Volume I: Context, contact and development

Editor: Laura Wright (Cambridge)

Introduction: English, Englishes and the English Language (Raymond Hickey)

I The context of English 1. The Indo-European framework (Donald Ringe) 2. English in its Germanic surrounding (Wayne Harbert) 3. Key events in the history of English (Julia Cuesta) 4. The geography of English in England (Merja Steenroos) 5. Philology and the history of English (Haruko Momma)

II Contact and external influences

6. Early contact with Celtic (Raymond Hickey) 7. Classical languages in the history of English (Olga Timofeeva) 8. The Scandinavian period (Richard Dance and Sarah Pons-Sanz) 9. French and English in the later Middle Ages (Geert de Wilde) 10. Code-switching and language mixing (Herbert Schendl) 11. Early standardisation (Louise Sylvester) 12. Neoclassical borrowing and influence on English (Letitia Vezzosi) 13. Typological reorientation in the history of English (Marion Elenbaas)

III The long view by levels of language These chapters are intended to cover the entire period of the history of English and thus to satisfy the need for chronological overviews. To achieve this, the authors are to be given more space with a target length for the chapters of between 40 and 50 pages. Each chapter is to have sections on Old, Middle, Early Modern and Late Modern English (up to present-day English) to allow for direct comparison between chapters. 14. Historical phonology (Donka Minkova) 15. Historical morphology (Elżbieta Adamczyk) 16. Historical syntax (Bettelou Los) 17. Historical semantics (Kathryn Allan) 18. Historical pragmatics (Andreas Jucker) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 2 of 45

19. Historical sociolinguistics (Terttu Nevalainen and Tanja Säily) 20. Hisotrical onomastics (Richard Coates) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 3 of 45

1

The Indo-European framework

Donald Ringe University of Pennsylvania

I begin with the Uniformitarian Principle, the only scientific way of fleshing out the records of the past and extrapolating into prehistory. Since a consequence of the UP is that languages of the past must have been spoken by actual populations, it follows that Proto-Indo-European (PIE, the earliest recoverable ancestor of English) was really spoken somewhere by some community. I discuss the recent archaeological, DNA, and computational evidence, as well as the indeterminacy resulting from absence of linguistic records at so early a date. (Citations: Paul, Nichols, Anthony, Reich and coauthors, Garrett and coauthors.) From the historical record of languages we learn that sound change is overwhelmingly regular: not a tendency, but a large-scale statistical fact. It is the basis of the Comparative Method (CM), the applied mathematics by which we reconstruct ancestor languages by comparison of their descendants. I briefly discuss the CM and its reliability and limitations. The marginal usefulness of typology will also be addressed. (Citations: Hoenigswald, Labov, Meid, Kümmel.) I give a very brief sketch of PIE grammar, including the sound system (very different from that of any modern European language), the (extensive) system of inflectional categories, headfinal syntax (with COMP on the left), and fused inflectional markers. I emphasize the pervasiveness of accent and ablaut alternations. (Citations: Clackson, Fortson, Ringe, others.) Since an aim of this chapter is to indicate what inherited material survived in Proto-Germanic (PGmc.) and in English, I next sketch the diversification of the IE family. (Citations: Warnow, Cowgill, Jasanoff, Winter, Schindler.) A major section of this chapter will sketch the complete restructuring of the PIE sound system and verb inflection in the development of PGmc., noting that further developments between PGmc. and Old English (OE) were modest in scope. Strong verb ablaut, preteritepresent verbs, and the archaic system of pronoun inflection will be cited as the most robust survivals of PIE grammar in OE; the Verner’s Law alternation, the weak past suffix, and the double inflection of adjectives will be cited as the most obvious Germanic innovations. (Citations: Ringe, Fulk, both with extensive references; Katz, Rasmussen, Hill, McFadden, Bernhardsson, Euler.) There will be a brief sketch of the PIE lexicon (with discussion of the limitations on what we can recover) and examples of words that survive in Modern English (ModE; for instance it turns out that arse is one of the PIE words that survives in ModE!). Possible loanwords from other languages in PIE will be mentioned. The dramatic innovations that occurred in the development of PGmc. will be discussed, as well as the extent to which they can be attributed to borrowing from other languages (e.g. *langaz ‘long’ probably borrowed from pre-Proto-Italic; *saiwiz ‘lake’ [ModE sea] plausibly derived from a PGmc. verb; NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 4 of 45

*drinkaną ‘drink’ without cognates, but with PIE-type root; *saiwalō ‘soul’ very un-IE-looking, and of a semantic type often borrowed in archaic IE languages). (Citations: Nakhleh and others.)

References

Ringe, Donald 1996. On the Chronology of Sound Changes in Tocharian. Volume 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Tocharian. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Ringe, Donald 2017 [2006] A History of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ringe, Donald and Ann Taylor 2914. A Linguistic History of English, vol. 2: The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 5 of 45

2

English in its Germanic Surrounding

Wayne Harbert Cornell University

English is a member of the Germanic subgroup of Indo-European, sharing with others of that group a robust set of innovations, including phonological developments such as the Germanic Consonant Shift and fixing of initial stress, characteristic developments in the inflectional system of verbs and adjectives, a vocabulary which includes a large number of words of apparently non-IE origin, and, in its syntax, V-2 word order in various contexts. In recent times, English has become something of an outlier in the Germanic family, in part perhaps as a result of contact with other languages in the British Isles, but, in its earliest attested forms, Old English looks in many respects like a garden-variety Germanic language, with some particular hallmarks of significance to its later development. English shares some features with smaller subsets of languages within the Germanic family,. Several innovations unite it with the “Northwest Germanic” languages, to the exclusion of Gothic. A smaller number of features ally it with German, Old Saxon, Dutch, and Frisian—the “West Germanic” languages—to the exclusion of the North Germanic languages. Yet another substantial set of features is shared between English and other “North Sea Coast Germanic” languages, viz., Old Saxon and Old Frisian, to the exclusion of Franconian and Upper German. Finally, English shares a small number of features exclusively with Frisian. These facts have standardly been interpreted as reflecting successive splits in the Germanic family tree; English is, in turn, a member of Northwest Germanic, West Germanic, North Sea Germanic, and Anglo-Frisian, on this account. This chapter will catalogue the main linguistic innovations at each of these levels. The linguistic facts themselves are well-established, having been the objects of intensive scholarship for two hundred years. Their interpretation, however, is not always straightforward. Overlapping isoglosses must be explained, and alternatives to shared descent as an explanation for correspondences must be weighed. The examination of such questions has taken on renewed vitality in the past few years, informed by new understandings of language contact. The traditional view of the Germanic tree has been challenged/ reassessed at every one of these levels, ranging from contemplation of a possible role for language contact in shaping Germanic to alternatives to the ‘Anglo-Frisian hypothesis’ as an account of shared English-Frisian features. Some aspects of the problem of ‘English as a Germanic language’ persist even after its relocation from the European continent. For example, how did a relatively uniform language, recognized by its speakers in all regions from a very early date as Englisc, emerge in only a few centuries, in the absence of political unity, given the standard story that its roots lie in a variety of different language varieties on the continent? To what extent and by what mechanisms is it the product of convergence? NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 6 of 45

Conversely, to what extent can the dialect differences reflected in Old English be traced back to differences in source languages on the continent? This chapter will survey recent scholarship on such questions.

References

Harbert, Wayne 2006. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penzl, Herbert 1975. Vom Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Eine historische Phonologie [From Proto-Germanic to Modern High German. A historical phonology]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Ringe, Donald 2017 [2006] A History of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russ, Charles 1978. Historical German phonology and morphology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 7 of 45

3

Key events in the history of early English

Julia Fernández Cuesta Universidad de Sevilla

When writing a handbook of the history of English (or of any other language which has undergone a process of codification), there is always the danger of reification, i.e. to view it as a single, more or less unified, entity (an object), whose ‘natural’ evolution was punctuated by a series of external ‘events’: the Scandinavian invasions and settlements from the 8th-11th centuries, the Norman Conquest in 1066, the beginnings of the standardization/ supralocalisation processes from the 15th century onwards, and the codification of English in the 18th century that gave rise to the ‘complaint tradition’, which has continued until today. Yet this kind of narrative is not without problems in as much as it hides the difficulties posed by the gaps in the textual record of the earlier periods, especially from the northern areas, where some of the most significant changes were already underway during the Old English period. The ‘incomplete (rather than bad) data problem’ makes it difficult to construct a narrative which can explain why English differs from other Germanic languages not only at the lexical level, but also as regards some morphosyntactic features such as the loss of grammatical gender, the loss of the verb second constraint and the grammaticalization of the definite article. In this chapter I would like to discuss to what extent the textual evidence that has come down to us allows us to construct a history of English, with particular focus on the northern varieties and their influence on the development of the written standard. Some of the issues that will be addressed are the following:

1. The problem of the north and south divide and to what extent the simplification of English at the morphological level (tendency towards analyticity) can be attributed to language contact with Scandinavian languages in the Danelaw (Trudgill 2011, McWhorter 2016).

