is missing in this area. Line 8 Kent. HAM > Them Line 9 HARE > THERE we are far from the newer Scandinavian TH- and still uses the old version.

Spelling -S spelt for /sh/ (cfr. englis) o < (cfr. oene > /ouene/ > ModE own ) which is the obvious continuation of the OE shared by South and Midlands.

In this period English tends to create new words with its features (bochouse) and not by loanwords. Y-went : spelt Y. it comes from OE YE- for past and past participle and disappeared in Early ME . it was also used in such a word as OE genm > ModE enough. This formation in this area is overused. Spelling variation possible in this period. WITH had the original meaning of opposition and came to be used instead of MIT with a semantic change. And the sense of opposition came to be given to AGAINST.

EVEN FUNCTION WORDS CAN MODIFY THEIR MEANING , in this case the modification took place because was confusing and so the use was dropped. RESTRUCTIORING OF THE LANGUAGE Lewede > lewd , common people VADER has an A but we expected and E. exceptions are possible. Bere < beorg ----- hr-beorg (protection of the army): the compound which was then the source of Italian ALBERGO. Voul (insane) > ModE Faul Ted Faul (lazy) 46

OE Brd (long <ea> diphthong) Ted Brot so confirmed also because the <ea> may correspond both with <AU> or //. This diphthong continuous as a monothonge in ModE and the usual common spelling might be BRDE (long and open), but we spell it with a SHORT AND OPEN sound (BREAD) but it is not corresponding correctly, it should be the correct one for meat . SO the long sound became shorter. Cfr. Breath Wednesday, 28th November 2012

LESSON N 22 EXTERNAL HISTORY IN EARLY MODERN ENGLISH The 18th century can be defined as the age of modification, which is testified by the complie of dictionaries and grammar books. The interest in codification and of stating the write and the wrog is in line with the rational approach of Enlightment present in that period. They regulated language as far as grammar and syntax, mainly but also lexis. Only spelling and pronunciation was left behind because on general reform was possible. To solve a problem may have created some others. Ex. NIGHT, LIGHT : the sound spelling relation has no correspondence in pronunciation. NITE, LITE: possible variation in some experience in English They are regular because the structure is regular. There is a correct sound-spelling relationship. Its a matter of numbers (thousands), why couldnt we move towards them? If we accept this change - > right vs. write [homophones] bow (as in rainbow) vs. bow (bow of a ship) [homographs] bear vs. bear [homonyms, = spelling, = pronunciation] in theory homonyms are considered ambiguous, if some words are evidently different it would be better. We may not like some spelling-sound relation but we would create confusion in the language. As we said , its easier to regularize morphology and syntax starting from written words by famous authors. Look at the spelling words:

MUSIC < -IK regularized by Johnson .

CENTRE vs. CENTER promoted in the early 19th century by US COLOUR vs. COLOR

The idea is of something more regular but it has no huge impact on English

47

Only little bit as been done. Some irrelevant and superficial changes because they would have destroyed the sound spelling relationship. First of all, the problem of variation had to be solved in Early Modern English. We analyze the changes and we focus on the general standard variation. Those put aside, the variants, exists as a local variation and did not became part of the standard langage In the 18th century there was a large variation and also LITERATE people phonological variation was relevant Samuel Johnson was born in the West Midlands and then came to live in London. His pronunciation was the result of different tendencies. Only towards the end of the century social stigma to regional variation came to be added to the language. A written model came to be provided, one of the most important element. Some dictionaries of pronunciation was compiled on London model, towads the end of the century, its development largely depending on the large illiterate component of British society. It was difficult to guide people towards a preferred variety! A final point is the linguistic consequence of the development of the British Empire worldwide. The Early ME period is characterized by the moving of English outside of the island. The development of the British Empire during Modern English period brings with it the spread of the language. What are the consequences of this? English moved everywhere and took in many words from different languages (more then 300 different languages) FOREIGN WORDS, ONCE ADAPTED ARE MADE SEPARATLY. Ex. Shampoo came from India but no one knows it An indirect consequence, connected with the 18th century is that the tendency to facilitate one part of the language was promoted by the building of the Empire, been abroad the main link to the mother land > need of a very clear standard. > need of GRAMMAR BOOKS The language kept people together beyond the limits. VARIATION IN LEXIS Words are made of sounds, so they are modified as been made of sounds: they formal and semantic changes. SEMANTIC CHANGE : its the most relevant one. We have met example of semantic changes in words. They change meaning because extra linguistic factors may change and some of them are surprising: NICE was meaning ignorant. Also words are connected to the whole linguistic system and we are still connected to the post-structuralist theories (Bloomfield, language is a system + a list of words) which are wrong.

