The History of English: Modern English - the last link in the chain

Hello, and thanks for reading the last entry in my History of English series. If you haven't read the last six articles already, I strongly recommend you do so before reading this one.

In my last article, I showed that, by the year 1500, written English was fairly similar to today's English. There have been some subsequent changes in the pronunciation and spelling of some words, as well as a number of grammatical changes. But on the whole, Elizabethan English certainly looks much more like present-day English than Old English did.

In the last five centuries, a standardised variety of English has emerged, the likes of which have never been seen before. Yet, on the other hand, English has split into an array of new dialects across the globe, as the British (and their descendents) began to colonise parts of every continent. Apart from Antarctica, of course.

Cor blimey, it's nippy out here.

Even fairly recently, the spelling of certain words was not as fixed as it is now. The notion of 'correctness' in language is a relatively new idea. The publication of the first dictionaries helped to cement the standardisation of spelling.

Dictionaries, and the development of American English

Several rudimentary spelling lists of 'difficult words' were written, but it was not until Samuel Johnson completed his Dictionary of the English Language in 1755 that the lexicon of English received its first thorough treatment. Over a nine-year period, Johnson wrote the definitions of about 40,000 words, including etymologies and quotations showing the word in context.

The book, according to his biographer Boswell, 'conferred stability' on the language, at least with respect to spelling (Crystal, 2003.) Most of Johnson's spelling choices have stuck, though more so in British English than in American English.

Some of his spelling choices were, alas, misguided. He preferred the spelling ache over the more etymological ake, because he thought it came from Greek achos, whereas in fact it was a native English word. He also retained the (long silent) Latin 'p' in the spelling of receipt, but not, for some reason, in deceit. He spelt instill with two l's but distil with one 'l' for no apparent reason. Thanks Samuel!

However, if you consider that Samuel Johnson was the first person to write a fully comprehensive English dictionary, as a completely solo project, you cannot be anything but impressed.

Samuel Johnson was English, and his dictionary completely ignored American English words or meanings. Even in 1755, the year that his dictionary was published, the nascent American English had begun to diverge from its British ancestor. Although Johnson's dictionary was well received in America, it didn't cater towards the differences that were beginning to be noticed on both sides of the Atlantic.

Noah Webster (1758-1843) was an American teacher, clerk and lawyer who had served briefly in the American War of Independence. He felt that there were few written texts in America which reflected a distinctively American style. In 1800, he began to work on a dictionary for American English. He finally completed his dictionary in 1825, and it appeared three years later, when he was 70. 

His dictionary contained 70,000 words, over a sixth of which had never appeared in a published dictionary before. He added American words such as 'skunk' and 'squash' (the vegetable) that did not appear in contemporary British dictionaries. 

Also, as a spelling reformer, Webster introduced some new spellings of certain words. He replaced many words ending in -our with -or, such as 'color' for 'colour,' and 'rigor' for 'rigour', believing the extra letter to be unnecessary. 

It should be noted that the spellings with -or were once used in Britain, so Webster was in fact bringing back an older spelling instead of creating a new one. Back in 1529, Thomas Cromwell writes 'mysdemeanor' for what would now be spelt as 'misdemeanour' in the UK (Leithead, 2009.) 

Noah Webster did make some spelling innovations, though. He replaced 'waggon' with 'wagon' and 'centre' with 'center.' 

All of these spellings are now standard in American English, and some have even jumped across the Atlantic; 'wagon' has now replaced 'waggon' in British English, as has 'magic' for the older spelling 'magick.'

 

Noah Webster. He didn't believe in 'magick'

Webster's dictionary paved the way for a Standard American English that was distinct from British English. By the time he published his dictionary, American English and British English had already diverged noticeably, due to the fact that they had been isolated from each other by a fairly big pond for nearly 300 years. 

Also, the first colonists came across animals, plants and customs that were new and unfamiliar. As early as the 17^th century, Americans had borrowed moccasin, papoose, wigwam and tomahawk from Native American languages. 