2. Text-types and their chronologies: I will draw examples from my research and discuss how generalizable they are to later periods. The distribution of text-types varies in the different periods/areas and there are linguistic features which are more characteristic of a particular text-type. If genre is not taken into account, there is a danger of attributing the spread of a particular feature to a period from which a higher number of texts favouring that innovation have been preserved (Los 2015: 25; Fernández Cuesta and Rodríguez Ledesma 2008, Fernández Cuesta and Langmuir 2019).

I will also address the role of contact in the development of English. I’ll discuss the views that favour contact-based explanations of linguistic change (Watts 2011) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 8 of 45 and those which claim that areal tendencies do not have necessarily to be due to contact (Lass 1997). I will argue that in some cases sociolinguistic explanations may allow us some insight into why a change happened when and where it did (Walkden 2010). For instance, the fact that the morphological simplification of English is more observable in the North may be related to the fact that northern Old English was less subject to the influence of the West-Saxon Schriftsprache. On the other hand, there may be traces of the beginning of a standardization process (West-Saxonisation) in some northern Old English texts (Fernández Cuesta and Langmuir 2019).

References

Fernández Cuesta, Julia and Rodríguez Ledesma. 2008. Northern Middle English: Towards Telling the Full Story.’ English Historical Linguistics 2006. Vol. III: Geo-historical Variation in English. Eds. Marina Dossena, Richard Drury y Maurizio Gotti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fernández Cuesta, Julia & Christopher Langmuir. 2019. Verbal Morphology in the Old English Gloss to the Durham Collectar. NOWELE 72 (2), 135-166. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. McWhorter, John. Is radical analyticity normal? 2016. Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. In: Elly van Gelderen, ed. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49-92. Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology. Cambridge: Camdridge UP. Walkden, George. 2010. The actuation problem. The Cambridge Handbook ofHistorical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 403-424. Watts, Richard J. 2011 Language Myths and the History of English (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford UP.

NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 9 of 45

4

The geography of English in England

Merja Stenroos University of Stavanger

Abstract

This chapter addresses the geographical framework of the dissemination and variation of the English language in England, with particular reference to the late medieval period. Dialectal variation within England has throughout history been considerable, especially considering its fairly accessible geography; presumably this variation reflects the complex patterns of multilingualism in early Britain, as well as both pre-settlement and later variation within what came to be known as English. For much of their early history, the northern and western parts of the English-speaking area formed boundary areas characterized by much language contact, and (with the exception of the Scottish lowlands) it was not until relatively late that these boundaries were extended outside the area that is now known as England. The major challenge in the study of the early, formative periods of English is the lack of sources; even when these begin to appear they are often not easy to localize in relation to geography. It is only in the fifteenth century that the production of administrative materials in English – in a highly variable writing system – allows for a systematic study of geographical variation covering the entire country. Using the newly compiled corpus from the University of Stavanger, A Corpus of Middle English Local Documents (MELD), as well as the Middle English Grammar Corpus (MEG-C), this chapter examines the interplay between textual documentation, linguistic variation and geography in the Middle English period (cf Stenroos 2016, 2017, 2019a). Taking as a starting point a selection of variables representing different levels of language, it a) aims to relate the written-language variation present in the late medieval materials to the scribal and cultural landscape of late medieval England (cf Stenroos 2013, 2018, 2019b; Stenroos and Smith 2016), and b) enquires into the feasibility of the much more speculative enterprise of relating late medieval patterns of geographical variation to those of earlier and later periods.

References

Stenroos, Merja (2019a), ‘The development of Old English eo/ēo and the systematicity of Middle English spelling’. In Rhona Alcorn, Joanna Kopaczyk, NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 10 of 45

Bettelou Los & Ben Molineaux (eds), Historical Dialectology in the Digital Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 133–155. Stenroos, Merja (2019b), Langage o northrin lede: northern Middle English as a written medium. In Anita Auer, Denis Renevey, Camille Marshall & Tino Oudesluijs (eds.), Revisiting the medieval north of England: interdisciplinary approaches. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Stenroos, Merja (2018), From scribal repertoire to text community: the challenge of variable writing systems. In: J. Cromwell and E. Grossman (eds), Scribal Repertoires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20?40. Stenroos, Merja (2017), Perspectives on geographical variation. In: L. Brinton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 303-331. Stenroos, Merja (2016), Regional language and culture: the geography of Middle English linguistic variation. In: T. Machan (ed.), Imagining Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 100-125. Stenroos, Merja (2013), Identity and intelligibility in late Middle English scribal transmission: local dialect as an active choice in fifteenth-century texts. In: E.-M. Wagner, B. Outhwaite and B. Beinhoff (eds), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Studies in Language Change 10. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Stenroos, Merja and Jeremy J. Smith (2016), Changing functions: English spelling before 1600. In: V. Cook and D. Ryan (eds), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London: Routledge.

Electronic resources

Stenroos, Merja, Kjetil V. Thengs and Geir Bergstrøm (compilers), A Corpus of Middle English Local Documents (MELD), version 2017.1 [instalment 1: Eastern Counties]. May 2017. University of Stavanger, http://www.uis.no/meld Stenroos, Merja, Martti Mäkinen, Simon Horobin and Jeremy Smith (compilers), The Middle English Grammar Corpus (MEG-C), version 2011.1. March 2011, University of Stavanger [version 1.0 published in 2008] http://www.uis.no/research/humanities/the-middle-english-scribal-texts-pr ogramme/meg-c/ NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 11 of 45

5

Philology and the history of English

Haruko Momma New York University

This chapter will use as its starting point the idea developed in my monograph From Philology to English Studies (CUP, 2013): that is, philology is a field of study that investigates any and all aspects of language in relation to their environment, whether historical or social, by using methods of analysis available from classical grammar to contemporary linguistics. When applied to the history of the English language, philology may take issue with three areas of investigation, which roughly correspond with three major historical periods. The first area of investigation concerns English as a vernacular, that is, a local or common language deemed less prestigious than one or more languages that are given greater authority, whether religious, political, or cultural, and/or used by those who belong to higher or more prestigious classes in society. This area is particularly relevant to the study of English during the Middle Ages, when Latin was used by those who belonged to the Church and French was spoken by the privileged secular class of men and women. The second area of investigation pertains to various dialects, whether regional or social. The category is particularly relevant to the study of the language during the modern era, since standard English was developed and established during the late medieval and Renaissance periods. The third area of investigation takes issues with the so-called world Englishes, that is, varieties of English spoken outsider the English-speaking countries and especially in the United States and the former colonies of Britain. This subject is especially relevant to the study of English in the contemporary era, and it covers regions on the global level. While the overall structure of this chapter is to discuss the history of English in these three large periods, each with a focus on one of these areas of investigation, it will also discuss the interaction of these categories within each period (e.g., the status of English in Scotland and Ireland and the “ancient and modern” debate, both in the modern period) as well as a discussion on each category over the entire history (the status of English dialects across history). For this purpose, the chapter will offer a series of cases studies, while drawing general observations from these particular examples.

Select Bibliography

Bjork, Robert E. 1997. ‘Nineteenth-Century Scandinavia and the Birth of Anglo-Saxon Studies’. In Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles (eds.). Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, pp. 111-32. Bopp, Franz 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 12 of 45

Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: In der Andreäischen Buchnandlung. Botterill, Steven (ed. and trans) 1996. Dante 'De vulgari eloquentia’. Cambridge University Press. Brewer, Charlotte 2007. Treasure-house of the Language: The Living OED. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press. Cameron, Angus, Amos, Ashley Crandell and Healey, Antonette diPaolo 1986-. The Dictionary of Old English. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Damico, Helen (ed.) 1998. Medieval Scholarship: Biographical Studies on the Formation of a Discipline. Vol. 2: Literature and Philology.New York and London: Garland. Frantzen, Allen J. 1990. Desire for Origins: New Language, Old English and Teaching the Tradition. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Grimm, Jacob 1880. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 4th ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Hickes, George 1703. Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesauri Grammatico-Critici et Archæologici; Pars Prima: Seu Institutiones Grammaticæ ‘Anglo-Saxonicæ, & Mœso-Gothicæ’. Oxoniæ: E Theatro Sheldoniano. Jefferson, Thomas 1851. An Essay towards Facilitating Instruction in the Anglo-Saxon and Modern Dialects of the English Language for the Use of the University of Virginia. New York: John F. Trow. Johnson, Samuel 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language: in which the words are deduced from their originals and illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers. 2 vols. London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton; T. and T. Longman; C. Hitch and L. Hawes; A. Millar; and R. and J. Dodsley. Jones, William 1993. The Collected Works of Sir William Jones. Garland Cannon (ed.). 13 vols. New York: New York University Press. Richard M. Hogg, ed., 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. Kemble, John Mitchell 1834. History of the English Language, first, or Anglo-Saxon Period. Cambridge: Printed for J. & J. J. Deighton. Lerer, Seth (ed.) 1996. Literary History and the Challenge of Philology: The Legacy of Erich Auerbach. Stanford University Press. Lynch, Jack and McDermott, Anne (eds.) 2005. Anniversary Essays on Johnson's ‘Dictionary’. Cambridge University Press. Matthews, David 1999. The Making of Middle English, 1765-1910. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. McCrum, Robert, Cran, William and MacNeil, Robert 2002. The Story of English. 3rd rev. ed. London: Penguin. Momma, Haruko 2012. From Philology to English Studies: Language and Culture in the Nineteenth Century, Studies in English Language, Cambridge University Press; Momma, Haruko and Matto, Michael (eds.) 2007. “The History of the English Language: Pedagogy and Research.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 13 of 45

