History of the English Language Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays

History of the English Language Name Institution Date The main point of consideration for the nature of language, more precisely the notion of language change dates back hundreds of years ago. By 1822, German philosophers, particularly Humboldt began to study intensely about grammar attempted to write its history. Such was the significance of Humboldt ideas that the speculation about the beginning of grammar was viewed as the most erudite contemplations in the field of linguistics. Towards the end of nineteenth century a distinct practice in the study of Grammaticalization had been recognized, but lacked the right terminology. A thought-provoking version of the roots of Grammaticalization practices, as well as their development, can be found in the study of grammar George Von er Gabelentz (1891) a German neo-grammarian. Several decades later, a French linguist known as Antoine Meillet devised the word "Grammaticalization". Meillet’s contribution to the study of grammar has been extensive to the creation of the Grammaticalization theory (1912). Meillet was the first to recognize the significance of grammaticalisation as a fundamental region of language change. He also described exactly how new grammatical forms developed, largely, through two dissimilar mechanisms. Analogy and reanalysis are the two recognized mechanisms in Grammaticalization process. Analogy comprises of relatively new features which come into being through connections to already existing ones. On the other hand, Reanalysis comprises of a variation in the structure of an expression that does not affect any instant or intrinsic adjustment of its superficial manifestation (Meillet, 1912). According to Hopper and Traugott (1993) grammaticalization is a linguistic phenomenon which has existed in linguistic history, and should be considered as diachronic instead of synchronic, although it is quite problematic to explain for all the vicissitudes that have come about in different linguistic since because there are no written accounts of ancient languages which have slowly ebbed out by newer and complex languages. Grammaticalization mainly looks at the way grammar is shaped, the how some aspects transform and become normal in real language speaking. Therefore, Grammaticalization is continuously going through diverse fluctuations over time. That is, some lexemes change their meaning while others are created or activated. Small groups lose their meaning, role and usage in language (Gabelentz, 1891). Grammaticalisation is a process whereby original purpose words are created in a language. This arises from the reanalysis of content words or less abstract function words. As a consequence, these words are gradually assimilated into the grammar of language thus the term grammaticalisation. Therefore, ‘will’ in the Modern English was grammaticalised out of the content word in Early Middle English ‘willan’ which means ‘to want’ (Hopper & Traugott 1993). The Modern French negator pas grammaticalised from the Old French content word pas which means ‘step’ (Hopper and Traugott, 1993). There was a renaissance that took place in the grammaticalisation theory that transpired in the middle of the 20th century driven by grammarian researchers. The increase of interest in the field linguistics especially grammar, nevertheless, led to deviation in the major interest of researchers involved in grammaticalisation. The most perceptible split was between those who, such as Traugott and Heine, still conceptualize grammaticalisation as largely a diachronic occurrence, and those who, like Givón and Thompson, re-interpret grammaticalisation as a synchronic occurrence, interconnecting discourse and morph syntax (Frisch, 1997). Grammaticalisation is very important in very many ways in the field of linguistics. The process of grammaticalisation expresses copious ways of explicating different grammatical concepts that normally occur now and again across all languages across a certain period of development of languages. Quirk and Greenbaun (1973) contend that many scholars in the field of linguistic project that extensive study of grammaticalisation may, in future, reveal a lot more about how human beings hypothesize the world and internally represent abstract concepts. Second, the study of the concept of grammaticalisation is very important because it tends to exhibit an even directionality alongside several clines; that is, from the most complex to the more abstract, linguistically independent to the more linguistically dependent and from explicitly defined linguistic classes to de-categorization in which the lexeme has a larger affiliation of various minor linguistic classes. The reappearance of these categorizing features has been the emphasis of Lehmann’s work on grammaticalisation (Larrivée and Ingham, R. 2011). Third, the process of grammaticalisation follows the Gradualist Model of Linguistic Change. Consequently, the grammaticalisation process challenges the cogency of most synchronicity models of language that insists on distinct grammatical categories. The theory of Grammaticalisation is open to the possibility of more fuzzy concepts