Since then, American English has absorbed words from Spanish (bronco, corral, lasso), German (delicatessen, kindergarten, spiel), Italian (spaghetti, tutti-frutti) and numerous other languages (Crystal, 2003.)

Innovations in British English

However, it is not just Americans who have innovated. They have preserved some words, pronunciations and grammatical constructions which the British have either lost or changed.

The word gotten became extinct in British English, except in the stock phrase 'ill gotten,' some time after the first colonists came over from England. Americans, on the other hand, have preserved the distinction between got and gotten. When used as a part participle meaning 'become' or 'received', they would use gotten. As a main verb meaning 'to acquire' or 'to have', they use got. Compare the sentences below:

I've got a brand new car (i.e. I have a brand new car)

This blog has gotten boring. (i.e. this blog has become boring)

This is the distinction that Americans make between got and gotten. They are not interchangeable. You can't say 'I've gotten a brand new car.' (Americans reading this blog: please correct me if I am wrong about this!) In Britain, got is used as the main verb and the past participle, to the exclusion of gotten, although gotten might make a comeback as a result of American influence.

Other ways in which British English has innovated includes the loss of the /r/ sound in the spoken language, except before a vowel. In words such as car, spore and garden, American, Canadian, Irish and Scottish people preserve the /r/ sound, whereas speakers of most English and Welsh dialects have lost it. The loss of /r/ is known as non-rhoticity. In parts of Eastern New England and some New York dialects, non-rhoticity is also found, although it is receding.

Another way in which British English has innovated is the development of the long /ɑ:/ in bath and mast, though only in Southern England. Originally, trap and bath had the same short /a/ vowel in all English dialects. In London, people began to lengthen /a/ before <f>, <s>, <th>, <ns> and <mpl> so that staff, mast and bath began to contrast with sap, map and bap.  

The lengthening of the bath vowel began in the 17th century, but it was regarded as a Cockneyism well into the 19th century (Kortmann & Schneider, 2004.) Of course, the split occurred after the British began to settle in America and Canada, so these varieties of English do not have the distinction. This sound change never took root in the North of England, Scotland or Ireland either. Hence, in these places, trap and bath still have the short /a/ vowel, but in Southern England, bath now has a long /ɑ:/ sound.

The so-called trap-bath split does occur in Australian, New Zealand and South African English, however. This is because the British were the first people to introduce English to these countries. Most of the original settlers (and prisoners, in the case of Australia) came from Southern England, hence they introduced the trap-bath split to the Southern Hemisphere.

Two-way traffic

Sometimes, both British English and American English have innovated, but in different directions. Most American and Canadian speakers of English pronounce unstressed /t/ and /d/ between vowels as a kind of flapped r-sound, similar to the <r> in Spanish 'pero'. As a result, 'writer' and 'rider' are often pronounced the same in the US and Canada.

In the same environment, many British speakers have replaced the /t/ with a glottal stop, although the /d/ is unchanged. Think of the typical Cockney pronunciation of 'water' for an idea of what the glottal stop sounds like. But it's not just Cockneys who use glottal stops.

T-glottalisation (the replacement of /t/ with a glottal stop in certain positions) has spread rapidly across Britain, and is now common in many urban areas in England and Scotland, especially in the younger generation. 

Don't let anyone tell you that it's just the youngsters who glottalise their /t/'s. In most English dialects, /t/ often becomes a glottal stop before a nasal consonant ('m' or 'n'), in words such as 'button', 'witness' and 'atmosphere.' Also, even people who consider themselves to speak RP tend to replace /t/ with a glottal stop at the end of a word after a vowel or nasal consonant, e.g. 'don't be late.'

T-glottalisation is not a purely British phenomenon either. Even Americans would probably replace the /t/ with a glottal stop in 'button' and 'witness,' but t-glottaling is certainly more common in the UK than in any other English-speaking country.

The fact that unstressed /t/ has become an r-like alveolar flap in American and Canadian English and a glottal stop in British English shows that both types of English have diverged independently from an ancestral variety. American English isn't a corrupted and debased version of British English. Instead, modern American and British English both come from an ancestral 16^th century version of English that happened to be spoken in Britain.

