1

Early Modern English Spelling: introductory notes • capitalization

• 16th c: affected certain classes of nouns only: • personifications, names of animals and plants, minerals • the arts and sciences • religions and their institutions • cosmological and geographical terms • expressions relating to royalty and the state • occupations • kinship terms • foreign words not fully anglicized

• in 17th century • any noun, verb or adjective might be capitalized • important terms were often capitalized and printed in a different typeface (‘emphasis’) • some cases difficult to account for • the heyday after the Civil War (1660-1750), rapid decline after 1750

• graphemes and allographs:

• complementary and predictable distribution – e.g. two different lower-case shapes of : • <u> : <v>: naturall, sauing, vtter, voyces

• xx as graphemes after 1630 • <i> : <j>: a similar distinction introduced between 1630 and 1640

• medieval practice continued in the use of abbreviations: yt and ye ; for nasals and the Latin prefixes (con- spelled as cõ)

Features inherited from LME and their development in EModE • ME spelling is variable and somewhat unsystematic – as the result

• of a mixture of native and Anglo-Norman traditions • of the lack of a written norm

• more consistent conventions emerged in London scriptoria in the late 14th century • these formed the basis for Chancery documents after 1430 and for the manuscript productions flourishing in

15th century London • most features of this tradition found their way into early printing • xx spelling is often more variable in early prints than it is in ‘good’ Mss

• due to the fact that most of the early printers were foreigners (even Caxton’s compositors) • 15th century spelling conventions:

• multiple representation of a single phoneme (e.g. [e:] spelt ee, e, ie; [´:] spelt ea, ei, ee, e xxx <ea> introduced in the 15th century and was well established by 1520-1550 when <oa> was introduced1

• ambiguity of some graphemes and grapheme combinations ([u:] [øu] both spelt <ou>) • consonants: their representation less diverse and less inconsistent:

• every consonant pronounced was also written and almost every consonant written was pronounced (at least in the early part of the century): wrought, knight

• throughout the EModE period there was some choice among possible spellings: ynough, ynoughe, enoff, yenough, eno’, enouch, enufe etc.

• xx by 1700, one of such had become conventional – but not always the most ‘logical’ one • probably due to the influence of immensely popular spelling books (which allowed only one

spelling per word) • the preferred spellings were largely the same as those prevalent in the Bible (AV)

1 Since <oa> is more recent, it is much less frequent. – In the 15th century <ie> taken over from French to represent ME [e:] – occurs mainly in words of French origin but not exclusively (chief, field).

2

• ‘correct’ spelling enjoyed much prestige • xx spelling in private letters, diaries etc. remains quite variable throughout, even though in the 17th

century (though much less than in the 16th century) Functions of final -<e> • the loss of the final <\> in bisyllabic words made the e-spelling appear to be arbitrary and optional from

around 1400 • reinterpretation for new functions - (xx they overlapped and thus created new ambiguities):

1. interpreted as an indication of vowel length and transferred to words such as case, life *new ambiguity: writen → <written> (ridden, rotten, gladder)2

2. prince, plunge, breathe: the ambiguity, then as now, of some consonantal graphemes <c, g, th> favoured the retention of -<e> to mark the quality as [s, dΩ, ð]

3. final -<e> also came • to distinguish inflexional –s from word-final /s/: dense • to prevent <i, u/v, z and sometimes o> from occurring at the end of words (lie, toe, glue,

love, freeze)

• occasionally -<e> carries 2 functions at once (grace, mice, oblige, drive, haze) • produces homographs (live, use) • serves different functions in similar words (love, grove, move) • there are a few cases of ‘functionless -<e>’ surviving from the time when it was optional (come,

infinite, separate) Graphemes representing consonants • <i/j>: the functional distinction dates back to 1630-40

• new <j> (= [dΩ]) replaced older <i> in iolly, iudge etc. • <s/z> all attempts to distinguish were inconsistent:

• <z> always stood for [z] • <s> could stand for both • this produced homographs (house, use) or alternative spellings (-ise/-ize)

• EModE sound changes did not normally affect the spelling xx we have draught xx draft, light xx lit Spelling reform 1. Alphabets are based on the principle of an unambiguous correlation between phonemes and graphemes. 2. Whether this system should be strictly enforced, or other considerations (morphology, etymology) should

also play a part, can be answered in different ways. 3. Even where a new orthography is based on the phonemic structure, sound changes (sound shifts; but

particularly conditioned changes, mergers and splits) will lead to a gradual drifting apart: the correlation between the two levels is grievously disturbed.

4. How (phonemically) adequate a spelling system is can be judged on the basis of the number of ambiguities. 5. The attempts at reforming English spelling (Orrm as an isolated forerunner) provide detailed information

• on inadequacies of the spelling then in use • on the phonemic system of the reformer’s idiolect • on his attitude towards language

6. Proposals for reform became frequent in the 16th century when English had grown into a written standard language and when the effects of the Great Vowel Shift made the clashes between spelling and pronunciation especially conspicuous (problem of one–to-one relation between phonemes and graphemes that occurred almost consistently in Latin and Italian)

7. Problem of domestication of loanwords: it was obvious that the spelling must be regulated before the syntax and the lexicon could be tackled (e.g. problem of ordering dictionary entries)

2 This development explains the alternative spellings sonne, potte (for son, pot), which were a welcome aid to compositors before 1640 in adjusting right-hand margins.

