Free variation and other myths: interpreting historical English spelling.(Critical Essay)

Publication: Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: international review of English Studies

Publication Date: 06-AUG-02

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2002 Adam Mickiewicz University Press

ABSTRACT

The paper considers the interpretation of orthographic variation in Middle English texts, focussing on the question to what extent it is justifiable to use such variation as phonological evidence. It is suggested that all written variation, except when directly conditioned by orthographic context, is the result of clashes between two or more linguistic systems. This hypothesis is tried out on a text with notoriously variable spelling: the version of Lazamon's Brut found in London, British Library Cotton Caligula A ix.

1. The problem: Making the dead speak

This paper is an attempt to combine two pursuits that have so far largely been kept separate: the reconstruction of early English phonology and the study of Middle English texts in the tradition of the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (McIntosh, Samuels and Benskin 1986, henceforth LALME). The LALME methodology is based on studying the written language in its own right, without reference to the spoken mode; this restriction is essential for the initial analysis and classification of Middle English scribal texts. However, if we wish to produce an account of the Middle English language, including phonology, that takes advantage of the enormous advances in the field made possible by LALME, it becomes necessary to combine the two approaches. It is such a situation, relating to work on the Middle English Grammar Project, (1) that underlies the concerns of the present paper.

Grammars of Middle English, especially comprehensive ones meant for scholarly reference, have not appeared in large numbers. One reason is, it may be assumed, the linguistic variability of Middle English. While variation between texts makes the period an interesting one for linguistic study, it also makes writing a grammar a complex task. The variation within texts has been seen as an even more fundamental problem. As most Middle English texts were copied and recopied by scribes, it has been common to assume a kind of Chinese Whispers effect, every copyist contributing to an even more complex mixture. (2)

To produce a Grammar of Middle English at the present time is a task very different from that faced by earlier grammarians. While modern database technology does not speed up the collection of data, it makes possible much more powerful ways of searching and analysing them. In addition, there are numerous giants on whose shoulders we can stand, and important methodological advances have made possible a more efficient use of the available data. These advances are, above all, connected with LALME and its daughter project, the Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English (henceforth LAEME). (3)

The methodology developed in connection with LALME has revolutionised Middle English studies in at least two respects. First of all, it has radically changed ideas about scribal contamination. It was shown by Angus McIntosh (1963 [1989], 1973 [1989]: 61) and, later, in a seminal account by Benskin and Laing (1981) that Middle English scribes were capable both of copying quite faithfully and of translating into their own dialect. At the same time, the development of variationist linguistics has changed ideas about variability, making it a natural and analysable aspect of language.

Secondly, the LALME methodology was based on the direct study of written language in its own right. This was found to show regionally significant variation, independent of speech, and accessible without the conjectures required in historical phonology. (4) On this basis, it was possible to build up a typological framework that allowed the localisation of more than a thousand Late Middle English texts, (5) each shown to be dialectally consistent.

It might seem to be a straightforward matter to combine these resources with database technology, and to produce a full description of Middle English based on electronic searches. As far as describing Middle English orthography is concerned, the procedure is indeed relatively simple, assuming that enough time and manpower are available for entering the data. The challenges mainly relate to practical analytical procedures, such as using a sensible classification system and designing a database that makes possible an efficient analysis of the spellings.

Matters become more complicated as soon as we go beyond the purely descriptive level. In order to explain or interpret spelling patterns, reference to the spoken mode becomes necessary, and once we wish to consider how the spelling maps on to Middle English phonology, there are considerable theoretical problems involved. How these are to be solved depends largely on our view of the relationship between writing and speech.

There are two main theoretical traditions as regards writing and speech: one that sees writing essentially as a way of encoding speech and another that sees writing and speech as two parallel, largely autonomous systems. These two approaches have sometimes been called "relational" and "autonomistic" respectively (Sgall 1987: 2-3). While the LALME methodology is based on the second one, the first still appears to have considerable currency, especially among theoretical linguists. As the question is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of historical written data, it should be considered from the outset.

2. Man schrieb wie man sprach?

The use of spelling as evidence for the reconstruction of spoken language belongs to the traditional ways of studying historical stages of languages. In a classic article on the methods of historical phonology, Herbert Penzl (1957) considered the following kinds of evidence:

-- Orthographic evidence

-- Orthoepic evidence

-- Metrical evidence

-- Comparative evidence

-- Contact evidence

A similar list is given by Roger Lass (1992: 27-28); reflecting an essential difference in theoretical standpoint, it lacks contact evidence but adds general linguistic theory.

For the Middle English period, spelling is usually considered the most important type of evidence; the others are either by their nature secondary (comparative evidence), very problematic (metrical evidence) or scarce (contact and orthoepic evidence). However, the use of Middle English spelling as phonological evidence is highly problematic in itself in part, this is due to reasons different from those relating to spelling evidence from other periods.

For the most part of the history of English, and the history of many languages, there has been a general model or standard of spelling. For such periods, the conventional nature of the spelling system is obvious, and spellings are not assumed to reflect in detail the speech of the individual writer. The study of spellings then concentrates on changes and aberrations: the introduction of new contrasts, back spellings, occasional or "naive" spellings, and so on.

During the Middle English period, for historical reasons, there was no single model for spelling; as a consequence, there are no occasional spellings, or all spellings might be considered occasional. In such a situation, it may be difficult to distinguish between a spelling that reflects an aspect of pronunciation and one that simply shows varying spelling conventions.

The traditional view has been that Middle English spelling, on the whole, reflects pronunciation. Luick (1921-40: [section] 27) formulated this in a classic statement: (6)

As early as the first half of the twelfth century records emerge which show the break with the old tradition. In the end this tendency prevailed, and one wrote as one spoke. From that time forth, till late in the fourteenth century, all English written records proceed in local dialects.

The assumption in most earlier work on Middle English appears to be that authorial texts as a rule reproduce the "real" spoken dialect of the authors, while the messiness of the majority of surviving texts reflects scribal contamination. The latter view, as noted above, has been modified by the LALME work. The former, on the other hand, has remained largely unproblematized.

A general statement such as "one wrote as one spoke" allows for a wide range of interpretations. Clearly, it matters which level of language we consider: authorial or scribal choices of vocabulary, or of syntactic structure, will depend on factors very different from those involved in spelling cf. Benskin and Laing 1981: 93-96). The present discussion will focus on the levels of spelling and phonology.

Luick's statement may simply be taken to mean that the characteristics of written language produced in a particular area have a connection with the characteristics of the spoken language in the same area. That such regional connections existed in Middle English can hardly be denied. For example, it is not unfair to assume that the general predilection for spelling words like man or ram with an <o> in the West Midland area was related to the common pronunciation of those words in this area, especially as this is supported by twentieth-century dialectal evidence (see e.g. Wakelin 1982).

However, it is one thing to say that written records proceed in local dialects or reflect local dialects, and quite another to treat them as if they were a faithful recording of speech, or as S. R. T. O d'Ardenne put it, "a phonetic transcript from the mouths of peasants (d'Ardenne 1936: 178)". It is not unusual to find examples of what looks like the latter approach in the standard textbooks. Jordan (1968: 51), for example, has the following observation under the treatment of OE ae:

Auch Lay[amon] A. hat etwas helleren Laut als a.

The statement is problematic for various reasons; most obviously, a text cannot have a sound. However, even if hat is...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.