- •Contents
- •List of Figures
- •List of Tables
- •List of Symbols and Conventions
- •Acknowledgements
- •Introduction
- •1. English as a Changing Language
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Sound Change
- •1.3 Lexical Change
- •1.4 Semantic Change
- •1.5 Morphological Change
- •1.6 Syntactic Change
- •1.7 Study Questions
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 The Roots of English and Proto-Indo-European
- •2.3 Meeting the Ancestors I
- •2.4 Meeting the Ancestors II
- •2.5 Study Questions
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Social History
- •3.3 Anglo-Saxon Literature
- •3.4 The Language of Old English
- •3.6 Study Questions
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Social History
- •4.3 Middle English Literature
- •4.4 The Language of Middle English
- •4.5 Contact and Change: Middle English Creolization?
- •4.6 Study Questions
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Social History
- •5.3 Early Modern English Literature
- •5.4 The Language of Early Modern English
- •5.5 Contact and Change: English in Barbados
- •5.6 Study Questions
- •6. Modern English, 1700 onwards
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 The Eighteenth Century and the Rise of the Prescriptive Tradition
- •6.4 The Twenty-First Century and Beyond: Where Will English Boldly Go?
- •6.5 Conclusion
- •6.6 Study Questions
- •Bibliography
- •Index
Early Modern English, 1500–1700 173
indeed, laying the foundations for the new directions of change the language would follow. We will look more closely at the development of these ideas of language and nation in the modern period in Chapter 6.
5.6Study Questions
1.In light of our earlier observation that thou and you not only marked relationships of status and solidarity but also had the potential to express a range of feeling and emotion, consider the movement between thou and you forms in Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV. How do the switches between thou and you contribute to the effect of the exchanges between speakers? Useful reading: Brown and Gilman (1960), Barber (1981), Mulholland (1967).
2.Thou and you have disappeared from everyday English use as indicators of status and solidarity. Have we substituted them with other markers? If so, do the same levels of multi-dimensional usage hold for these new indicators? (You might want to consider here, for example, the use of address terms.)
3.The following excerpt is a translation from the Authorized Version (1611) of the passage in Chapter 4, question (5).
(69) Now Peter sate without in the palace: and a damosell came vnto him, saying, Thou also wast with Iesus of Galilee. (70) But hee denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou seist. (71) And when he was gone out into the porch, another maide saw him, and saide vnto them that were there, This fellow was also with Iesus of Nazareth.
a.What characteristic EModE features are displayed here?
b.Compare the passage to the Middle English version in Chapter 4, question 5. What changes have taken place?
Notes
1.Edward Brathwaite coined this term in relation to creole languages as a positive expression of their role as linguistically and socio-politically native tongues for their speech communities.
2.For discussion of regional and social lects in the EModE period, see Görlach (1991) and Barber (1997).
3.The use of rhymes as evidence for pronunciation needs to be considered in the context of the poet’s general practice. For example, if the poet is one who frequently used features such as
‘eye rhymes’ (that is, words which correspond visually but not phonetically, such as heard beard), then conclusions about pronunciation can be undermined.
4.A school of linguistics based on the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure. See McMahon (1994) for an accessible discussion of Structuralist principles.
5.In indentureship schemes, participants are contracted to work for landowners or leaseholders for a stated period, following which they became entitled to a land grant themselves.
6.See Singh (2000), Sebba (1997), Holm (1988), Mufwene (2001), Chaudenson (2001) for details on creolization.