World Englishes

While it is true that language enthusiasts tend to note the obvious differences between British and American English, there are many more varieties of English that are spoken across the globe.

At the turn of the 19th century, Britain began to colonise Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Today, the English spoken in each of these countries is noticeably different from British English, from which they arose. 

These three countries generally use British spellings, although American influence is beginning to make itself felt in Australia. Southern Hemisphere English varieties also tend to be non-rhotic (that is, the <r> is not pronounced in car), although rhoticity is found in some parts of Southern New Zealand such as Dunedin, which show influence from Scottish English. 

Nope, no Hobbits here!

Australian, New Zealand and South African English have been influenced to some degree by the indigenous languages of the country, though mainly in vocabulary. It should be noted, however, that South African English has a number of different dialects, which tend to vary according to the speaker's ethnic group. 

Today, English is also spoken in various countries that were once colonised by Britain or the US.  In most of these regions, English is not the native tongue, but serves as a useful lingua franca (common language) between ethnic and language groups. This circle includes India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tanzania, Kenya, non-Anglophone South Africa, the Philippines (colonised by the US) and others. The total number of English speakers belonging to this group is estimated to range from 150 million to 300 million.

Finally, there is an increasing number of countries where English plays no historical or governmental role, but where it is nevertheless widely used as a medium of international communication. In fact, English is now the international language. It might have fewer native speakers than Mandarin Chinese and Spanish, but it is more widespread than either of those languages.

In every country with a robust English-speaking population, new varieties of English are emerging or have already emerged. The local varieties tend to be heavily influenced by the speakers' native language(s), which influence in pronunciation, intonation, grammatical constructions and vocabulary. 

We can still say that there is one English language, because most varieties of English today are generally intelligible with each other. But English doesn't belong to any one group of people. It belongs to anyone who speaks it.

English today and beyond

The English language is continuing to change today, much to the chagrin of language guardians and Daily Mail readers. Neologisms (newly-coined words) are continuing to enter the language. Blog, photoshop, Facebook, Google (the noun and the verb), the new meaning of tweet,  etc are all neologisms which have recently entered English. But these are all superficial changes; small additions to the vocabulary are not significant. 

However, there are some ongoing changes in the pronunciation of certain words, which are somewhat more significant. Some changes are happening in some English dialects but not in others. 

For example, T-glottalisation and l-vocalisation (the replacement of /l/ with a w-like sound in words like 'milk' and 'still') are spreading rapidly in British English, but not so much in other varieties. In certain cities in the US, including Chicago and Detroit, there is an ongoing vowel shift known as the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Time does not permit me to go into the details, but most of the short vowels have been affected by this vowel shift.

Perhaps at some point in the future, as English develops differently in each country in which it is spoken, all native English speakers will learn two dialects; their local dialect which they would speak in the home, and a (hypothetical) Standard World English, which will be different enough from everyone's local dialect to necessitate being learnt as a separate dialect/language. 

It is true that, because of the Internet, TV and easy travel across the world, speakers of one English dialect are exposed to others. American English is especially prominent in films and TV, but simply being familiar with other English varieties isn't enough to halt language change. 

We cannot predict the future, but we can be sure that the differences in local varieties of English will continue to accumulate (language change is constant). At the moment, the main varietes of English are still similar enough that mutual communication is, for the most part, easy. But who's to know what things will be like in even 500 years' time?

References:

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 

Kortmann, Bernd; Schneider, Edgar W.; Burridge, Kate; Mesthrie, Rajend; & Upton, Clive (Eds.). (2004). A handbook of varieties of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leithead, Howard (2009). "Cromwell, Thomas, Earl of Essex (b. in or before 1485, d. 1540)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

The History of English: Early Modern English

Early Modern English - familiarity at last

Hello, and thank you for reading the penultimate instalment of my History of English series!

As the 1400s gave way to the 1500s, so we can say that Middle English has given way to Early Modern English. By the turn of the 16^th century, written English is not wildly different from present-day English. 

English manuscripts written after 1500 are still largely intelligible to us, although the earliest texts may present some difficulties. This is because a number of important changes have happened in the intervening 500 years. 