Teaching 14.1: 7-115. Momma, Haruko and Matto, Michael (eds.) 2008. A Companion to the History of the English Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Murray, James A. H. 1873. The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland: Its Pronunciation, Grammar and Historical Relations. London: Published for the Philological Society by Asher & Co. Murray, James A. H., et al. 1888-1928. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles; Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by the Philological Society. 10 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Philological Society] 1859. Proposal for the Publication of a New English Dictionary. London: Trübner and Co. Robins, R. H. 1997. A Short History of Linguistics. 4th ed. London and New York: Longman. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1986. Course in General Linguistics. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye (eds.). With the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Roy Harris (trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court. Simpson, John (ed.) 2000-. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. OED Online. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sorensen, Janet 2000. The Grammar of Empire in Eighteenth-Century British Writing. Cambridge University Press. Sweet, Henry 1871-2. King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, with an English Translation, the Latin Texts, Notes and an Introduction. London: Published for the Early English Text Society, by N. Trübner & Co. Swift, J. 1712. A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue; in a Letter to the Most Honourable Robert Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain. 2nd ed. London: Printed for Benj. Tooke. Trench, Richard Chenevix 1860. ‘On Some Deficiencies in our English Dictionaries, being the substance of two papers read before the Philological Society, Nov. 5, and Nov. 19, 1857’. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. London: John W. Parker & Sons. Wanley, Humfrey 1705. Antiquæ Literatuæ Septentrionalis Liber Alter, seu Hmphredi Wanleii Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium, qui in ‘Angliæ’ Bibliothecis extant, nec non multorum ‘Vett’ Codd. Septentrionalium alibi extantium Catalogus Historico-Criticus, cum totius Thesauri Linguarum Septentrionalium sex Indicibus. Oxoniæ: E Theatro Sheldoniano. Ziolkowski, Jan (ed.) 1990a. On Philology. University Park, PA, and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 14 of 45

6

Early Contact with Celtic

Raymond Hickey University of Duisburg and Essen

The role of contact in the history of English, and that of other languages, has undergone a fundamental re-assessment in the last two decades or so (Hickey, ed., 2020; 2012). There have been two main reasons for this. The first concerns the re-appraisal of the Celtic influence on Old English, a topic which has a long pedigree, but only outside the mainstream of work on the history of English. The thorough investigations of Markku Filppula and his colleagues (Filppula, Klemola and Pitkäinen, eds, 2002; Filppula, Klemola and Paulasto 2008) have led to new insights being registered by mainstream scholars and in some cases incorporated into historical surveys of English. In addition to work on Celtic, renewed consideration of the contact between Old Norse and Old English (cf. Townend 2002) has rekindled interest in the nature of contact throughout the history of English. Furthermore, a more critical attitude to the anglocentric stance of Anglo-Saxonism, which arose in the eighteenth century (Hickey, ed., 2010; Milroy and Milroy 1999), has led in some, though not all cases (Mugglestone, ed., 2006), to a more inclusive view of the history of English (Watts and Trudgill, eds., 1999). The second main reason for the re-assessment of contact just mentioned is the great expansion of work on varieties of English outside England. This includes work on the periphery of the British Isles (on Ireland, for instance, Hickey 2007) and, of course, on varieties of English overseas (Kortmann et al. 2004). The different forms of English which arose in the colonial period (Hickey, ed., 2004) reflect a wealth of contact scenarios on all continents. Furthermore, the temporal staggering in the spread of English in the northern and southern hemispheres offers a range of English inputs at the new locations. These involve both settler English in New Dialect Formation contexts (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) and second-language varieties of English (so-called ‘New Englishes’) in South Asia and South-East Asia. The consideration of such distant settings can in turn throw light on the historical development of early English in Britain, for instance in the assessment of dialect contact, levelling and koineisation, and it can be of assistance in understanding such textually attested phenomena as code-switching, dialect mixing, supraregionalisation and stages in the genesis of standard English.

References

Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola and Heli Pitkänen (eds) 2002. The Celtic Roots of English. Studies in Language, Vol 37. University of Joensuu: Faculty of Humanities. Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola and Heli Paulasto 2008. English and Celtic in Contact. London and New York: Routledge. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 15 of 45

Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2004. Legacies of Colonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, Raymond 2007. Irish English. History and Present-day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, Raymond 2012. ‘Early English and the Celtic hypothesis’, in: Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 497-507. Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2010. Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2020. The Handbook of Language Contact. Second edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kortmann, Bernd, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider and Clive Upton (eds) 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Volume 1: Phonology, Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax. Reprinted in 2008 as four volumes. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy 1999. Authority in Language. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.) 2006. The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Townend, Matthew 2002. Language and History in Viking Age England: Linguistic Relations between Speakers of Old Norse and Old English. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. Watts, Richard and Peter Trudgill (eds) 1999. Alternative Histories of English. Routledge: London and New York. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 16 of 45

7

Classical languages in the early history of English

Olga Timofeeva Universtiy of Zurich

One of the earliest Latin loans in the history of English, school – Old English sceolu or scola – is derived from the etymon schola, which, in turn, is a borrowing from Greek σχολή. Throughout the early history of English, as also today, education was associated with cultured language, and cultured language with Latin and Greek words. Although not all loans from classical languages were borrowed into English in educational settings, indeed many, as the form sceolu, go back to spoken Latin, their connection to schools and, later on, universities remained strong, just as teachers, monks, and scholars continued to be the principle innovators in the domain of educated loans. Their influence was not limited to learned words but extended also to sophisticated syntactic constructions and, to some extent, phonology (the replacement of the early Old English palatalized form sceolu with a classicized and non-palatalized scola in late Old English is a good case in point). The aim of this chapter is, therefore, to explore the link between education and linguistic innovation in the early history of English, by looking at the evolution of the school system and the role of vehicle languages in school instruction. Education in the Middle Ages was closely connected to the history of religious institutions and Christianity, as, for a long time, no formal instruction was available outside monastic and cathedral schools. Not surprisingly, vocabulary that entered English through this channel very often belonged to the specialised domains of education (grammar, master), science (cancer, comet), and religion (cleric, temple). Many other words, however, were more general cultural loans (cheese, cup, fork, table, wine), which point to colloquial use of Latin in the marketplaces of the Late Empire and in refectories of medieval monasteries. Varieties of spoken and written Latin and Latin as a second (and third) language will, therefore, be among the other sociological anchors of this chapter, relevant for both subperiods of early English. Up until 1066, the language of elementary instruction was English, and the flow of new learned loanwords was unmediated. After the Norman Conquest, however, the situation changed, and French became established as the language in which Latin grammar was taught. A community of bilingual and trilingual people developed as a result, with English as their first, French as their second, and Latin as their third language. This is why, the number of French loans was at first much higher than that of Latin ones, with many of them belonging to a mixed French-Latin category, commonly borrowed via spoken Anglo-French or mixed professional language of multilingual merchants, clerks, and bureaucrats. In the later fourteenth century, following the demographic changes brought about by the epidemic of the plague and the fortunes of the One Hundred Years’ War, the sociology of schools changed again, and French gradually faded from the picture. Some fifty years later English was coming into its own as a written standard of NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 17 of 45

England, and Latin proficiency was becoming higher and more widespread, with Greek proficiency, rare until then, also growing more common. The Renaissance brought about classicization of Latin and latinization of European vernaculars, a new cycle that had to run its course until the beginning of the Reformation.

References

Timofeeva, Olga 2006. Latinskie sintaksicheskie zaimstvovania v drevneanglijskom jazyke (‘Latin syntactic borrowing in Old English’), Candidate of Sciences in Philology dissertation, St. Petersburg: Gelikon Plus. Timofeeva, Olga 2010. Non-finite Constructions in Old English, with Special Reference to Syntactic Borrowing from Latin, PhD dissertation, Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, vol. LXXX, Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Timofeeva, Olga (in preparation). Sociolinguistic Change in Old English. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics. Benjamins. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 18 of 45

8

The Scandinavian Period

Richard Dance Sara Pons-Sanz Univierstiy of Cambridge University of Cardiff

During the Viking Age, migration to Britain by speakers of the early Scandinavian languages (‘Old Norse’) marked the beginning of a long period of intense contact between Old Norse and varieties of early English. The effects upon English were extensive and profound, most measurably upon the lexicon, which will be our focus in this chapter. Beginning in the late Old English period, hundreds of words of probable or possible Scandinavian origin are attested in English texts, many of them very familiar in textbooks as instances of the ‘Viking’ heritage in everyday Modern English — everything from husband, law, leg, sky and window to happy, ugly, cast, hit, die and take, and the personal pronouns they, their and them. Handbook articles on Old Norse influence sometimes do not get much beyond an account of the contact situation, and lists of conventional examples like these; and they therefore do not give a full impression of just how complex, and how interesting, the tracing of originally Scandinavian material in the history of English really is. Our aim in this chapter is to introduce and to explore some aspects of this complexity, and hence to offer a range of examples of the kinds of argument, sources and methods of analysis that need to be engaged with if we hope to understand more fully the evidence for Norse input, how and where to find it, and how and why it was integrated into English. We shall begin with an account of the difficulties of identifying Scandinavian influence at the etymological level. Old English and Old Norse were closely related Germanic varieties, with considerable overlaps in phonology, morphosyntax and vocabulary, meaning that — while in some cases distinctively Norse developments may be discerned in post-contact English — it can often be extremely difficult to trace the tell-tale signs of Scandinavian input. Our discussion here will draw on the recent work on etymological first principles by Richard Dance (Dance 2019), as employed by the Gersum Project (Dance, Pons-Sanz & Schorn 2019), in order to offer some familiar and some less familiar examples of problem cases and possible responses. We will then turn to consider the fascinating range of English sources, medieval and modern, which need to be surveyed in order to pursue the possible lexical material influenced by Norse, in all its breadth. Even though some Scandinavian input comes to light in Old English texts contemporary with the Anglo-Scandinavian contact itself, to gain a proper idea of the richness and diversity of this loaned material we often need to look at evidence from much later periods. This is especially true of the dialects of the North and East of England, where the textual evidence for some words is not found until later Middle English; and there are yet further items of probable Norse origin that we do not meet until the records of Modern English dialects in the nineteenth century, including some possible examples remaining to be identified. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 19 of 45

The discussion of the diatopic differences in the distribution of Norse loans will lead to an exploration of the process of adaptation and integration of these terms into the English lexicon. We will show that, in order to understand this process we need to pay attention to the dialectal distribution of the Norse terms, as well as the semantic and stylistic relationships that these terms established with the other members of their lexico-semantic fields. We will consider the distribution of the terms in relation to both medieval texts (by paying attention to works such as Cursor Mundi or La Estorie del Evangelie, which are extant in manuscripts from different areas in the country) and Present-Day English use (on the basis of a survey carried out in connection with the second phase of the Gersum Project, where we asked informants to comment on their familiarity and, where relevant, sociolinguistic use of a number of items from the Gersum database). The semantic and stylistic focus of the following part will draw the chapter to an end: after providing an overview of the large variety of lexico-semantic fields where one can find Norse terms in medieval English, we will present one or two case studies (depending on the space available), where we will scrutinize the expressive nuances of the Norse terms and hence their usefulness in literary compositions beyond the mere introduction of further alternatives for words starting or ending in particular sounds.

References

Dance, Richard 2019. Words Derived from Old Norse in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: An Etymological Survey, Publications of the Philological Society 50, 2 vols, Chichester. Dance, Richard, Sara Pons-Sanz & Brittany Schorn 2019. The Gersum Project: The Scandinavian Influence on English Vocabulary (Cambridge, Cardiff and Sheffield) (https://www.gersum.org) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 20 of 45

9

The Evolving Definition of ‘Anglo-Norman’ and its Implications for Users of the Anglo-Norman Dictionary

Geert de Wilde University of Aberystwyth

The views on Anglo-Norman, as one of the three major languages of medieval Britain (together with Latin and English), have led to much debate among scholars, and, as a result, have altered significantly, much more than is the case for either of those two languages. As David Trotter’s 2013 article testifies, what the scholarly world defines as ‘Anglo-Norman language’ has evolved considerably over the recent decades (and continues to do so). In this article I will summarise this evolution, and concentrate on, firstly, how these changes continue to affect the ongoing revision of the Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND), and, secondly, the implications for readers of the AND and the way in which they can (and cannot) use the online dictionary? With Anglo-Norman more and more recognized as a crucial factor in the development of primarily the lexis of English, as well as medieval Latin and Continental French, it is essential for scholars to be aware of its changing status, nature and scope. The AND forms a crucial element in the study of language history in Britain, even more so with the introduction of a historical element since the online publication of the revision of R-: whereas before the AND was a purely semantic dictionary (i.e. it recorded all meanings of a given word, and illustrated these with one or more citation), it now adds a historical element in that it aims to trace the chronological development of words and their senses. In practice, this means that every AND sense is now given its earliest attestation, with further citations, now in chronological order, demonstrating its continuation in later centuries. While the basic structure of an AND entry remains a semantic one, the illustrative citations add a historical dimension. This brings the AND into line with cognate historical dictionaries (OED, MED, DMF, DEAF and DMLBS), and establishes a stronger foundation for these dictionaries to link their individual entries to. For example, the OED relies increasingly on data from the AND to analyse the etymological background of English lexis from a French/Anglo-Norman origin. Similarly, the DMF, which often examines the interplay between Continental French in all its dialects and Anglo-Norman, is now able to derive a clearer picture from the AND of the chronology of Anglo-Norman’s lexical development. The result is that these dictionaries’ reliance on, and referencing to, the AND will continue to increase, so that their users – the indirect users of the AND – see more detailed evidence of Anglo-Norman involvement. With this in mind, it is crucial to have a clear awareness of what the tag ‘Anglo-Norman’ stands for – that this is not a single, homogenous, separate language, but one that was subject to different levels of NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 21 of 45 interplay with, or distancing from, Continental French, English and Latin; one that took different shapes throughout the four centuries of its existence. Scholarship has moved a long way from the original idea of identifying a pure form of Anglo-Norman, phonetically distinct from Continental French, and both elements of the term, ‘Anglo’ and ‘Norman’, have been called, quite rightly, into question. It is by opening up what we understand as ‘Anglo-Norman’ that we come closer to a more realistic view of medieval multi-lingual society, its means of communication and its language development in general. It has become more and more clear that key evidence can be derived from a great variety of areas or usages where Anglo-Norman failed, or refused, to distinguish itself from Continental French, English or Latin. Source material that illustrates these grey zones is ample and has begun to play a much more important role in the compilation of the AND. To illustrate this is in some detail, I will give examples of the following types of sources that are now included in the AND corpus and I will show how they have expanded the remit of the dictionary:

- Anglo-Norman texts preserved in continental MSS, e.g. Le Jeu d’Adam - Continental texts preserved in insular MSS – circulating in Britain and therefore relevant: (some of them were written for an English audience, e.g. Wace’s Brut; others were simply available, e.g. La Destructioun de Rome) - British authors writing in a deliberately Continental French style and language (e.g. Gower’s Mirrour de l’Omme; other authors were educated in Paris or the Continent) - Use of Continental scribes (e.g. Waterford’s Secret + many official documents preserved in the Rotuli Parliamentorum) - Vernacular in Latin documents or A-N in English documents (and vice versa). - Trade correspondence (e.g. Italian trade contracts) - Single word vernacular glosses to Latin texts (Teaching and Learning Latin) - Anglo-Norman written in Hebrew characters ... Direct and indirect users of the AND have to be aware of these different levels hidden behind the term ‘Anglo-Norman’, and I will give examples of how different types of sources can qualify the significance of a statement of ‘Anglo-Norman influence’ on its cognate languages.

Sources

AND: William Rothwell et al. (eds), Anglo-Norman Dictionary, 2nd edition (2005-) (www.anglo-norman.net) ANTS: Anglo-Norman Text Society DEAF: Kurt Baldinger et al. (eds), Dictionnaire étymologique de l’ancien français (Québec, Tübingen, Paris, 1971-) (http://www.deaf-page.de/) DMLBS: David Howlett et al. (eds), Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (Oxford, 1975-2013) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 22 of 45

DMF: Robert Martin et al. (eds), Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (www.atilf.fr/dmf) MED: Hans Kurath, et al., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, 1952-2002) (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary) OED: Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com) NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 23 of 45

10

Code-switching and language mixing

Herbert Schendl University of Vienna

The relevance of language contact for the development of English, especially its vocabulary, is extensively discussed in most textbooks and handbooks of the history of English, with a focus on the influence of contact on the linguistic system and with their data primarily derived from monolingual ‘English’ texts. The fact that much textual production of early England was written in languages other than English, particularly Latin and Anglo-French, is sometimes pointed out, while the large number of multilingual or mixed-language texts has generally been passed over in silence (for an exception see Nevalainen & Traugott 2012). This is the more surprising as the study of historical code-switching and language mixing has become a productive subfield of historical linguistics in the last decades (see Trotter 2000, Schendl & Wright 2011, Pahta, Skaffari & Wright 2018). The present chapter will discuss the important role of code-switching and language mixing in the history of English, focusing on multilingual texts which mix Latin, English and French in a range of text types from medieval and early modern England. Such texts clearly represent written records of the communicative strategies of a multingual society and provide relevant data for the study of language contact phenomena, particularly on the lexical level, but also for the development of the English standard language (see Wright, forthcoming). The focus will be placed on sociohistorical aspects, such as the communicative functions of language mixing both on the macro- and the microlevel, but syntactic aspects of mixing strategies will also be discussed. Further questions to be addressed are the distinction between code-switching and language mixing, the distinctiveness of individual languages and linguistic varieties, and the relation between text type and degree of multilingualism. A central assumption is that these early multilingual texts constitute written records of code-switching and language mixing and can be analysed by applying linguistic tools developed for modern forms of these multilingual phenomena, though the general principles of historical linguistics in regard to the interpretation of data and sociolinguistic context have to be taken into account.

References

Nevalainen, T. & E. Traugott (eds.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford. Pahta, P., J. Skaffari & L. Wright. 2018. Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and Beyond. Berlin. Schendl, H. 2012. “Multilingualism, Code-switching and Language Contact in Historical Sociolinguistics”. In: J.M. Hernández-Campoy & J. Camilo NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 24 of 45

Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford, 520–533. Schendl, H. & L. Wright (eds.). 2011. Code-switching in Early English. Berlin & New York. Trotter, D. A. (ed.). 2000. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge. Wright, L. 2011. “On Variation in Medieval Mixed-language Business Writing”. In: H. Schendl & L. Wright (eds.), 191–218. Wright, L. Forthcoming. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 25 of 45

11

The beginnings of standardisation

Louise Sylvester University of Westminister

This chapter begins with the signs of standardisation scholars have identified in Old English that allow us to consider the requirements of the standardisation of a language and more particularly, which aspects may reasonably be applied to the English of the earlier periods (Smith 1996; Kornexl 2017). The main focus is on the Middle English period, which sees the emergence of English characterised by enormous variation. Typically, scholars have focused on spelling when considering standardisation, such as the 500 ways of spelling through recorded in the Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English prompting Samuels’s suggestion that it could provide ‘a frame of reference for isolating and classifying those types of language that are less obviously dialectal’ thus casting light on ‘the possible sources of the written standard English that appears in the 15th century’ (1963: 84). This chapter notes the long shadow cast by this aperçu. The chapter then examines more recent work spearheaded by Wright (2005, 2013, 2017, forthcoming) focused on the multilingual situation of medieval England. It considers the shift in our understanding of incipient standardisation in the 15th century when we include the writing of scribes and copyists engaged in the totality of activities generating writing, and when we remember that standards develop to allow ‘decontextualised information-bearing messages over long distances’ (Risannen 2000: 118). The contribution that this chapter makes to our understanding of the beginnings of standardisation in the Middle English period is its focus on vocabulary. The lexis has been characterised as a site of competition and rivalry, as though, like the minimisation of variation in orthography and grammar, one form must win out and one must lose. This is the conceptualisation behind studies such as Akimoto’s (2008) discussion of rivalry among verbs of wanting. It is particularly noticeable in research focused on multilingualism, such as Timofeeva’s (2018) delineation of the competition between English and French for the medieval religious lexis. I argue elsewhere (Sylvester 2018, forthcoming) that this metaphor limits our understanding of lexical replacement and obsolescence. In this chapter I present research which reveals the evolution of a vocabulary containing both native terms and loanwords that allows the expression of concepts in a range of text types and registers.

References

Akimoto, Minoji. 2008. Rivalry among the verbs of wanting. In Maurizio Gotti, Marina Dossena and Richard Dury ed. English Historical Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006, Vol. II: Lexical NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 26 of 45

and Semantic Change (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 117-138. Kornexl, Lucia. 2017. Standardization. In Laurel J Brinton and Alexander Bergs ed. The History of Old English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 220-235. McIntosh, Angus, Michael L Samuels and Michael Benskin. 1986. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English (LALME). 4 vols. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Risannen, Matti. 2000. Standardisation and the language of early statutes. In Laura Wright ed. The Development of Standard English 1300-1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117-130. Samuels, Michael L. 1963. Some applications of Middle English dialectology, English Studies 44: 81-94. Smith, Jeremy J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London: Routledge. Sylvester, Louise. 2018. Contact effects on the technical lexis of Middle English: A semantic hierarchic approach, English Language and Linguistics 22: 249-264. Sylvester, Louise. Forthcoming. The role of multilingualism in the emergence of a technical register in the Middle English period. In Laura Wright ed. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Timofeeva, Olga. 2018b. Mid ðare soðe luue ðe is icleped karite: Pastoral care and lexical innovation in the thirteenth century, Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature (SELIM) 23: 55–85. Wright, Laura. 2005. Medieval mixed-language business texts and the rise of Standard English. In Janne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen, and Brita Wårvik ed. Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 381-399. Wright, Laura. 2013. The contact origins of Standard English. In Daniel Schreier and Marianne Hundt ed. English as a Contact Language (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-74. Wright, Laura. 2017. A multilingual approach to the history of Standard English. In Pahta, Paivi, Janne Skaffari and Laura Wright ed. Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and Beyond (Language Contact and Bilingualism 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 339–358. Wright, Laura. Forthcoming. The multilingual origins of Standard English. In Laura Wright ed. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 27 of 45

12

Neoclassical borrowing and influence on English

Letizia Vezzosi University of Florence

English vocabulary has always occupied a special place in studies on the history of the English language (Scheler 1977, Dekeyser 1986, Burnley 1992, Wright 1992 and Hughes 2000). This also holds good for the so-called hard words, among which there are listed words such as abnegation, assiduous, delete, concomitant, insidious, irreverence, requisition, stolid, subjugate and so on. They are mainly either Latin- or Greek-derived words, semantically quite specialized and first attested in a quite limited stretch of time, namely between 1560-1660, which corresponds to the peak period of the English vocabulary growth (Finkenstaedt et al. 1970). The term itself hard word was coined in this same period, to refer to newly introduced or difficult neologisms, that is classical words, as Robert Cawdrey makes it clear in the title of his dictionary Table Alphabeticall of hard usuall English (1604), beginning a tradition continued by Thomas Cooper’s Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1565) and Thomas Thomas’ Dictionarium Linguae Latinae et Anglicanae (1587) John Bullokar’s English Expositor (1616), Henry Cockeram’s English Dictionarie (1623) and later John Ray’s A Collection of English Words not Generally Used (1674). The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed scientific developments and discoveries, market and trade expansion, new professions like law (Lancashire 2006), pharmacy (Slaughter 1982), medicine (McConchie 1997) and printing technology (McDermott 2002, Bell and Barnard 1992), which needed new words. Latin and, to a lesser extent, Greek supplied a ready-made terminology to fill lexical gaps in sciences. Therefore English derived from these sources the technical vocabulary it lacked (Barber 1976, Gotti 1996,Görlach 1997), first through translations and later through works inspired to Classical Latin works. But Latin, that is the language of litterae, also provided the richness of vocabulary, known as copiousness of synonyms (copia verborum) or amplificatio, that was considered the hallmark of a literary language and Renaissance rhetoric (Jones 1953) as well as a sign of education or social superiority: “It is familiar among best writers to usurp strang words” (Bullokar, Preface, English Expositor). Many of the Early Modern English hard words are no longer in use, but as many are still very frequent and some have become common (e.g. ironic). Therefore, an analysis of Latin-derived words in Early Modern English, which is still lacking, would be a valuable opportunity not only to have insights on the intellectual, social and technological developments and changes of the time, but, more significantly, to open a new window on the making of the English vocabulary. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 28 of 45

References

Barber, Charles L. 1976. Early Modern English. London: André Deutsch. Bell, Maureen and John Barnard. 1992. Provisional count of STC titls, 1475-1640. Publishing History 31: 48-64. Burnley, David J. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In: Blake, Norman (ed.), The History of the English Language. Vol II: 1066–1476, 409–499. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finkenstaedt, Thomas, et al. (eds.). 1970. A Chronological English Dictionary: listing 80000 words in order of their earliest known occurrence. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1986. Romance loans in Middle English: a reassessment. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Alexander Szwedek (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. Vol.1: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics, 253–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Görlach, Manfred. 1997. The linguistic history of English : an introduction. London: Macmillan. Gotti, Maurizio. 1996. Robert Boyle and the language of science. Milano: Guerini. Hughes, Geoffrey. 2000. A History of English Words. Oxford: Blackwell. Jones, Richard F. 1953. The Triumph of the English Language. Stanford: University Press. Lancashire, Ian. 2006. Law and Early Modern English lexicons. In: R.W. Mc Conchie et al. (eds), HEL-LEX: New Appraches in English Historical Lexis, 8-23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. McConchie, R. W. 1997. Lexicopgraphy and Physicke: The Record of Sixteenth-century English Medical Terminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. McDermott, Anne. 2002. Early dictionaries of English and historical corpora: In search of hard words. In: Javier A. Diaz Vera (ed.), A Changing World of Words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology, and Semantics, 197-226. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Norri, Juhani. 1992. Names of sickness in English 1400–1550. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Reuter, Ole. 1936. Verb Doublets of Latin Origin in English. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Scheler, Manfred. 1977. Der Englische Wortschatz. Berlin: Schmidt. Slaughter, Mary. 1982. Universal Languages and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, Laura. 1992. Macaronic writing in a London archive, 1380-1480. In: Rissanen, Matti et al. (eds.), Histories of Englishes, 762-80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 29 of 45

13

Typological reorientation in the history of English

Marion Elenbaas University of Leiden

This chapter considers typological reorientation in the history of English by reviewing a number of key changes, such as the decline in inflectional morphology and the fixing of word order (see e.g. Allen 2006; Hawkins 2012), and the loss of verb second (see e.g. Fischer et al. 2000; van Kemenade 2012). The second part of the chapter focuses on the case study of the shift from prefix-verb to verb-particle, the ‘phrasal verb’ (see e.g. Hiltunen 1983; Imbert 2008; Los et al. 2012). In Old English, Path (Talmy 1985, 2000) could either be expressed synthetically, using prefixes, or analytically, using separable prefixes/particles and prepositions. In Present-day English, Path is expressed analytically, using particles and prepositions. The shift to postverbal particles has often been linked to the typological word order change from SOV to SVO (e.g. Fischer et al. 2000; van Kemenade & Los 2003). Cross-linguistically, there is a clear generalization that SOV languages have preverbal particles/prefixes, whereas SVO languages have postverbal particles (see e.g. Los et al. 2012: 157). However, while the two changes occurred at roughly the same time, they show a different time span: after the transition to Middle English, preverbal particles/prefixes are no longer productive and postverbal particles were the norm, while the loss of SOV word order and the fixation of SVO word order was not completed until late Middle English (see Los et al. 2012: 157). This suggests that other factors must have been at work in the shift to postverbal particles. A possible factor is the language contact situation with Old Norse in the tenth and eleventh centuries (see e.g. Elenbaas 2006). In Old Norse, particles predominantly occurred in postverbal position, except with non-finite verbs (see Denison 1981: 277), and the intensive language contact between Old English and Old Norse may have influenced the position of the particle in English. However, studying the role of language contact in the shift to postverbal particles is complicated by the fact that data for the relevant period, early Middle English, are scarce (see Elenbaas 2006). This chapter revisits the language contact factor in the typological shift to postverbal particles by making use of recent data resources, A Parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English (PLAEME; Truswell et al. 2018) and the Parsed Corpus of Middle English Poetry (PCMEP; Zimmermann 2014–), which aim to fill the data gap for the period c.1250–1350.

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los, 201-223. Oxford: Blackwell. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 30 of 45

Denison, David. 1981. Aspects of the history of English group-verbs, with particular attention to the syntax of the Ormulum. Ph.D. dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University. Elenbaas, Marion. 2006. On the emergence of the verb-particle-object order in English: an investigation into the language contact factor. In York Papers in Linguistics Series 2. Papers from the third York-Holland Symposium on the History of English Syntax, ed. by Joanne Close, Alexandra Galani, Beck Sinar & Phillip Wallage, 1-28. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman, & Wim van der Wurff (eds.). 2000. The Syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, John A. 2012. The drift of English toward invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective. In The Oxford handbook of the history of English, ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 622-632. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb: The evidence from some Old and Middle English texts. Turku: Turun Yliopisto. Imbert, Caroline. 2008. Path coding in Old English: Functional story of a typological shift. In Historical Englishes in Varieties of Texts and Contexts: The Global COE Programme International Conference 2007, ed. by Masachiyo Amano, Michiko Ogura & Masayuki Ohkado, 17-32. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Rethinking the loss of verb second. In The Oxford handbook of the history of English, ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 822-834. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kemenade, Ans van & Bettelou Los. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 79-117. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 57-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Truswell, Robert, Rhona Alcorn, James Donaldson & Joel Wallenberg. 2018. A Parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English, 1250-1325. https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2310. Zimmermann, Richard (2014–). Parsed Corpus of Middle English Poetry. http://pcmep.net/ NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 31 of 45

14

Historical phonology

Donka Minkova University of California, Los Angeles

The chapter provisionally titled ‘Historical phonology’ will be divided into two parts: segmental and suprasegmental histories. Each of these parts will be further subdivided into chronological subsections, tracing the developments of the relevant components from Old English through Middle, Early Modern, and Late Modern English. Throughout the chapter, the discussion of specific changes will consider their mechanism and causation both in relation to phonetic and system-internal triggers, and in the context of the dynamism of language contact and socio-cultural pressures. In addition to presenting a concise overview of the evidential bases and the results of previous research, I plan to highlight and develop topics that (a), are either missing or under-represented in the textbook canon, and (b), are of particular interest for understanding the internalized linguistic knowledge of native speakers of different varieties of English today. Thus, each process should ideally be treated in the context of two questions: how did it happen and how do we know? and why does it matter? Focus on the relevance of English diachronic processes for analyzing the modern language, and the link to phonological theory in general, will give the chapter a good balance between diachrony and synchrony. Part 1, Segmental Histories will cover the restructuring of the vocalic and the consonantal systems following the chronological stages and the methodological objectives outlined above. Each subsystem will be treated in terms of losses, continuities, and gains, e.g. vowel harmony, diphthongal typology, hiatus resolution, cluster simplification and nasal loss, degemination. The rarely treated issue of historical phonotactics will also be included in that part of the chapter. Part 2, Suprasegmental Histories will turn to the way segments are organized into higher-level prosodic units: syllables, as well as to the questions of syllable division, ambisyllabicity, and the closely related and challenging issues of the principles and hierarchy of constraints on syllable weight and stress assignment. Both the segmental and suprasegmental parts of the chapter will take account of the interaction of phonology and morphology. Some essential, but by far not complete, sources and references are listed below.

Sources

DOE: https://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doe LAEME: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme2.html LALME: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/elalme/elalme.html MED: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary OED: https://www.oed.com/ NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 32 of 45

References

Hogg, Richard M. 1992. A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. Honeybone, Patrick, and Joseph Salmons, eds. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul, 2015. New perspectives in historical linguistics. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 82-120. Routledge. Lass, Roger, 1992. Phonology and morphology. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2, 1066-1476. Lass, Roger, 1999. Phonology and morphology. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3, 1476-1776, 56-186. Minkova, Donka, 2014. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh University press and OUP. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 33 of 45

15

Historical morphology

Elżbieta Adamczyk Bergische Universität Wuppertal

The morphology of English is a linguistic area which has undergone profound changes over the centuries, with the inflectional morphology being substantially reduced and derivational morphology largely profiting from (among others) the extensive import of foreign elements into English. The gradual drift of English morphology away from a relatively rich inflectional system in Old English and its consequent attrition in the subsequent stages until present-day English in a way define the story of historical English morphology (e.g. Allen 1995, 2003; Kastovsky 2006, 2011). The present chapter offers a systematic and comprehensive overview of the evolution of the morphological system in the history of the English language, covering both inflectional and derivational morphology. These two fields, inflection and derivation, provide the general frame for the structure of the chapter, which is chronologically arranged, focusing on developments from Old, Middle to Early Modern English. The discussion of historical developments and processes in this chapter is modular in that sections are devoted to the periods in the history of English, forming self-contained units. At the same time, the presentation aims at demonstrating the dynamics of the developments and the continuity of the processes. Accordingly, in the area of inflection, aside from offering a synchronic account of the nominal and verbal morphology in the individual historical periods, the chapter discusses also such developments as the simplification and loss of inflections, transformation of the case, number and gender systems, changes in the morphological marking of tense and mood, as well as the potential conditioning factors involved in these processes. Given that inflectional morphology is intrinsically connected to phonology, with the latter often being the catalyst for morphological changes, leading to large-scale typological restructuring, the interaction of these two linguistic domains will also be examined where relevant. The part of the chapter devoted to the history of English derivation examines in particular the development, distribution and productivity of affixes in the individual historical periods. Here the significant role played by foreign elements in the morphology of English becomes evident and will be addressed in appropriate detail. The relative compactness of this outline of English historical morphology, necessitated by the nature of the enterprise, comes with some evident limitations. Accordingly, rather than providing an exhaustive and detailed account of the shape and change of English morphology over the centuries, the description is confined to a representative selection of developments, transitions and processes. As such, it captures and concentrates on the aspects that are crucial in explaining later attestational stages of English and the morphological shape of English today. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 34 of 45

Regional variation is taken into account to varying degrees, depending on the historical stage, most extensively in the discussion of dialectally heterogeneous Middle English. Acknowledging and drawing upon the insights of the considerable research in English historical morphology (e.g. Hogg 1992; Hogg and Fulk 2011; Lass 1992, 1999, 2006; Ringe and Taylor 2014), the present chapter will also incorporate the most recent findings in the field (e.g. Baechler 2019; Cole 2018; Laing and Lass 2014; Petré 2013) critically evaluating and possibly refining the generalisations made in the earlier treatments.