48

The meaning has to be always negotiated. Its something unstable because semantic gaps as to be monitored and filled step by step. Semantic changes can be classified with different trends (positive or negative implications). Words can also specialize or generalize. Variation in lexis can be studied started from the form and we generally distinguish:

Internal method of word formation : a new word can be made using the own resources (compound, derivation, suffix or prefix) most typical External method of word formation : using loanwords, which are easier to be noticed, and they are more conspicuous when recent but in any language are much less common as the internal ones. Mixed method of word formation: calques or loan translations (Italian CHEWING-GUM / GOMMA DA MASTICARE, its modeled on the English vesion, native material but foreign model.)

OE SITUATION: Variation in ME is the result of the OE evolution and the OE one is the evolution of something else. In OE English was a real Germanic language but we have to consider that from there English was a fragmented language and not alone in the socio-linguistic background . English was fragmented because Anglo-Saxon and Jutes did spoke very similar varieties but not identical. They came to the island from different parts of the continent and they did not mixed themselves. Dialectal variation was always there from the beginning and also, there were Celtic substratum there which OE had from the very beginning. Celts were not very strong, still they had to face them. ENGLISH WAS A MIXED LANGUGE FROM THE VERY BEGINNNING.

Thursday, 29th November 2012 LESSON N 23 QUALITATIVE EVOLUTION IN VOWELS ME Evolution of the OE /y (:)/

We already know that the pendency towards /i/ , the labialization. Thats the most common, so winning evolution. 1) development OE > ME staying as they were and only later delabialized. in the North and Middle-east area 2) development towards /e(:)/ in the south east area

49

This evolution is particularly relevant because it has with it dialectal evolution and time elements (some from the beginning some later in the period). In the west Midlands and south west we have an other evolution. This explain why the general evolution will be towards /i/ because its the biggest area in the evolution. WHAT HAPPENED? i y u

The /y/ is the evolution of the I umlaut, the fronting of the u fronting towards /i/ (a partial fronting) From Pre-History to History the fronting is completed. It was uneasily set inside the system and was eliminated. HOW can we explain /y/ > /e/? The resulted sound is a bit fronted and more open. (double movment a) fronting b) opening in the Kentish area) Ex. OE syn > ModE sin (but ME synne , senn, zenn [voicing of the initial consonant , the sibilant] GENERAL SPELLING FOR THE: 1. /y/> /i/: <e> 2. /y/ > /e/: <e> 3. /y/ > /y/ (kept in Early ME here : <u, uy, ui> If the long sound is meant. Normal change and restructuring in the spelling. What was not common is the differentiation between long and short vowels, because they did not marked the differences why now? Because of the French influence. In the western part spelling change and not the sound and only later the other spelling came to be adopted. Once the sound has moved to /e/ the origin was not interesting anymore and the <y> came to be used as /i/ . FREE VARIATION, the spelling was favored because it was totally different from the option <j>. Once the /y/> /e/ the <y> became available and was also used in ME in the area as <i> <Sin> was possible also as <Syn> to reproduce a variant of the /e/ THE USE OF <y> IS NOT RELATED TO OE PAST. All the effects tends to produce some exceptions. The usual tendency for the sound is <e> /e/ but its the explanation OE byldan > ModE build : <ld> lenghteed the cluster + <ui> western spelling for the /y/ in Early ME OE myrrian > ModE merry : one of the few words coming from Kent in Modern English with the /y/ > <e> and also OE byrian > ModE berry evolution of the south-East and the spelling from the west. Another example could be also OE lyft > ModE left.