of categorization and the cline instead of the binary opposition as a classification tool. In essence, it opposes the Saussurean deadlock and allows diachronic as an expounding stricture in synchronic grammar. Fourth, grammaticalisation can be considered as a synchronic tool, connecting discourse with morphosyntax. It comes in handy as it seeks to provide a means of assimilating pragmatics into the history of linguistic forms. This shades light on diachronic linguistics that extends the explanatory tool available to it, as well as synchronic linguistics (Larrivée and Ingham, R. 2011). The development of the modal verbs Middle English is the language which was spoken and written in Britain between 1150 and 1550. The dates stated are only expedient milestones but there is no link solution for the development of any language. Nonetheless, if comparison is made, the set of characteristics showing texts engraved during the Middle English age to those from the previous ages, differences are noticeable (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Wim van der Wurff, and Gruyter, 1999). The constructions that define the category of auxiliary developed through a set of grammaticalisation changes that were not necessarily related to another. The Modal Verbs that have endured into Modern English are could, must, should, may, will, would, can, might and shall. Additionally, two verbs, that is, need and dare, are used both as main verbs and modal auxiliaries throughout their histories. The defining features of modal auxiliaries are that they invert with subject in questions and a few other contexts, they take the negative directly after them and they have no third singular inflection in the present tense. Trudgill and Jean Hannah, (1982) contend that the present day Modern English contains a set of auxiliaries with more or less clearly defined properties. Older stages of English development are distinctly different. While perfective have and passive and progressive be were presumably auxiliaries in Old English and Middle English, periphrastic do had not yet been incorporated or recognized as modal. Modal verbs had quite a number of morph syntactic features that made them look more like main verbs than helping verbs (auxiliaries) during the Middle English period. The Middle English inflections morphology of modals indicates that they had some range of verb inflections, certainly more than the Early Modern English and Modern English. Middle English modals where there was a mixture of main verb and auxiliary properties. This change was occasioned by the process of grammaticalisation but scholars did not know the process. The Middle English age can be characterized as one that witnessed the improvement of a number of periphrastic verb forms to express modality and aspect. This development is also due to the process of grammaticalisation. The quasi-modals are a set of periphrastic constructions complementing the core modals and occurring in main-verb contexts. These are have to, be going to and be able to. All the stated verbs; could, must, should, may, will, would, can, might and shall except for will were Preterit-Present verbs, a term which refers to the conjugational patter in which the Present tense actually has the pattern of a Strong verb Past (or Preterit) tense and the Past tense is based on the Weak verb pattern (that involves –d-). Many of the Preterit-Present verbs had meanings that commonly enter grammaticalisation paths that lead to modal of future meanings: sceal ‘be obligated, owe’, maeg ‘have power’, cann ‘know’, dearr ‘dare’ and moste ‘can, must.’ In Middle English, they could be used as the main finite verb of the clause or with another main verb. Over time, the latter use became more frequent and their ability to occur as main verbs was lost. However, it is important to note that this happened at different times for each modal and was related to the gradual loss of lexical meaning, that is, the grammaticalisation can be seen in shall and will, for though they both eventually express future meaning, shall grammaticalised much earlier than will (Bybee and Pagliuca, 1987). May and can are also in the same sematic domain (of ability and possibilit), but may takes on epistemic meaning by Early Modern English, while can has yet to reach that stage (Bybee, 1994). In addition, the periphrastic Perfect, which had its origins in a resultative construction in Old English, continued its grammaticalisation through to the Middle English. Even though in Early Modern English it occurred in only about 5% of clauses, it still contributes to the number of clauses that have an auxiliary element in addition to a main verb. Therefore, the grammaticalisation of the modals and the Perfect led to a situation in which more and more clauses had an auxiliary element (Bybee, 1994). The development of the English system of negation in Middle English and Early Modern English Between the Middle English and the Early Modern English eras, some variations took place in the organization of syntactical negation. In Old English and Middle English, the negative adverb was ne, which was normally placed before the finite verb. Negation could also be expressed by indefinite pronouns such as nan, napping, nafre none, nothing never, but in that case the negative adverb ne was still usually present (this phenomenon is called multiple negation or negative concord). It was possible to use a more emphatic form of negation in Old English, by no means, not all’, by combining ne with na ‘never’, or naht (from nawiht ‘nothing’). Na and Naht could both precede and follow ne although the latter is more frequent (Wallage, 2007). Trudgill et al advance that In Old English and Early Modern English, emphatic negative ne…naht (na appears here quite quickly) begun to be utilized repeatedly and can no longer be considered to be truly emphatic. In Early Middle English, naht has also acquired a fixed position; it now, practically without exception, follows ne and is placed after the finite verb. In the course of Middle English period, ne…naht (also…nat, nought, not etc) becomes the regular negator. Since ne was now generally assisted by naht, it could be dropped (cf. the similar dropping of ne in the combination ne…pas in present day colloquial French). This indeed was the situation in the Late Middle English: nat/not has become the common negator while ne (which still occurs) and ne…not have become infrequent (1982). Bybee (1994) reasons that the subordinate negator na in Middle English had two main purposes. Negation in Old English was used by the unstressed negative particle ne just before the verb. In Early Modern English, unstressed ne was strengthened by an emphatic form which had advanced from an Old English strengthening periphrasis, nawiht/noht ‘not at all’. This newfangled form, not/nat, immediately preceded the tense verb in the clause, and after some time, with the omission of the weak form ne, not/nat developed to be the normal aspect of negation. Therefore, in clauses encompassing the developing set of helping verbs, the Middle English construction has been preserved in Middle English and Early Modern English. However, since the fifteenth century, a new method with auxiliary does developed as a morphological indicator of person and tense in negative, questioning and commanding sentences where no other auxiliary verbs was used. Consequently, essentially, all through the Early Modern English epoch, there was an option between negating with do immediately followed by the particle not preceding the main verb and negating with the adverbial form not following the verb. “Moreover, a third hybrid pattern with not preceding the base form of the verb and without the aid of periphrastic do appeared as a sort of transition between the two stages mentioned above. The following are examples of texts from Middle English and Early Modern English. Ne parf pu naut dreden pt attri neddre of helle Not need you not fear the venomous snake from hell You do not fear the venomous snake from hell Nule nawt pi leofmon poli na leas ping ta lihe pe longe Not-will not your beloved tolerate no false thing to deceive you ‘Your beloved will not allow any false thing to deceive you for long’ (Perez, 1997). The foregoing in the Early Modern English shows that the position of noht/nawt (later referred to as not) is the same as that of na in Old English. To sum up, it is claimed that four non-temporal functions of never are a consequence of three distinct inventions. First, never grammaticalized in Old English or Middle English as an indicator of syntactical negation constrained to verbs of ‘cognition and imperatives.’ there is little proof to sustenance Cheshire’s (1998) proposal that Modern English colloquial use of never is a continuance of this situation (Perez, 1997). The table below shows a summary of the evolution of the system of negation for non-auxiliary verbs in English OE ME eModE ModE ne+V ne+V V+not Do+not+V ne+ V+not not+V Do+not+V Bibliography Bybee, J. & Pagliuca, W. (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and Modality in the Languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Frisch, S. (1997). The change in negation in Middle English: a NEGP licensing account. Lingua Gabelentz, G. (1891) Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, C. (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Larrivée, P and Ingham, R. (2011).The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Hague: Walter de Gruyter. Meillet, A. (1912) 'L´évolution des formes gramaticales. Scientia (rivista di Scienza)' 12, No. 26, 6. Reprinted in Meillet 1958, 130-48. Pérez, J. (1997).The use of periphrastic do in Early Modern English negative declaratives: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Sederi VIII (1997) Quirk, R., Greenbaun, S. (1973) A University Grammar of English. England: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Wallage, P. (2007) Jespersen’s cycle in Middle English: parametric variation and grammatical competition. Lingua 118:643-674. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I., Wim van der Wurff, G., and Gruyter, W. (1999). Negation in the History of English. Hague: Walter de Gruyter. Trudgill, Peter & Jean Hannah. (1982) International English: A guide to varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold. Read More

History of the English Language - Essay Example

Extract of sample "History of the English Language"