The rise of Standard English

With the advent of Caxton's printing press in Westminster in 1476, a standardised form of written English began to appear for the first time. Before then, people would more or less spell words according to their own regional dialect. This is why some surnames have variant spellings, and also explains why some place names have (seemingly) wacky spellings¹.

The Printing Press: Also used as a terrible torture instrument.

The development of Modern English is intertwined with the rise of the first Standard variety of English. Today, Standard English exerts its influence on the spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and some points of grammar, in terms of what is regarded as standard, or correct, English.

A standard variety of English from the London area began to develop as early as the mid-14^th century (Crystal, 2003.) The original London dialect is actually a hybrid of several dialects; it has features of Essex and also the Middlesex dialects further west.

The emergence of London as the centre of influence is due to the fact that it became the political and commercial centre of England, as it still is. Immigration to London in the 14^th and 15^th century from the surrounding areas meant that the London dialect absorbed some influence from its neighbouring counties.

The fact that the earliest standard forms of English were influenced by a number of different dialects is reflected in certain unusual spellings. Why, for instance, is the word bury spelt with a <u>, when surely it should be spelt berry? Well, this pronunciation comes from the Kentish dialect. The Old English sound represented by <y> (pronounced like the French <u> in lune), became <i>, as in listen from Old English hlysnan. But in the Kentish dialect, the Old English <y> developed into the /e/ sound in bury. This is the pronunciation that became part of Standard English (Crystal, 2003.)

Anyway, the development of printing helped to spread a single norm over much of the country, at least in the written language. By the early 16^th century, it becomes difficult to determine the dialect in which a literary work is written, apart from Northern dialects such as Scots, which developed a separate literary identity.

By this point, people begin to make value judgements about dialects which are not their own. John of Trevisa comments that northern speech is 'scharp, slitting, and frotynge [grating] and unschape [ill-formed],' giving this as one of the reasons why Northerners live far away from the court. This negative and very much subjective attitude towards non-Standard English dialects is still with us today.

However, the rise of a Standard variety did help to create a fixed spelling for most words. Even so, it wasn't until the 1700s, with the publication of the first dictionaries, that English spelling and punctuation truly began to be fixed.

Vocabulary changes

From the time of Caxton at the end of the 1400s to about 1650, there was a renewed interest in the Classical languages and literature, and in the rapidly developing fields of science, medicine and the arts. This period was later to be called the ‘Renaissance’ which means ‘rebirth’ in French (Crystal, 2003.)

The effects of these new perspectives soon made a mark on the English language. A huge influx of new words entered the language, most of which were from Latin, with a good number from Greek, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.

Some contemporary writers embraced the influx of loanwords, believing them to enrich the language. There were many translations of Classical works from Latin or Greek during the 16^th century, and some translators simply borrowed a word from Latin or Greek when they could not find an English equivalent. Some even felt that English was not a suitable language for the expression of this new learning, believing it to be a language fit for the street and the tavern, but not for the library.

 

No English past this point, please.

There were, of course, purists who believed the influx of foreign words to be a bad thing. They opposed the new so-called ‘inkhorn’ terms and condemned them for being obscure and for interfering with the development of native English vocabulary.

I can understand why people may have been concerned about the flood of foreign words entering the English language, with no apparent sign of abating. But purist opinion did not stem the influx of new words. English is hardly on the verge of destruction simply because it has borrowed a great deal of words from foreign languages!

As it happens, by the year 1700, the rate of borrowing from other languages did slow down dramatically. This is probably tied in with the fact that English was becoming the main language of learning, pushing out Latin and French. Also, with the Renaissance finally coming to an end, there was less of a need to borrow new terms from other languages.

Grammatical and sound changes

If we were to be transported back to the early 1600s, and we had to somehow communicate with our ancestors in order to find our way back to the 21^st century, we would have a few problems understanding the people at the time. True, they spoke essentially the same language as we do, but a number of important changes have happened since then:

Do-support

In present-day English, the verb do is sometimes used as an auxiliary. It is obligatory in certain yes/no questions and in negative statements. Consider the examples below:

Do you know the way to London?