3

• Five reformers deserve to be singled out for the quality of their suggestions: John Cheke (1514-1557) • humanist and philologist • the reform based on his reflection on the correct pronunciation of ancient Greek • translation of the Gospels (Text 1) • vowel length by duplication • inconsistent John Hart (d. 1574): An Orthografie (1569) • the most important phonetician of the 16th century England • his aim: an international phonetic alphabet • it would make it easier for English speakers to read their own language • for dialect speakers to acquire the standard • for anyone to learn foreign languages • he deplored

• the insufficient number of graphemes in E • the writing of some letters that had no equivalent in pronunciation • etymological spellings (= loanwords ought also to be integrated orthographically) • unnecessary distinctions in the writing of homophones (the disambiguating force of the context)

• digraphs should not be used for single phonemes but can be used to represent diphthongs • consonants: • <th> and <g> for [dΩ] should be abolished • [k, g, tß, dΩ, †, ð, Ω] should be represented unambiguously • he enlarged the number of graphemes by modifying the existing ones • made no use of letters of <c, q, y, w3> nor of the allographs of <s, r> • vowel length indicated by subscript dot • his proposal too radical to be accepted William Bullokar (c. 1530 – 1609) • opposed new graphemes introduced by Hart • preferred modifications of existing letters by accents, ligatures (ph, th, wh, ch, sh), modified letters for

syllabic /l, m, n, r, s/ • a complicated system xx did not succeed in rendering all the phonemic and allophonic distinctions Richard Mulcaster (1530-1611) • one of the greatest pedagogues • comprehensive effort: suggested by the title of his book The First Part of the Elementarie (1582) • did not see any urgent need for a reform • the spelling he used in his book had a considerable impact on contemporary spelling books: • each word was given one spelling, used consistently • this was usually the one that passed into ModE (if we disregard the later systematic changes, e.g. u/v, i/j,

etc.) Alexander Gil (1564/5 – 1635) • Mulcaster’s successor as headmaster o St. Paul’s school London (Milton one of his pupils) • Logonomia (1619, 2nd ed. 1621), a great grammar of English in Latin • passages quoted in English: an attempt at a thoroughly phonemic spelling based on the pronunciation of

educated speakers) • 2nd ed.: used digraphs and dieresis for vowel length

3 Hart classified /j/, /w/ as vowels.

4

• added letters from other alphabets • slight inconsistence: the retention of etymological spellings, distinction of homophones • with him, a series of proposals in which attempts were made to base spelling systems consistently on

pronunciation came to an end: as early as 1582, Mulcaster judged the situation realistically: “The vse & custom of our cuntrie, hath allredie chosen a kinde of penning”

• after 1630-40 the stabilized conventions of printers succeeded where scholarly effort had failed: they established in practice a set of rules, though not of course the kind of consistent system the reformers had hoped for

Later Corrections • spelling of suffixes (-all, -ick, -or) • spelling of individual words affected by the following factors: • the distinction of homophones – not very many cases (waste/waist, whole/hole, flower/flour, metal/mettle • uniformity within groups of etymologically related words • in some cases – e.g. receipt, deceit – this was not carried out consistently4

• phonetic spelling (jail for gaol) Etymological Spellings • a great number of loanwords had been introduced from French in ME times • many of these had been subject to French sound changes but still remained recognizable as descending from

Latin words • the prestige of Latin being what it was in the Renaissance it was only natural that many of these loans were

‘corrected’ from the Latin etymon • there was evidently little resistance to such etymologizing (*Mulcaster) • since such corrections had started in 14/15th century French, it is not always clear whether a Latinized form

is due to French or to ‘native’ English humanistic efforts • some uncorrected forms: marchaunt, descryue, auantage • xx the new spelling was not, in all cases, the one that was historically more correct: ME autour (< L

auctor): EModE autour, auctour, author • different results in different standards: English and Scots

• Hart’s comparison: Some thinke Scottish speach more auncient Englishe than as we now speake here in England, yet there is no liuing English man, so much affected to write his English as they doe Scottish, which they write as they speake, and that in manye wordes, more neare the Latine, from whence both we and they doe deriue them, as fruct for fruit, and fructfull for fruitfull, disponed for disposed or distributed, humely for humbly, nummer for number, pulder for pouder, saluiour for sauiour, and compt for account, and diuerse others, wherein we pronounce not those letters which they do, & therfore write them not as reason is. Yet in others we do excéede with them, as the b in doubt, c and h in aucthoritie, l in souldiour, o in people, s in baptisme, p in corps, and in condempned, and certain like.

Spelling pronunciation 1. Pronunciations patterned on spelling

• example: author (see above) • especially with (place) names: Southwell, Southwark, Cirencester

2. Motives: • the increasing uses of the written medium after 1500 • the belief that the written standard form is the most correct and prestigious variety of English • the increasing influence of the schools brought spelling and pronunciation closer together, the spelling

most affecting the pronunciation of a particular word 4 Johnson (1755): „I have been often obliged to sacrifice uniformity to custom: thus I write, in compliance with a numberless majority, convey and inveigh, deceit and receipt, fancy and phantom…“

John Hart’s An Orthographie (1569)

5

Our Father in Cheke’s and Hart’s spelling system

6