50

The /y/ moved a bit towards the closed /e/ but now we say merry, berry but LEFT, so here the evolution is different: MERRY, BERRY (long /e/ because of the following /a/vowel ) LEFT is the regular and general evolution of these words The general trend is the vowel change to change much more then consonants but the most important change involving vowels is the GVS: THE GREAT VOWEL SHIFT Its affecting LONG VOWELS IN LATE ME TIMING : From ME to Early ModE . Its impossible to find the exact point (someone 14th century, someone later) NO DIALECTAL VARIATION, all the dialects of late medieval English were taken into consideration ONLY LONG VOWELS It is an UNCONDITION phenomenon , it affects all long vowels in all ME words. Its called great because involved all sounds all together. Its a general movement of the system. This brings us to the most important question: WHY? Technically speaking two hypothesis: a) another sound pushed this sound to another position [PUSH CHAIN HYPOTESIS ] b) the second sound moved to a [c] position, a gap is created and the first sound is attracted to fill the gap. [DRAG CHAIN HYPOTESIS] its in both cases a chain and the result is the same in both cases (a or b) We could decide if we could find which one moved first but whatever the cause the movement is towards a closer position -> REGULARITY OF THE PHENOMENON Why is the timing and the place is so difficult to understand? Being a late phenomenon, spelling were more or less fixed . Ex OE tma > ME did not change > ModE time /ai/ The spelling is the same and the pronunciation only after the GVS OE bndan > Late OE <nd> lengthen the vowel bndan > ME no change, perhaps without the n ending > Early ME bind /ai/ When the phenomenon takes place the previous states of the sound does not matter. The same for every // of the period. 51

Here spelling do not help because the spelling at the time was already fixed ( Caxton introduction of the press in England >fixed spellings) The GVS began before Caxton (1480s) , we can rely on other sources such as manuscrits where time is spelt differently . The not standard spelling idea was not present in those days so, different writers may write the words in different ways. We can relya on variation in synchrony and in the same place to try to understand something (we can admit some variation of the same spelt word). SPELLING CONSISTENCY IS A MODERN CONCEPT. If its all possible the person who spelt differently , he reacts to the different pronunciation of the same words, trying to reflect the actual pronunciation // > /ai/ now its a diphthong, the stress is on the first element so the stressed vowel has become an unstressed and short vowel in modern pronunciation. The passage must imply a middle stage. TO GET TO /ai/ FROM / / HAS TO INTRODUCE A SOUND , unstressed and inconsistent next to a long vowel so from this sound must have been stress and must become a FULL VOWEL . This is what shows that the original full vowel was pronounced as two different element. This is an example of ERRATIC SPELLING (depending on individual preference) The GVS was too late to have an impact on spelling, it came too late.

Wednesday, 5th December 2012 LESSON N 24 VARIATION IN LEXIS DURING ME PERIOD Lexical variation in ME is the most evident fact of multilingualism in ME history as the result of many different socio political and linguistic events : different people living on the island in this period, the Celtic language A) as a substratum of medieval England , replaced by the Andlo-Saxons. B) the Celtic language, being spread throuout this area of Medieval England Either something from below, from common people or something aside. THIS MIXES THE DIALECTAL VARIETY ; this mixes also VARIATION IN SPACE AND IN TIME. This can also be considered also multilingualism also connected with Scandinavian languages spoken in the north and influencing the evolution of the language. Here we can mention the French (Anglo Noman French) and then the later influence of the same French during ME . Latin also has influenced the English language since the very beginning, present also nowadays 52

The largest part of the population spoke English before and after and the top classes spoke French and in a second period the Middle class will become bi-linguals being in contact with both. Clergy spoke Latin professionally and belonged to this bi-lingual group. THE NATURE OF ENGLISH AS GERMANIC LANGUGE IS BASIC FOR LEXIS. This nature was only partly modified in ME because the contact was only limited and only later something changed. ME England has a consequences a lo t of internal methods of change: it had to use its own resources (no loanwords) The Germanic nature has a base in the fact that the basic vocabulary was again Germanic in origin. From the very beginning (the decades of the movement of Anglo-Saxons towards the Celts lands) their language had been influenced by the Celtic substratum and also by some sort of Latin influence. Anglo. ham > ModE home (Buckingham ) Anglo tun > ModE town Anglo. burk > ModE bury ( Canterbury) Anglo. ing (s) > cyning (decedents) (Nottingham, the village where the decendent of Nott lived.) At the same time the Celtic and Latin influence was already present (steet < Via Strata , Chester < Castra) The normal evolution of long vowel sounds inside compounds get shorter when unstressed position (Stratford [street + fort]); -ER as a nomen agentis (Hunter) GO BACK TO THE ROOTS TO UNDELINE SOME EVIDENCE: Celtic contribution to OE 1. Loanwords coming from Celtic to OE when English was still part of the English koin If a loanword is to be found in other Germanic languages we can reasonably say that its an early one, taken in the continent. Ex. Celt/OE riche Germanic rich > influence form the Continent Celt dn> ModE dawn but also the preposition down but also -don (place names)> // became shorter in compound and in unstressed position. (PLACE IN HIGHS CFR. Bergamo and Brigitte [high as noble]) PLACE NAMES ARE QUITE COMMON LATIN INFLUENCE ON THE LANGUAGE Some Latin words had been in English on the continent before the advent of the Romans in England.

53

We have to say that Anglo-Saxons and Romans never met on the island, so we may suggest that the Celts took some Latin words in their language giving them to the Anglo-Saxons. We should also distinguish the term given by the Christianization of England: this differences in timing gives differences in meaning and the semantic areas of this loanwords. LATIN castra > OE Caster > ModE Chester (+/- 70 placenames) Winchester > Lancaster (result of the Northern influence, (ts/k)velar and palatal sound: the replace of the palatal for the velar one.) Lat wich (vicus) > Gatwich (the village where goats where (regularly > >) OE mynt > ME mint > ModE LAT moneta OE mynt > result of a fronting of an /u/ and so we can only think that the real pronunciation of Moneta was not actually so pronounced so the classical Latin /o/ had to be pronounced closer /u/. We also need an <I> in the following syllable to have the i-umlaut. I finally have the long and stressed vowel but we have to hypothesis a stressed vowel to be changed. So the pronunciation should have been /mnta/ These words passed on through spoken language and not written one. We have now money with the same origin but passing through French so LATIN > FRENCH > ENGLISH What is most important for us is that these first loanwords are no more recognized as such by nowadays speakers. Instead the later contribution from Latin remained more clearly recognizable. The Christianization kept a stronger impact in compromising the Germanic nature of the language; its also important to say that this second influence came by using the written language. Very many words here had a loanword taken in the language twice (prestiti di ritorno) Lat tabula > Early OE tab BUT ModE table < Late OE table / tabele / tablu This implies a more precise connection to the written forms. DIFFERENCE BEETWEEN CALQUES AND LOANWORDS (i-umlaut)

CALQUES (or loan translations): only the meaning is imported and the form is already in the language ModE Gospel : is a calques from Greek EVANGELIUM (eu +angelion) LOANWORDS: form and content are imported

54

When we take a calques this implies a more conscious attitude of the other language, we need to recognize the structure of the word in the source language. Troung (suffering)> Passio Christi (that particular suffering) SEMANTIC CALQUE, moving to a particular meaning Gospel > Evangelium STRUCTURAL CALQUE , we reproduce the structure of the source language. Using calques made the English more aware of the unknown concepts. They are important for the language because they involved written language, a reduced adaptation and also because religion and culture were kept on to the dominated by Latin influences. THE SCANDINAVIAN INFLUENCE ON THE LANGUAGE Their contribution was different: 1. it involved large groups of people > at the end of the war the two populations had to live together and were both speaking a Germanic languages. 2. They were not yet Christianized as the Scots and so written language was not present 3. The influence became evident only during ME but the impact was during Anglo-Saxon England because at the time written language was not involved yet. SEMATIC LOANWORDS (2 languages have the same terms, formally different because of the phonological evolution but still recognizable.) OE Dream /ON Dram (Germ* au diphthong was kept in the north and moved to <ea> in OE) apart of the form the meaning in OE meant joy, being happy, where ON already the original Ted Traum. In ME Drem the formal continuation of OE word but took the ON meaning . The Germanic sounds had been kept in Germ >ON instead Germ > OE had the process of palatalization The ON used velar variation, and the OE the palatal version. But now the tendency is to use the velar but we now have skirt / shirt or church / Kirk EASY INTECHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO SPEECH COMMUNITIES. This brought also neologisms! (sky, husband, ) OE heofon became specialized to mean the heaven (religious) and sky more natural. Important is the influence on pronouns, an evidence of the strong connection, the ON loanwords dislodged some other words from the language . OE eagyrl (eye hole) > ModE window (the eye for the wind)

55

Thursday, 6th December 2013

LESSON 26 CONCLUSION OF THE GVS As already said its a long lasting process and its important in the discussion about variation and change: this process takes almost 3 century in total, a very long period! We have to divide steps of this phenomenon in which variation and change is taken into consideration Its a regular and more systematic change taken into consideration since the beginning ( all Late ME long wolves). Generally we have no change in spelling, for this reason we have pronunciation. problems in modern spelling-

Its contemporary to the printing press, a process to fix spelling: we have some tendency but nothing 100%. The basic idea of it is a MOVEMENT: we have 2 different hypothesis : a) PUSH-CHAIN H. and b) DRAGCHAIN H. (cfr.) According to both ideas the first sounds to move were the closest ones /i/ (front vowel); /u/ (back vowel). The vowels tends to move towards a closer position /i/; /u/ > being the closest had the only possibility to become diphthongs (dislodged outside the system of true vowels) The monthongue moved towards a central diphthongs to create /ai/ with the typical stress on the first element (/i/). The original /i/ and /u/ so became semi-vowels. This way shows the parallel movement in the system. Its a mirror process. The other way thinks that was started by mid-vowels pushing the closer ones to move out of the system. What is important is the interconnection for the whole system. // ME <y> <i> ME did not distinguished between long and short graphemes. // ME <ou> <ow> also nowadays the first inside a word and the second at the end. // (OE // >/o/) but // ME used with discontinuous grapheme. This was not the original OE // , its a new sound of ME. ME make in fact was an example of vowel lengthening in ME. /e close and open/ in ME the close was <ee> and the open <ea> around 1400 the different possible

spellings were standardized . We have other spelling coming from French which adopted a French spelling.
56

// <o> was possible but with a closed one <oo> and in the case of the open sound was <> We can find some regular correspondences but never fully regular. We generally refer to 3 different stages depending on what you think of the beginning of the evolutions of this sounds: some think that all started in late 14th, others to the following one. What we are surer about is what is described as RP (around 1900) as the end of the process. 1500 1900

---I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I---------Almost 10 generation passed in these centuries. What is important is a) the interrelation of the evolution of different sound together and b) the logical evolution of the sounds (only along certain line). In general terms we notice that some sounds must move faster because they had to pass more steps: /e/OE green had only one step, and OE make > ModE make had more stages to pass through. The // took longer and had a different evolution. -> position PRO the DRAG CHIN HYPOTESIS. During 18th century the stigmatization of the language started. The idea of a better or a worse language began. Speaker became more conscious on a sociolinguistic point of view. If some people said /mt/ and some other /mit/ we can easily say that the first were the noble because they usually tended to be more conservative. Early ModE was then the period of codification (18thc.) but grammar was codified much more then pronunciation. // (long and open) and /o/ (long and open) > both went towards a closing process but then /o/ (long and close)/bot/ > boat /bot/ (and not /but/) became diphthong /e/ (long and close) /met/> /mit/ it reached the extreme position.