I don’t know.

Before the dawn of Early Modern English, do was never used in such a way. The equivalent sentences would have been constructed like this:

Knowest thou the way to London?

I know not.

In the 1611 King James Bible, do-support is never used, which reflects the archaic style of language employed by the translators. By contrast, Shakespeare (1564-1616) uses both constructions, and by 1700, do-support became standard (Crystal, 2003.)

I am walking

In Modern English, verbs have a progressive aspect that is used to mark an ongoing or continuous action. It's comprised of the verb to be plus the -ing form of the verb; for example, I am going to the shops. This contrasts with the simple present: I go to the shops means that I go shopping on a regular basis, but I'm not there right now. 

The progressive aspect was only developed towards the end of the Early Modern English period. Before then, the be + -ing construction was rare, and when it was used, it had a passive sense. The house is building could mean 'the house is being built' (Lass, 1999.)

The loss of ‘thee’ and ‘thou’

Early Modern English contrasts two types of second person pronouns: thou (thee is for the object of the verb; thy is the possessive form), and ye (you was originally the object of the verb; your is the possessive form.)

This is what most people think of when they hear the word 'thou'

In Old English, þū (thou) and its related forms were used for addressing one person, whereas ye was used for addressing more than one person. 

During Middle English, the distinction between thou and ye changed into one of politeness and familiarity. Thou was used to address a friend, or somebody of lower rank or status, while ye was used to address a superior, or a group of people. This is much like the tu/vous distinction in French, which it was probably influenced by.

Even in Shakespeare’s time, the distinction between thou and you was still robust (eventually, ‘ye’ died out completely, leaving ‘you’ as the sole plural or polite pronoun.) But, by the turn of the 17^th century, the use of thou was becoming increasingly contemptuous, and its use began to decline sharply after that. 

Now, English just has one second person pronoun, you. Standard English is, in fact, one of few languages that does not distinguish between singular and plural second person pronouns. However, a number of English dialects do make such a distinction: you and yous in Liverpool and Irish; you and y’all in Southern American dialects.

The put-putt split

Today, one clear indicator that somebody comes from the North of England is their pronunciation of the vowel in cup and love. For Northerners, the vowel in cup and love is identical to that in put and butcher. Everywhere else (except in Southern Ireland), the vowels in cup and love have a more open quality, and are clearly different from put and butcher.

Northerners do in fact preserve the older pronunciation. The distinction in the South between cup and love on one hand and put and butcher on the other developed in the 17^th century. Even in the South, the older pronunciation was retained before a labial consonant, such as /p/, /b/ and /w/, which is the reason why put, butcher and wolf still retain the older pronunciation, but cup and love do not.

This distinction is known as the put-putt split, because most English speakers have a different vowel in put and putt, but those from the North of England retain the older pronunciation in both words.

The Great Vowel Shift

I had to mention the Great Vowel Shift (GVS), simply because it made such a profound difference to the pronunciation of certain vowels in English. I have already written an article on the GVS, which you can read here.

One point to note is that the GVS was not instantaneous; after all, it took the best part of 300 years to complete. In Shakespeare’s time, at the turn of the 1600s, the GVS was very much underway, but not fully complete. Some vowels were pronounced differently to how we would pronounce them today.

Shakespeare would have pronounced the <a> in pale and nature like the <e> in bed, but it was longer. The vowel in about and now would have been similar to the RP pronunciation of boat; in fact, Canadian English still preserves this archaic pronunciation. Furthermore, the <ea> in meat would have been pronounced in a similar way to how we would say mate.

English spelling has not kept up with various changes in pronunciation that have occurred in the last 600 years, which is one of the reasons why it is so unintuitive.

Early Modern English texts

Several texts illustrate the linguistic transition from Middle to Early Modern English. The profusion of miracle and mystery plays, preserved in several 15^th century manuscripts, provide a good snapshot of what Early Modern English was like.

The King James Bible (also known as the Authorised Version), published in 1611, exercised enormous influence on the development of Modern English, although it is worth noting that it was itself influenced by several existing Bible translations, all produced during the 16^th century.