References

Allen, Cynthia 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, Cynthia 2003. Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7(1). 1-28. Baechler, Raffaela 2019. Analogy, reanalysis and exaptation in Early Middle English: The emergence of a new inflectional system. English Language and Linguistics, 1-30. Cole, Marcelle. 2018. A native origin for Present-Day English they, their, them. Diachronica 35(2). 165–209. Hogg, Richard 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Hogg R. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language I: Old English, 67-164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogg, Richard M. and R. D. Fulk. 2011. A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 2: Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Kastovsky, Dieter 2006. Typological Changes in Derivational Morphology. In Van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English, 151-177. Oxford: Blackwell. Kastovsky, Dieter 2011. A Historical Morphology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Laing, Margaret and Roger Lass 2014. On Middle English she, sho: A refurbished narrative. Folia Linguistica Historica 35(1). 201–240. Lass, Roger 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language II. 1066–1476, 23-156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger 1999. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3: 1478–1776, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger 2006. Phonology and morphology. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A History of the English Language, 43-108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Petré, Peter. 2013. On the distribution and merger of is and bið in Old and Middle English. Transactions of the Philological Society 111(3). 301–325. Ringe, Don and Ann Taylor. 2014. A Linguistic History of English. Vol.II: The Development of Old English. New York: Oxford University Press. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 35 of 45 NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 36 of 45

16

Historical syntax

Bettelou Los University of Edinburgh

Old English has a recognizably West-Germanic clausal architecture, with the typical "topology" of having a prefield (opened up by the movement of the finite verb, which moves to C to demarcate a focus domain and to indicate foregrounded events, and to a lower position to demarcate given information from new), a middle field (a right-headed VP, as evidenced by prepositions stranding almost invariably to the left of the verb, and a position for scrambled "given" objects) and a postfield (for extraposed material). This architecture fits the requirements of the flow of information as a glove, as there are information-structurally unmarked ways to position subjects and objects both at the beginning and the end of the clause. The language is moving away from being a synthetic language to becoming more analytic, with functions that were earlier expressed in the morphology increasingly coming to be expressed by free morphemes. These morphemes are recruited from the lexicon: auxiliaries of the passive and the perfect from lexical verbs, the definite article and the conjunction that from the demonstrative pronoun, the emergence of an indefinite article from the numeral ān 'one' (grammaticalization). In Middle English, the rate of loss of inflectional morphology, already evident in Old English, increases; gender is lost quite abruptly in the course of the 12th Century. The remnants of inflected forms of the demonstrative paradigm are given new case-marking functions (exaptation), with different systems developing in the various dialects, before case marking is lost altogether. The correlative system of clause-linking, also relying on the demonstrative, is lost at the same time, without any new system taking its place; such correlative pronouns, invariably pre-verbal, furnished clear clues to the language learner that the VP was right-headed in spite of the high rate of extraposed objects, and their loss may have tipped the scales in favour of an analysis in which the VP is left-headed; prepositions flip to stranding to the right of the verb. After the loss of subjunctive morphology, there is quite a long period in which mood is not expressed in the morphosyntax at all – the pre-modals are still lexical verbs, and add a meaning nuance to the clause rather than appearing there for syntactic reasons. At the end of the Middle English period, finite verb movement to the lower position is lost, and a new periphrasis is introduced, initially to express durativity in time-framing contexts: the progressive. In Early Modern English, movement to C in focus and foregrounding contexts survives as subject-auxiliary inversion, although there is a window which shows some wavering with respect to inversion after negation; then as a foregrounder persists and triggers inversion throughout the 16thC. This century also sees the rise of do-support, which may have been triggered by the addition of NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 37 of 45 the progressive to the inventory of verbal periphrases, and by the development of not as a negative head rather than an adverb (as shown by its different behaviour from never). The result is a behavioural difference between auxiliaries and lexical verbs: the former can rise to C, the latter is mostly restricted to staying in V. The modals are increasingly analysed as auxiliaries, a process accelerated by the accidental loss of the thou-paradigm (replaced by ye/you) – with the lost of mayest, canst etc., the modals become invariant, giving few signs to the language learner that they are verbs. In Late Modern English, the mapping of information-structural status and syntactic function – subjects as the only unmarked way to express given information, objects the only umarked way to express new information – consolidates; word order alternations (locative alternation, dative alternation, the particle alternation in phrasal verbs), preposing, and clefts offer various escape hatches if information stucture finds itself compromised by the options available in canonical SVO word order. The stricter mapping of information-structural status and syntactic function make subjects an important device in establishing coherence in written discourse, which not only leads to an expansion of possibilities for passives and middles, but also to a more articulate internal structure of NPs, with a new determiner-premodification system (in which coming, past, above, below, and following function as text-structuring devices inside an NP rather than as sentential adjuncts) and complex determiners, with some competition between the same, thereof, of it, and its. These complex determiners go some way towards filling the gap left by the loss of a gendered demonstrative paradigm, which allowed morphological marking of continued topics (by personal pronouns) versus new topics (demonstratives). There had been a small window in Middle English where he this, she this emerged to renew the distinction, but these forms did not last. A more lasting solution was to use non-restrictive relative clauses to indicate topic shifting, which consolidates in the LModE period. This leads to an interesting mismatch that an embedded clause is used to express foregrounded events.

References

Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman, & Wim van der Wurff (eds.). 2000. The Syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemenade, Ans van and Bettelou Los eds. 2006 The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Rethinking the loss of verb second. In The Oxford handbook of the history of English, ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 822-834. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 38 of 45

17

Historical semantics

Kathryn Allan University College London

Abstract

The questions of how and why words change meaning are integral to any history of English. In each period, semantic change takes place in a particular social and linguistic context, and cannot be separated from the changes that take place at other levels of the language. The separation that is often made between the internal and external history of a language is complicated by any detailed examination of individual word histories; often meaning change is triggered by extra-linguistic changes, but it also takes place within a system, so that one change can lead to others, either within the meanings of a single word or across semantically related words (Murphy 2006:315; De Smet 2010). Traditional accounts of semantic change have not always given due attention to meaning variation, and specifically to the polysemy shown by all but the most restricted of words. The very idea of the meaning of a word cannot be abstracted away from the speakers of a language; words have different meanings at different times for different speakers, as work on recent sociolinguistic change shows (e.g. Robinson 2011). Considering the users and contexts of use of particular word meanings is more difficult for earlier periods, but some evidence is provided by large-scale dictionaries, corpora and text collections (including DOE and DOEC, MED, OED, and EEBO) and these can offer us some clues about how established particular word meanings may have been across periods. The composite nature of English lexis also means that, crucially, the meaning histories of words must be viewed alongside those of related words in other languages. The high proportion of native words in Old English have interesting parallels in cognate languages, often following very similar semantic developments, but sometimes showing surprising innovations within English (e.g. Allan forthcoming). Borrowing accounts for a greater proportion of the English lexicon from the Middle English period onwards, but loanwords are rarely semantic copies of their etymons, and often meanings are reproduced selectively, with core senses in the donor language being lost and minor senses gaining currency after transmission (Allan 2015; Durkin 2009:4; Durkin and Allan 2016). The chapter will use data from the Oxford English Dictionary and the major period dictionaries of English, alongside historical dictionaries of other languages. It will also draw from the Historical Thesaurus of English.

References NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 39 of 45

Allan, Kathryn. Forthcoming. Metaphor, metonymy and polysemy: A historical perspective. In Augusto Soares da Silva (ed.), Figures: intersubjectivity and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Allan, Kathryn. 2015. Lost in transmission? The sense development of borrowed metaphor. In Javier E. Diaz-Vera (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 31-50. De Smet, H. 2010. Grammatical interference: subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds.) Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 75-104. DOE: Dictionary of Old English: A to I online. 2018. Ed. Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. Available online at: https://tapor-library-utoronto-ca.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doe/ DOEC: Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. 2009. Compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey with John Price Wilkin and Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. Available online at https://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doecorpus/ Durkin, P. 2009. The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durkin, Philip and Kathryn Allan. 2016. “Borrowing and copy: A philological approach to Early Modern English lexicology”, in Anita Auer, Victorina González-Díaz, Jane Hodson, and Violeta Sotirova (eds.) Linguistics and Literary History: In honour of Sylvia Adamson. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 71-86. EEBO: Early English Books Online. Available online at: http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home Historical Thesaurus of English, version 4.21. 2020. Ed. Christian Kay, Marc Alexander, Fraser Dallachy, Jane Roberts, Michael Samuels, and Irené Wotherspoon. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. https://ht.ac.uk/ Murphy, M. Lynne. 2006. Antonymy and incompatability. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, 314–317. MED: Middle English Dictionary, 1952-2001. Ed. Robert E. Lewis, et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Ed. Frances McSparran, et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2000-2018. Available online at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ OED: The Oxford English Dictionary. 1884–1928; Supplement and Bibliography 1933. Supplement, 1972–1986. 2nd edn., 1989. Additions Series, 1993–1997. 3rd edn. (in progress) OED Online, March 2000–, www.oed.com Robinson, Justyna. 2011. A sociolinguistic approach to semantic change. In Kathryn Allan and Justyna Robinson (eds.) Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 199-232. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 40 of 45

18

Historical pragmatics: Language use in the history of English

Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich

Historical pragmatics studies the use of language in earlier periods and the developments of usage patterns over time (Traugott 2012, 2019; Taavitsainen 2015). Recent research in this area has increased our understanding of how usage patterns develop, and we have gained insights into a range of pragmatic phenomena at specific times in the history of English. But, in marked contrast to the core areas of linguistics, we are still far away from broad-ranging inventories of relevant patterns at specific periods. This chapter, therefore, provides an outline of what such inventories might look like. It gives an exploratory account for each of the traditional periods in the history of English, from Old English up to Present-day English by focusing on those areas within historical pragmatics that have already received sufficient scholarly attention, in particular discourse marker usage, patterns of relational work and im/politeness ideologies including terms of address and a few selected speech acts (Kohnen 2015). These overview sketches of the individual periods will be linked through an analysis of specific development patterns. Discourse markers, for instance, regularly undergo developments that have been described as pragmaticalisation processes in which lexical elements are increasingly used for specific pragmatic functions (Brinton 2017). The development of im/politeness ideologies is closely linked to societal and cultural changes (Jucker 2020). And many speech acts can be shown to undergo a process of attenuation or weakening in the course of time, as for instance apologies that originated in Old English penitential acts and confessions to God and developed through stages of secularisation and conventionalisation into fully pragmaticalised and minimalised acknowledgments of a minor infraction, as in, “Oops, sorry” (Jucker 2019). The chapter ends with a discussion of the theoretical implications of the different pragmatic trajectories and with suggestions for the most pressing needs for further research in this area.

References

Brinton, Laurel. (2017) The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English. Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jucker, Andreas H. (2019) Speech act attenuation in the history of English: The case of apologies. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 45. 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.878 Jucker, Andreas H. (2020) Politeness in the History of English. From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohnen, Thomas. (2015) Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In: Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann (eds.). Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52-83. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 41 of 45

Taavitsainen, Irma. (2015) Historical pragmatics. In: Douglas Biber, and Randi Reppen (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252-268. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2012) Pragmatics and language change. In: Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 549-565. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2019) Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 145, 25-30. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 42 of 45

19

Historical sociolinguistics

Terttu Nevalainen and Tanja Säily University of Helsinki

Historical sociolinguistics is the study of linguistic variation in relation to social variation in the past. It is a relatively new discipline that has significantly expanded in the past few decades in terms of materials, methods, areas of interest and time periods covered. It is telling that in CHEL (1999: 470) Görlach talks about “the impasse of sociolinguistic interpretation of historical data”. As our chapter aims to show, this is hardly the case twenty years on. The material constraints on historical sociolinguistics, such as lack of spoken data, are well known, but the advent of electronic corpora has opened up remarkable new possibilities for research. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991) covers the history of English from the 8th to the 18th century, although the rich metadata scheme, which includes parameters for the author and setting of the texts, could only be filled for the more recent periods. The Corpus of Early English Correspondence (1998, partly published in 2006) was compiled specifically for the purposes of historical sociolinguistics, enabling the systematic study of social stratification in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In recent years, scholars have taken an even broader view of evidence suitable for historical sociolinguistics, including e.g. prescriptive grammars and massive databases of texts ranging from historical publications to social media (Fitzmaurice et al. 2017; Laitinen et al. 2017). The methods used show the interdisciplinary nature of historical sociolinguistics in that it draws not only on the quantitative paradigm of variationist sociolinguistics but also on what are called the second and third waves of sociolinguistics (Eckert 2012). These make use of ethnographic methods, and uncover the ways in which linguistic signs accrue new social semiotic meanings in social interaction. Building on the three waves, the diachronic layering of linguistic meanings can be seen in the processes of language change, which reflect the dynamic relations between macrosociological categories such as social status and regional background, and their local encounters in language use (Nevalainen, in press). In our chapter, we aim to proceed chronologically by the established periods of English: Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and Late Modern English. Within the sections, the contents will be organized by sociolinguistic paradigm, including the sociology of language, social dialectology, interactional sociolinguistics, and ethnography of communication. The work discussed will be viewed against the changing social and economic conditions of the language community at the time.

NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 43 of 45

References

Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CEEC/ Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:87–100. Fitzmaurice, Susan, Justyna A. Robinson, Marc Alexander, Iona C. Hine, Seth Mehl & Fraser Dallachy. 2017. Reading into the past: Materials and methods in historical semantics research. In Tanja Säily, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Anita Auer (eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–82. Görlach, Manfred. 1999. Regional and social variation. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 459–538. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/ Laitinen, Mikko, Jonas Lundberg, Magnus Levin & Alexander Lakaw. 2017. Revisiting weak ties: Using present-day social media data in variationist studies. In Tanja Säily, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Anita Auer (eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 303–325. Nevalainen, Terttu. In press. Present-day Standard English: Whose language was it anyway? In Anna Mauranen & Svetlana Vetchinnikova (eds.), Language change: The impact of English as a lingua franca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 44 of 45

20

Historical onomastics

Richard Coates University of Western England., Bristol

I propose to cover some general or theoretical background briefly, mainly about the (psycho)linguistic process of becoming a name, the distinction between evolved names and bestowed names, and the (?universal) trajectory of naming practices for new categories of namable (for instance, but not necessarily these: railway locomotives, businesses and brands, or “popular musical combos”). This will draw largely on my own published work and integrate it as far as practicable. It will not necessarily be done en bloc at the beginning (though it will start there), but it will be dealt with at some point(s) in the chapter. Names to be covered will be understood as “names in the English-speaking world”, but there will be special focus on names formulated in English except insofar as that gives a misleading impression of the namescape in some particular country (e.g. Wales, Australia). The chapter will be arranged in the form of longitudinal studies of: Given names Surnames Place-names Other name-categories as space permits. The approach will be diachronic, but emphasizing both philological (as in much previous work in English onomastics) and sociocultural considerations.

Given names Structural aspects of early names; replacement by partly overlapping waves of names of other origins (Germanic-Norman French, Humanist Greek and Latin, Old Testament, Huguenot and German-mediated French, Anglo-Saxon Revival, and modern trends in the direction of unbridled creativity).

Surnames A history of surnaming based essentially on the introduction to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland (2016) of which I am co-editor.

Place-names A history of place-naming of a fairly conventional type, but trying to cover the essentials of names in the whole of the British Isles as well as in the British Empire. Place-naming will be understood to cover, at least in principle, minor place-names down to the level of houses and institutions including businesses. I will draw on much of my own work on individual names as illustrative material. More attention than usual will be paid to the emergence of new lexical and NewCHEL, Vol. 1: Context, contact and development Page 45 of 45 structural types and to variation including that between official naming (which will be problematized) and unofficial naming.

Other categories There is much of interest to be said about what Swedish scholars have given the technical label “Other Names”, and these might include railway locomotives (as reflecting cultural preoccupations) and rock bands (as illustrating a putative diachronic universal in naming trends), as noted above. If space permits, to be comprehensive, I would also like to deal with basically theoretical questions of naming as a creative practice in the arts.

References

Anderson, John (2007) The grammar of names. OUP. Cambridge history of the English language, vols I and II, chapters by Cecily Clark. Coates, Richard – numerous books, articles and reviews to draw on, both theoretical and diachronic studies. Gibka, Martyna Katarzyna (2019) Literary onomastics: a theory. Łódź: ArchaeGraph. Hanks, Patrick et al. (2016) Oxford dictionary of family names in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press. Hough, Carole, ed., with Daria Izdebska (2016) Oxford handbook of names and naming. Oxford University Press. McClure, Peter – numerous studies, mainly of surnames but also of given names. Survey of English Place-Names (93 volumes). Van Langendonck, Willy (2007) Theory and typology of proper names. Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Victor (2004) Cambridge dictionary of English place-names. Cambridge University Press. Wright, Laura (2020) Sunnyside [etc.]. British Academy.

Journals:

Journal of the English Place-Name Society, Names, Nomina, Onoma, Scottish Name Studies.