// > towards a closer position but had a long travel to do, so moved very fast. Different pronunciation in different stages and a new one from the early 19th century. // in the middle between front and back sounds > // very open > /e/ > not the /i/(not merge) but /ai/ The aim is a regular system and a full one but at the same time sounds must distinguish meanings. Late ME long and open sounds tended to be spelt <ea>long and close ones tended to be spelt <ee> but also other option were possible. // came to be spelt <ea> or <ee> in modern English but we could also go back in time: NOT ALWAYS! We have met example in which had this kind of spelling but without any of this roots. The spelling tells that the words had to meet a spelling and a spelling in time. 57

For irregular cases we can rely on regular tendencies to check what happened: the problems are only for living people but this can help us understanding. OE GREAT > ME GRET (long and open /e/) > ModE GREAT What happened? To be pronounced this way, the sounds reflect the evolution of the // cfr. make OE macian > ME maken > ModE make with a very complex evolution. ME /a/ evolution // (long and open)got closer and became in most cases <e> but in some others <a> There must have been a moment in which gret /grt/ and mac- /mek/ and then took the worong evolution of the /a/ instead of the normal /e/ the spelling marks the different origin. Imperfect correspondence between <oo> and the <u> < late ME long and close sound. OE /o/ long and close > ME = > Late ME /u/ but we have some conflict if we rely on sound spelling relationship. GOOD // <oo> originally a Long and close sound FOOT // <oo> originally a Long and close sound LOOK // <oo> originally a Long and close sound But this spelling is also associated to <blood> // in both cases the sound was the same but at the end are different, so a different change is involved in this evolution. ME // (out of the GVS), evolution of short vowel sounds which in Early Modern English (1650s)split into different sounds: either no change or delibillized to /a/. How to go back?? Have a look to spellings which are fixed by now. Ex. to CUT /cat/ < CUT /cut/ but we say PUT // ME sound in PUT was not changed and in CUT was delibileized The general trend is the delibilized unless its blocked BLOCKING: is the phenomenon by which some change dont take place in some particular conditions.

1500

1650

1900

---I------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------------------------------------------I---------Delibilization of a // ME /food/ > ModE /fd/ but we say <look> : starting from a // and we have nowadays . In between we have 2 progress /o/> /u/ and // >/ / First /o/ > /u/ and then it became short. When? Check the plan of the general evolution: but in order to get there we must imply the get shorter but later, after the delibilized it can become short, later then 1650. ModE BLOOD moved to /a/ because the vowel was already long (??) 58

Monday, 10th December 2012 LESSON 27 THE PASTON LETTERS: LETTER TO A LOVER (1477) There is another possible date which started from the immaculate conception, the message of the Angel to Mary, 9 months before then normal. This is a simple letter, part of a very important collection (the Paston Letters) of more then 400 letters written in 3 generation by a family of the East Midlands. When the letter were sent they were also copied to be kept. It was usual to collect all the letters sent. Scholars found this collection which gives the evolution of English in 3 generation and documwnted the increasing use of the written language by the middle class (they were merchants). These letters are evidence of familiar correspondence, the style is not always formal and this letter is by a woman, the way in which women started becoming literate. The girl writes the guy (John Paston) about the marriage, about money and the dowry (dote), and marriage arrangement. If we look at the text, we can see some words spelt differently. Rounding sentences, without punctuation for a clear syntactic structure. In 1477 Caxton started his printing house: this is the language used by Caxton. There is an erratic use of capital letters. <ff> typical way to represent a capital <F> <er> to spell there , abbreviation with a surviving thorn only in these cases. <e>; <t> (that) We have inconsistency in spelling: (line 11, 13) <love> but also <loffe> as <if> and <yf>

In the early 16th century English was considered a very problematic language and it was deeply felt by scholars, also after the re-vamp of Latin and Greek during the Renaissance . The problem can be summarized: MISSPELT LANGUGE (spelling came to be important on a sociolinguistic point of view) UNRULED LANGUAGE (irregularity of grammar if compared to classics) RUDE LANGUAGE (lacking in words, also when used for science and technical issues as theology.) BARBAROUS LANGUGE (lack of rhetoric, inadequate for certain purposes)

If we consider it from new we can see that English was used by great writer so it could be used perfectly but this was not felt in those times. 59

Dealing with lexis (barbarous language) there were disputes about how to do: there were different solutions: (problem of LEXIS = problem of SPELLING too) 1. NEOLOGIZERS: in favor of loanwords from Latin especially and, with this solving the problem by importing from other languages (why todays English has a lot of Latin words in technical issues.) 2. PURISTS : in favor of totally English words, giving an already existing word another meaning (semantic widening) by making an existing word polysemous or with compounding. 3. ARCHAICHERS: revamping died words, already existing in dialects and local varieties. In those days it was quite evident that the language was changing and a standard language had to be recognized. NEOLOGIZER WON THIS CHALLENGE, but also the archaizer position had their fans with poets like Spencer who used old words in his works.

LETTER TO HOBY (40.00) Sir. John Cheeke was a classical scholar and was involved in this discussion and was one of the main member of PURISTS in the text of the letter to Hoby (English translation of Castigliones Cortegiano ). Cheeke had written a letter to Hoby and he published it in the translated book. Sir. John Cheeke used a strange spelling in the letter, it was written well after the beginning of GVS, a lot of ERRATIC SPELLINGS. It proves that phonology was moving . <wriit> <ii> - > // moving to a diphthong /ai/ But also some strange words recognizable but strange as <welspeakinges> or <bestnes> are new derived word by a purist who tries to avoid the use of loanwords. A position like his is very easy to be opposed (opinion and pure or bankrupt (Italian) are actually no English words, they had been naturalized). His idea is that this had to be a TENDENCY to be followed. He tried to put the theory into practice by translating the Gospel by Matthew: (55.00) The text was published only after as a scholarly essay; this reproduces the autograph version. We have no thorn but we have <y> which had become undistinguished from the thorn letter. <Y (e over)> : the <Y (t over) > : that <Y > : the or thWORDS INVOLVED IN THE GVS Tijm > TIME 60

Some Germanic words are used but: BIWORDES : authors creation for the word parable APRISING -> RESURECTION WASCHING -> BAPTISM This example were not taken in the language because, even if reasonable they were part of a difficult sector of the language and its tradition and the specialized Christian religious terms.

THE PLAN OF A DICTIONARY (1747) Samuel Johnsons dictionary (1755)is considered to be the main example of codification and its standardization of the English language in the 18th century. THE MODEL! In the previous year Johnson agreed of working on the dictionary; he first wrote a short scheme of it . This is a second stage in his work and was thought to be published. Its addressed to the Secretary of State of the King, a politician: publishing it, it was also a political act. Deciding a standard language has to be seen also as a political act. We have a copy with correction and addition by Chesterfield himself. It can be considered a joint-work. They wanted to reform the language and fix it, changing for the better, preventing it from further changing because in those days changing meant changing for the worse. Chesterfield wrote also a letter to the son, explaining him how to spell words properly. A son of a high position man should not be a bad speller. Orthography is absolutely necessary for a noble man, a man of quality. > SOCIAL STIGMA IS PRESENT! Johnson was called to solve the problem: he provided the model but did not systematized the whole language. By consulting a dictionary everyone could check the correct version: its not a resolution of English spelling problem (he asks why they wrote PHANTASY but FANTASTIC) Fluctuation came to be used by accident, by chance: different option, one was chosen (not always the best) DISCUSSION between CUSTOM (what they used to do) and REASON (choosing the reflection of etymology) LETS COPY THE BEST WRITERS but they often disagree.

61

Wednesday, 12th December 2012 LESSON 28 SCANDINAVIAN CONTRIBUTION (the thorn letter remains present in the north where Scandinavian was important) FRENCH CONTRIBUTION Its very different! Both Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon were Germanic languages but French had not! After Christianization England started to be involved in the Continental culture. We have two different varieties of the language : NORMAN FRENCH (the language spoken by William the Conqueror)and CENTRAL FRENCH (language spoken in Paris) The original influence came actually before the conquest, the Norman decided to invade England because they had long been connected. In the century following 1066, and up to the end of the Hundred Years War most of France belonged to the English throne (no actual contrast between the two) the English king owned a large part of France. More than 10.000 loanwords were taken in the ME period and is already used in Modern English The main problem with this early loanwords are dealing with WORD STRESS: usual phonological adaptation of loanwords in a language. In the first stages of French influence (a few decade before the conquest) and the second had many more examples After 1250 English became to use also by the upper class. The linguistic evolution: when French was spoken on the island the two languages were kept aside to distinguish the classes; when English was spoken widely it was natural the adoption of some loanwords to express something in particular: if you forget a language there are the condition for taking loanwords. A further element to complicate the situation was the influence not from Norman French but from PARISIAN FRENCH which became more and more important. The new model of a fashionable literary language was driven by literature and culture in what was CENTRAL FRENCH. A large part of the later loanwords came from CENTRAL FRENCH which was simply another variety that had become the standard one. That is why English took new loanwords or re-adapted the older loanwords with PARISIAN FRNCH phonology Ex. AN cancelere /ka/> chancelere /tS/ because it was typical of central French where as AN used the other. > ModE chancellor cfr Carpenter (AN phonetics) because less important (??)

62

Later ModFr moved from /tS/ > /S/( sch) but in English didnt because was too late. The general idea of lexical variation in time is that in ME there was a great tendency to reduce its Germanic being, and in a way opening to romance languages during the Renaissance period. It was also made easier by loanwords from French and Latin.

Thursday, 13th December 2012 LESSON 29 Abbiamo visto il discorso del GVS e poi concludendo abbiamo visto esempi di quelle parole che si sottraggono prima o poi al GVS e verificano corrispondenza irregolare rispetto alla corrispondenza , seppure stramba proposta del GVS. Il GVS tendenzialmente non intacca lo spelling, crea il conclusivo scollamento tra suono e parola ma comunque coerente. Avevamo visto le irregolari pronunce come <blood> e quella regolare <food> tutte quelle che si

rifanno a quello che era // chiusa > GVS // > qui si pu rivelare anche un accorciamento in /a/ La delabializzazione delle vocali brevi del Late ME
// (child): niente fenomeno, consapevolezza del fatto che i grandi cambiamenti nellinglese moderno coinvolgono normalmente le vocali lunghe. // : < // breve dell OE che prima di apre ad /a/ e poi torna indietro, ripalatalizzandosi ad // nel Modern English . // : verso la fine dellEarly ModE (1650) si ha questa divaricazione; la tendenza alla delabializzazione, il fenomeno standard tranne quando essa impedita: non opzione 50/50 ma sistematicamente la u breve si delabiizza a meno che non sia bloccata dalla presenza di una suono labiale precedente. <pull>, <bull>, <cut> , <put> La tendenza questa , quando non si verifica si prende atto del contesto fonologico dove la cose non si sono verificate. < > vocale atono come esito di tutte le vocali in posizione atona. (non necessariamente dopo ma anche precedente, pretonica come in about or enough *cera una antica <i>*) Tornando per alla pronuncia di blood bisogna incrociare levoluzione con // chiusa e quella del / /. <Blood> ME //> / /> /a / delabilalizzata <Good, Food > ME / / > Early Modern > // troppo tardi per la delibializzazione La questione temporale importante, i prestiti che sono arrivati tardi non possono pi usufruirne.

63

INFLUSSO DELLA <R> IN EARLY MODERN ENGLISH Linflusso della <R> caso unico e particolare che nel corso del ME agisce sulla <E> vocale tonica <+R> -> <AR> (es. Person >/ Parson Derk > Dark) NEL ME ! La <R> qui influisce sempre ed in tutte le vocali toniche precedenti , in sillaba chiusa (la R deve essere parte della stessa sillaba tonica in questione. ) Caduta della R con allungamento di compenso (??) solo nellUK, negli USA non una cosa sistematica. In America si segue il General American e poi ci sono diverse aree regionali: car /kr/ In USA ci pu essere sia lopzione che il mantenimento della /r/. L<h> aspirata presente ora ma nel ME sono parole di origine latina che erano gi entrate nella lingua da tempo con il tramite francese, avevano gi avuto cambiamenti fonologici importanti. (ristruttura etimologica)

64