Tyndale's New Testament of 1525, revised in 1534, was the first English vernacular Biblical text to be printed, and the basis for most subsequent translations, including the Authorised version.

Here is a short extract of the New Testament (Matthew 5:1-10) in the Authorised version:

And seeing the multitudes, he went vp into a mountaine: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him. And he opened his mouth, and taught them saying, Blessed are the poore in spirit: for theirs is the kingdome of heauen. Blessed are they that mourne: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meeke: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which doe hunger and thirst after righteousnesse: for they shall be filled. Blessed are they mercifull: for they shall obtaine mercie. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall bee called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesse sake: for theirs is the kingdome of heauen.

There are some points to note: 

In this translation, the distinction between <u> and <v> in spelling is not like it is now. At that time, <u> and <v> were not distinguished as separate letters. Instead, <v> was used at the beginning of a word, and <u> was used elsewhere. 

This doesn’t mean that people didn’t distinguish the sound represented by <u> and <v> in pronunciation, but instead, <v> was simply regarded as the consonantal version of <u>.

The Authorised Version is generally close in spelling to present-day English and it is generally not difficult to understand, although it is clearly archaic in style.

Even at the time it was written, the language of the Authorised Version was conservative. The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(e)th, in comparison with –s, which is now the standard ending. Some archaic words are found, such as brethren, kine [cows] and twain.

Shakespeare

No discussion of Early Modern English would be complete without giving mention to a certain William Shakespeare, a man whose name still evokes dread and heart palpitations in Secondary School children in Britain and beyond.

 

Great to see that Shakespeare is taking part in Movember this year.

William Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616. He wrote countless plays and poems at a time when the English language was less standardized than it is now. Along with the King James Bible, William Shakespeare was surely one of the most important influences on the development of the language towards the end of the Renaissance. His works provide a great insight into the characteristics of English at the time.

This is not to say that Shakespeare changed the English language to a massive degree; to an extent, he merely reflected the changes that were happening at the time, although as many as 2,000 words were first recorded in writing by Shakespeare (Jucker, 2000.) Many of these neologisms (new words) are still in use today. He probably didn't coin all of these 2,000 or so words, but we was the first to bring them into wide circulation. 

Some examples are accommodation, assassination, barefaced, countless, courtship, dislocate, dwindle, eventful, lacklustre, laughable, premeditated and submerged.

He also adapted a great deal of words from Latin and Greek; in other cases, he formed new verbs out of nouns. He even introduced some new idiomatic expressions which are still with us today. Examples include:

What the dickens (The Merry Wives of Windsor), a foregone conclusion (Othello), salad days (Antony and Cleopatra), cold comfort (King John), it’s Greek to me (Julius Caesar), with bated breath (Merchant of Venice), love is blind (Merchant of Venice.)

Without a doubt, Shakespeare’s plays and poems are very interesting for linguists. They provide a great deal of insight into the way that English was developing at the time. His influence on the vocabulary and idioms still in use today cannot be underestimated, either.

Conclusion

To summarise, the surviving English texts from the end of the 15^th century bear a close resemblance to the varieties of English that are in use today. However, there are a number of important differences in grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and spelling that separate Early Modern English from present-day English. By 1700, though, English has more or less reached its modern form, but it has not stopped changing.

My next article will be the final instalment in the series (but don't worry, I won't stop blogging!) The final article in the series will detail the changes that have happened to English in the last 300 years. I will give special mention to the development of different varieties of English following the conquest of the New World and beyond. Stay tuned to find out why I don’t believe that American English is a corrupted version of British English!

Footnotes 

1 - Of course, some 'weird' place names such as Leominster, Bicester and Leicester would, at one time, have been pronounced as they are spelt. It's not as if someone threw a load of alphabet spaghetti at a wall to decide on the spelling of the place, although it certainly seems that way sometimes.

References

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Jucker, A. (2000) History of English and English Historical Linguistics. Ernst Klett Verlag: Stuttgart

Lass, R. (1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge