Shakespeare: Putting Words into Mouths

Julianne Palmer
Cynthia Hallen
ELANG 324 sec. 1
1 December 2009
Shakespeare: Putting Words into Mouths
Hamlet is one of the greatest classics from Shakespeare’s time till today. It is recognized for its intriguing tragedy, the action, the speeches, and Shakespeare’s amazing use of words. The play takes place in Denmark and tells the story of Prince Hamlet’s revenge over his father’s death. His father’s ghost tells Hamlet of his murder by his brother, Hamlet’s uncle. It ends in many tragic deaths revolving around Hamlet’s reaction to the situation, as well as the pending invasion of Norway.
As Shakespeare was writing this play around the year 1600 many shifts in English life had been taking place to alter the Language. In 1588, the Spanish sought to overthrow Queen Elizabeth and so they traveled to England. Although they were unsuccessful, their travels lead to language contact which can make an ever so slight to great change. By Shakespeare’s time, Middle English existed in old writings and the new common language Early Modern English was upheld by syntax because of the lack of inflections left in Middle English. Even though Shakespeare did not introduce another language to English, his syntax did reveal a new light. The way he uses the idiom, “love is blind,” and it lasts through out the morphology that has taken place between the 1600’s and today is profound.
The Written Language and Rhetoric-
Shakespeare puts rhetoric devices into play with unique mannerisms. He uses hendiadys, which are not very common devices which turns a subordination into a conjunction. In Ophelia's speech at the end of the nunnery scene she says, "Th'expectancy and rose of the fair state"; "And I, of ladies most deject and wretched" (Bevington 594). This must have invited other writers of Early Modern English, as well as later writers, to further incorporate his uncommon devices to achieve depth of their desired effect of the language. Although puns were not introduced by Shakespeare, in this pun it is evident that he used word play along with puns to convey several ideas of a character simultaneously, "Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun" (Bevington 575). This is Hamlet's response to the King's question, "How is it that the clouds still hang on you?" He means that the King has called Hamlet "son" once too often.
The way language was used and manipulated in plays, evolved through Shakespeare’s work. Not only did he use metaphors, but he also brought into the play a new intensity with his use of stichomythia. In the play, Hamlet is questioned by his mother, the queen, about the play which Hamlet set up to expose his murderous step-uncle:
QUEEN: Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.
HAMLET: Mother, you have my father much offended.
QUEEN: Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.
HAMLET: Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue.
This is an example shows how Shakespeare use rhythmic alternating of lines to intensify the conversation.
Vocabulary
“Shakespeare uses some six hundred words in Hamlet that he had not used in the previous twenty-plus plays and two long poems; indeed, many of these words cannot be found in the English language prior to this play” (Bevington 568). It is just amazing how Shakespeare was able to add so many words, and have faith in the audience and readers that they would be able to understand and absorb the words. It must have been easier for him to have faith when he used his newly invented words so well and accompanied by such particular context in his play. When I did an advance search for “Spakespeare” in entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, 4075 results came up. For “Hamlet,” 826 results appeared. Not all of the words were introduced by Shakespeare, but the words that weren’t invented by him were influenced or had their meaning changed from their use in Hamlet.
Words and Phrases-
There's method in my madness
Brevity is the soul of wit
Conscience does make cowards of us all
Dog will have his day
Hoist with his own petard
In my heart of hearts
In my mind's eye
Infinite space
Own flesh and blood (Hamlet)
Sweets to the sweet (Hamlet)
Sick at heart (Hamlet)
There's the rub (Hamlet)
This mortal coil (Hamlet)
To thine own self be true (Hamlet
Trippingly on the tongue
Witching time of night (Hamlet)

Words
buzzer (Hamlet; means gossipper)
excitement (Hamlet / Troilus and Cressida; both times as plural; first use as a noun)
fanged (Hamlet, first attestation)

outbreak (Hamlet, first attestation as a noun)
perusal (Sonnets / Hamlet; first use as a noun)
to unhand (Hamlet)

Works Cited
Bevington, David, Anne Marie Welsh, and Michael L. Greenwald. Shakespeare: Script, Stage, Screen. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2006.
“Oxford English Dictionary.” Second Edition. 1989. University Press, Web. 25 Nov. 2009. .

Language and Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night's Dream

When I started researching the background and time period that A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written in, I found a lot of interesting material that actually fit well within the context of the play itself. It was written around the year 1594, during the end of the Renaissance and beginning of the Restoration periods. And Shakespeare himself was a huge part of that as far as language was concerned. The play itself centers on magic and the collective human experience or memory, which was a huge question of both the Renaissance and the Restoration, and also plays in quite nicely with language as well. The stage itself is a collective human experience, and this was especially the case in Shakespeare’s day. He presented his masterpieces to not only the general public but to royalty as well and even gained high favor from Queen Elizabeth herself. His position, although playwright was at the bottom of the social totem pole in his day, created a lot of power for him when it came to making a vast impact over a large group of people. Shakespeare actually points this out in A Midsummer Night’s Dream by using the world of magic to signify the stage. And what is behind the magic of the stage? Language.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Shakespeare by himself contributed a full 256 new words or forms of words to the English lexicon, five of which are found in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Since he lived near the beginning of the Early Modern English period, when the language was still open to fairly rapid change, he was also in the position to have the new words that he introduced stick. The fact that Shakespeare has become an even bigger icon to this day makes his works even more prominent in the history of the English language. Not only do we have the Early Modern English format and its early progression preserved within his texts, but they are words that all of our society is familiar with. This is another testament of the power of language on bringing people together. The history of the English language is more than just grammar and semantics. It’s the people being the words and the need for language itself. That need is there because of the need for human interaction and our want to have that collective subconscious as a society. It’s a connector. And that’s a major part of what makes Shakespeare’s works, especially in the case of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, so powerful.

Shakespeare’s background gave him an interesting advantage when writing his characters as well. Since he grew up in a small, more rural town, and since he himself was very much a commoner, he is able to cast the common people in his play with real authenticity. This was actually necessary for success considering the vast majority of the people in the audience were common. But, at the same time, after having interacted or seen royalty at many occasions because of his trade, he could also cast them. Although, his portrayal did put these figures on an unrealistic pedestal to appease them. For example, Shakespeare only uses the poetic, iambic lines for the upper class characters, leaving prose for the common people. This goes back to the Indo-European idea of the language of the Gods, and how poetry was their means of expressing that language. So in the case of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare uses that higher language not only for Theseus and Hippolyta and the lovers from that upper class, but also for the fairy royalty. This also reflects the mystic elements of the Indo-European tradition. The unknown of deity that is beautiful but just out of reach, trying to be portrayed through words. A lot of that tradition has carried over to our day. Our hymns are in the same higher form of verse and poetry. Our scripture is still in that older, more melodic English as well. We recognize the power of language when it comes to placing things higher in our society even now.

On the other side, Shakespeare uses Bottom and his band of common folk to show the use of prose and bring people back down to earth. He also uses them to show how language can be easily misused, making Bottom and the others utter many a malapropism in their quest for eloquence. As funny as this might be in the context of the play, it’s also significant in the fact that these very malapropisms were actually contributing factors to semantic changes in the past. Especially when English was being bombarded by other languages, it was easy for people to misunderstand certain terms that were shifted over. So the very thing that Shakespeare uses as comedy is actually insightful into the past and evolution of the English language. Even though it’s harder today for this to happen, it still does. For example, I know many people who still think the phrase “wives’ tale” is actually “wise tale.” I myself actually didn’t discover the true phrase until I was well into high school or maybe even a little beyond that. It’s still possible for language to shift in this way even in our modern world, even though it may be much harder to do so in this day and age with our access to the internet and libraries, etc.

Another thing that is fascinating about the way Shakespeare wrote his plays is that they are all layered with pun after pun after pun. If I didn’t have the aid of the Norton Anthology footnotes, I would not have caught half of them. This is partly because I’m just not paying close enough attention, but it’s also because meanings have changed. Occupational puns for occupations that no longer exist due to technological advances are the most common. And then of course are the multitude of sexual puns that are so graphic that I wish I didn’t have footnotes to understand them. But that’s changed societal norms and acceptances for you. That’s another interesting thing about language. It shows a lot about what’s acceptable in a society as a whole, and the stark contrast between the street talk and media talk through different times shows how society changes its roles and values depending on sources of power among other things. Language itself is a history book of people and culture.

The reason that Shakespeare made his plays so laden with puns is because those puns were a means of intellectual layering within the work to appeal to all levels of intellect in his audience. And since his audiences were always so varied, he had to use puns in order to keep the more intellectual entertained while making sure that the rest of the audience would still understand the plot if they missed certain puns. It’s akin to the Biblical tradition in that the more that his viewers were prepared with their language to pick up on subtle cues, the more they would get out of the performance and the text itself. The existence of this vast array of puns within his work allows modern readers to be able to see different aspects of the culture that were lost and also shows how complex and beautiful the English language really is. Wit is a large part of our language, how we interact with each other, and is also a key point as to how rhetoric works. We value people who have a mastery of the language, and Shakespeare is a perfect example of how that has been the case throughout English’s history.

Shakespeare had a massive impact on the English language. Not only that, but he also shows through his work an important chunk of human history as it relates to language itself. And A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a perfect example of his work because of the content itself that gestures toward the effects of language on the human collective subconscious and also shows a variety of characters and the difference between the different social classes and their language.



Work Cited
Shakespeare, W. (2008). A Midsummer Night’s Dream. (The Norton Shakespeare). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

The Language of Austen's Emma in Modern Film

Although the works of Jane Austen are firmly rooted in Present Day English, our modern usage 21st Century usage of the English language varies significantly from that of 1815, the date of Emma’s publication. One of the most popular Jane Austen film adaptation that came out of the era is no doubt the 1995’s Clueless, an adaptation of Austen’s beloved Emma. In addition to its earning power and popularity, Clueless serves as an excellent study in modern English, as it serves as a foil in order to represent the distinct differences between the diachronic spectrum of Present Day English. Furthermore, one can make an interesting study from contrasting Clueless’ use of American slang with British English of the early nineteenth century. Through analyzing the English used in Clueless, and comparing it to that of Jane Austen’s Emma, one can see that despite the linguistic differences of their colloquial speech, both the movie and the original novel express the same themes, such as social status and love, and actually supports the writing style of Jane Austen herself.

Jane Austen was born on December 16, 1775 in Steventon, Hampshire, England. A prominent authoress during the Romantic period, Austen has continued to gain followers with each passing year. Director Amy Heckerling took on the great challenge of modernizing one of Austen’s best loved novels, Emma, and found it to be surprisingly malleable and ready for adaptation to a contemporary setting (Ferriss 123). This modernity of the updated version leads to the necessary inclusion of 1990s technological terms. As scholar Suzanne Ferriss points out, “photography substitutes for portraiture, convertibles for carriages, parties in the Valley for fancy dresses…Even Emma’s mother’s death receives the 1990’s treatment: Cher’s [the main character of Clueless] mother died undergoing liposuction” (123). Here the viewer sees the updating of the Emma story through modern technological terms. English language scholar David Crystal points out that “However impressed we are at the evolution of regional standards and the re-emergence of nonstandard English over the past century or so, this is nothing compared with the linguistic developments which are about to take place as a result of…new technology” (518). Crystal’s observation fits in exactly with the evolution of new technological terms seen in Clueless. These terms, such as “convertible,” “driver’s license,” “cell phone,” or even “lipstick,” would make an original reader of Jane Austen’s Emma utterly left in the dark.

Before diving into the juxtaposition of the Romantic text against the modern film adaptation’s linguistic differences, I should point out that, like its later adaptation, Emma set new fashions during its first publication. In the novel, eight words—whether by original vocabulary or by functional shifts—appear in the English lexicon for the first time: two verbs, coddle and smarten; two nouns, sympathizer and in-between; and four adjectives, spoilt, unfastidious, unmirthful, and unmodulated. As she illustrates in her adjectives, Austen is famous for adding the negative “un” before a work to create a negative and expand the bound grammatical morpheme. Because of the liberties that Austen takes with the vocabulary’s function, many subsequent authors use this added prefix to formerly only affirmative words in order to create an Austenian style that lends the new literature, or in this case the adaptations, a certain amount of respect.

Taking the following two scenes, the first from Emma and the second from Clueless (with Cher as the modern Emma character), the modern audience can immediately see the obvious distinctions between the works that both take place in Present Day English. In both situations, the main character is giving advice to a young woman of lower social rank in attempts to influence her behaviors enough that she will rise up the social ladder:

Emma: You understand the force of influence pretty well, Harriet; but I would have you so firmly established in good society, as to be independent…I want to see you permanently well connected, and to that end it will be advisable to have as few odd acquaintances as may be… (Austen 24).
Cher: …as someone older, can I please give you some advice? It is one thing to spark up a doobie and get laced at parties, but it is quite another to be fried all day. (Clueless)

One can learn a lot from studying the word choice between these two scenes. “Acquaintances” can well be said to be the 1990s version of “parties,” where peers and people meet. Furthermore, the British early nineteenth century class system, where good society and connections are of such great importance, is echoed in the California Valley social scene of Clueless. Both of these quotes warn of things which will inhibit the other character from social climbing: Emma speaks of bad acquaintances, and Cher speaks of marijuana use as particularly uncouth. Both societies have their unique colloquial languages, especially as seen in this scene by Cher’s California drug slang. The Oxford English Dictionary places the first appearance of “doobie” (a marijuana cigarette) in 1989 in Maupin’s Further Tales of City, thus establishing it as a twentieth century form of slang. Furthermore, this topic of discussion is prevalent because it is Cher’s attempt to tell her friend of proper and improper social behavior, an issue with which both the modern and original Emma is obsessed.

Another topic with which both female characters are obsessed is love and matchmaking. The original Emma, for example, is sure Mr. Elton is in love with Harriet because of a riddle he wrote to the girls about “courtship”. Emma states that this type of affection is “A very proper compliment!...my dear Harriet, you cannot find much difficulty in comprehending… There can be no doubt of its being written for you and to you” (Austen 59). In contrast, Cher’s view of love is clearly more sexual when she finds proof of Elton’s affections: “Would you look at that body language? Legs crossed towards each other. That is an unequivocal sex invite” (imbd.com). The language of Emma’s love is based on such terms as “marriage,” “courtship,” “respect,” or “proposals.” The 1990s vernacular of love is clearly “sex,” “dating,” “lust,” or “hooking up.” The languages of love differences continue as Emma and Cher get into more and more dilemmas throughout the story. For example, the Frank Churchill character is a man whom both main women in both versions set their eye upon for a romantic match. The secret engagement of Frank Churchill prevents the original heroine from her planned romantic arrangement, but it is quite the opposite in the modern version. The Churchill character of Clueless cannot love Cher because he is in fact homosexual or “gay” as the film terms it, thus adding minority vocabulary into the world of contemporary Emma. Scholar Suzanne Ferriss writes that the Churchill character’s “gayness is, along with the film’s ethnic diversity, a clear sign of its contemporaneity, not to mention Heckerling’s remarkably flexible updating of the plot” (125). As the following lines from the movie shows, the vernacular to describe this condition is far different than anything that would be seen in Jane Austen’s time:

Murray: Your man Christian is a cake boy!
Cher, Dionne: A what?
Murray: He's a disco-dancing, Oscar Wilde reading, Streisand ticket holding friend of Dorothy, know what I'm saying?
Cher: Uh-uh, no way, not even!
Murray: Yes even, he's gay! (Clueless)

What the viewer walks away from, with a quote such as this, is a modern sense of the traditional Emma story; that although the language is so vastly different, it is still the same core idea of a young woman coming to age in the midst of facing love and social class restrictions. And as scholar Nora Nachumi points out, “Clueless, a film that its own heroine compares to a Noxema commercial, is the film that remains most faithful to Austen’s spirit of pop-cultural critique” (1). By this argument, the use of modern vernacular, maybe even going as far to include phrases such as “doobie” or “liposuction,” in fact supports the very style of Jane Austen, the great commentator of society and behavior. It is for this very reason that Cher, with all of her Prada shoes, convertible cars, and high school woes, may be closer to the British author than one may think.


Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Emma. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
"Clueless (1995)- Memorable Quotes." The Internet Movie Database. 2008. 24 Nov. 2008
Crystal, David. The Stories of English. New York, NY: The Overlook Press, 2004.
"Doobie." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
Ferriss, Suzanne. "Emma Becomes Clueless." Jane Austen in Hollywood. By Linda Troost.
Lexington, KY: The UP of Kentucky, 1998. 122-29.
Nachumi, Nora. "'As If!' Translating Austen's Ironic Narrator to Film." Jane Austen in
Hollywood. Lexington, KY: The UP of Kentucky, 1998.
Parrill, Sue. Jane Austen on Film and Television. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company,
Inc., 2002.

Oliver Twist and the English Language

Lara Mayfield

ELANG 324

Dr. Hallen

2 December 2009

Oliver Twist and the English Language

The Adventures of Oliver Twist; or, The Parrish Boy’s Progress[1] was one of the early novels in the career of Charles Dickens. Originally written as a serial piece for Bentley’s Miscellany, the text was introduced in February 1837, and reached its completion in April 1839.[2] It follows the story of young Oliver Twist, whose good heart and moral uprightness bring him at last to a just reward, though he is beset by many troubles as a poor orphan in 19^th century England. The novel explores themes of social inequality and the state of the poor in England at that time, a topic that very concerned Charles Dickens and continued to influence his writing throughout his career.

The events of Charles Dickens’ life influenced the way in which he used English, the way his writing in turn has contributed to the development of the English language. He was born in Landport, Portsmouth, in the southwest of England. While he was still young, his family moved to Chatham, Kent, and then to London, where he lived with a family friend in Camden Town. He attended William Giles’s School in Chatham, but entered the factories at the age of twelve, when his father was sent to debtor’s prison. When his father was released from prison, he was once again able to attend school, and finished his education at the Wellington House Academy in London. He began his career in writing as a political journalist, and continued to contribute to various journals throughout his life. In 1836, he was commissioned to begin his first novel, also published in Bentley’s Miscellany as a serial, The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club. Dickens continued to author many well-known and beloved novels until his death in 1870.[3]

Dickens is most famous for his vivid and colorful characters, most of whom have their origin in real people Dickens encountered during his lifetime. Having lived in several places as a child, he was able to gain a feel for the usage and dialectal differences in the speech of those living outside London, and his philanthropic associations in London, inspired by the conditions of the factory he worked in as a boy, gave him a taste of the speech of the lower class. In Oliver Twist, he introduces a cast of characters whose speech is as unique as their personality.

Dickens uses speech variation to paint his memorable characters, an aspect of his writing that literary critics continue to praise. One such character is Mr. Bumble, the country beadle who, though he fancies himself important and well educated, is truly a country bumpkin with a humorously poor command of the King’s English. When Oliver returns to his birthplace to bring Mr. Bumble to justice, the man exclaims, “Do my hi’s deceive me, or is that little Oliver? Oh O-li-ver, if you know’d how I’ve been a-grieving for you!” (Oliver Twist, 392). Dickens captures both the non-standard dialect of the country, and the poor grammar of the less educated in this memorable character. Another character of colorful language is Jack Dawkins, the “Artful Dodger.” Jack is a young thief in the tutelage of Fagin, the story’s main villain, often known to spout slang such as “cove” (65), meaning “gentleman,” and “beak” (54), meaning “magistrate.” Dickens’ familiarity with all walks of life in London led to the realistic variety in his characters’ speech that make them so memorable.

The education he received enabled him to rise above the working class that he briefly found himself a part of, and his command of the English language is demonstrated by the formation of new words in his writing. Dickens is credited as the first to use many words in published writing. From Oliver Twist come the words “all-work” (202), “beadlehood” (119), “lummy” (325), “well-housed” (163), and “worrit” (120).[4] These are a poor sample of the systematic nature of Dickens’ lexical contributions to the English language. New words from his other texts show that Dickens used a number of regular word-formation processes in his writing.

Dickens created words in the same way any native speaker of English creates a new word. The first method he used is suffixing to create nouns from existing adjectives. His most common suffix used is “-ness,” from which derive the words “seediness” (The Pickwick Papers, 1836-37), “fluffiness” (The Uncommercial Traveller, 1860-69), and “cheesiness” (The Old Curiosity Shop, 1840-41), but he also is credited with the word “boredom.” Dickens also used suffixing to create adverbs from existing adjectives by adding “-ly,” such as “melodramatically” (Pickwick) and “spectacularly” (A Tale of Two Cities, 1859). Perhaps most creatively, Dickens invented a number of verbs by using converting them from existing nouns. Before Dickens, you could neither “nutcracker” something (Great Expectations, 1860-1861), nor “odd-job” it (Two Cities).[5] Dickens developed a command of the English language sufficient to allow him a way of systematically filling the gaps in the lexicon. He contributed to the development of English significantly by adding new words, some of which are still widely used today.

As a prominent author of the 19^th century, Dickens’ writing exemplifies the period of English known as Early Modern English. This is the last dispensation of English before what is known as Present Day English, encompassing the time period between 1500-1900. Dickens lived and wrote during the subset of the Early Modern English period known as Nineteenth Century English (1800-1900). His opportunity to receive and education and subsequent professional endeavors as a journalist familiarized him with the accepted forms and usage of the time, making his works a reliable source of Early Modern English standard prose.

Early Modern English differs from Present Day English in many ways, including meaning and form. For example, PDE has largely lost the distinction between “shall” and “will.” In EME and before, “shall” embodied a sense of obligation, whereas “will” implies volition.[6] Although Dickens uses the two interchangeably throughout Oliver Twist, the old meaning of “will” comes through in phrases such as “whether he will or no” (221) and “Heaven willed otherwise” (368). Another quirk that has been lost to PDE is the use of the word “something” to be interchangeable with “somewhat.”[7] In Oliver Twist, Mr. Sowerberry, a lower-middle class undertaker, says that “… the coffins are something narrower and more shallow than they used to be” (23). Dickens generally avoids this usage in the narrative, however, indicating that by that time it was an older form already on its way out and perhaps used only in colloquial speech. Oliver Twist contains a number of instances of “something” being used as a relative measurement, however, as in “something past thirty” (202), and “something more than an hour” (38), a use which has since been lost. By looking at Dickens’ use of the language, it can be seen that Nineteenth Century English is sufficiently similar to PDE to have begun to incorporate modern forms in the place of those forms that are characteristic of Early Modern English. Dickens uses some of the older forms, but more often conforms to what we see today as grammatically correct English.

Dickens’ life experiences gave him a broad grasp of the English language, which allowed him to accurately and creatively represent the many dialects of nineteenth century London, experiment and create new words, and write proficiently in the acceptable standard of the time. The contributions to the English language that find their origin in Oliver Twist are plentiful in their own right. Combined with the vast literary repertoire that comprise Dickens’ career, the influence is undisputed. And as long as the literature of Charles Dickens continues to be enjoyed throughout the English-speaking world, he will continue to be an influence on the language.

---

[1] Dickens, Charles. The Adventures of Oliver Twist; or, The Parrish Boy’s Progress. New York: Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1907.

[2] www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist

[3] www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_dickens

[4] www.dictionary.oed.com/cgi/search : Dickens

[5] www.dictionary.oed.com/cgi/search : Dickens

[6] Millward, C. M. A Biography of the English Language. Florida: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. 1989. p. 234.

[7] Millward, C. M. A Biography of the English Language. Florida: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. 1989. p. 232

Persuasion by Jane Austen

The Language of Persuasion

Jane Austen was born to an intellectual father who encouraged his daughters to learn, read, and write with a great degree of freedom and curiosity. Because Austen was given this freedom, she was able to experiment with writing in such a way that would hone her literary talents and voice that are characterized by her wit, intelligence, and keen observance of social flux. If all this were not enough, Austen is also a direct contributor to English vocabulary and perhaps an unwitting record-keeper of ongoing changes in the English language. In all of her novels, Austen demonstrates that English is a highly flexible, creative language.

Persuasion is the story of Anne Elliot, the middle daughter of a family whose fortunes have fallen on hard times because of her father’s and her oldest sister’s vanity and pride. Anne, unlike the rest of her family, is prudent and kind. Because her family does not understand these characteristics, Anne is unloved and unappreciated at home. When Anne is eighteen, a family friend, and the only person who shows affection for Anne, persuades Anne to refuse a marriage proposal from Frederick Wentworth. Anne regrets her decision and she spends the next ten years thinking of Captain Wentworth and what might have been as she continues to “lose her bloom”. Then, fate throws them together again and the question becomes: Will Anne and Wentworth reunite in love?

In Persuasion alone, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records six words that were recorded in print for the first time (outlined below). Austen and her social circle may have been using the methods outlined below in their daily speech already, and Austen merely recorded them naturally in her prose, or Austen created words in order to communicate voice and character to the reader. It must be said that her purpose certainly was not of the inkhorn variety.

Functional Shifts

“He drew, he varnished, he carpentered” (99). Austen changes “carpenter,” which was formerly a noun, into a verb to which she added the past tense morpheme –ed. I suspect that she chose to do this for parallelism and brevity. Considering the context, the reader likely had no problem considering carpenter as a verb. The use of carpenter as a verb continues today.

“That cousinly little interview” (106). Again, Austen changes the part of speech by taking the noun “cousin” and making it an adjective. Though we virtually never hear or read the word “cousinly” today, we would not be confused if someone used it because English speakers often use productive derivational morphemes (adding affixes to existing words) to create temporary words. This will be discussed further below. In fact, if we look at it through the eyes of analogy, it makes perfect sense—if you can be brotherly, why not cousinly?

“Mrs. Charles's nursery-maid…is always upon the gad.” Gad has an interesting history. Austen uses gad as a noun, but it was normally a verb meaning “to wander with no serious object”. However, “gad” is thought to be a backformation of the word “gadling” which first meant “a companion” but later pejorated to mean “a vagabond”. (The backformation would have come from gad meaning vagabond.) In this context, gad may even have begun as slang.

Compounds

“Lady Russell could not hear the door-bell.” Here Austen creates a new noun by compounding two nouns. Of course, in Austen’s day, a door-bell would have been a rope attached to a bell, but speakers of American English still use “doorbell” for a modern device that serves the same function as Austen’s door-bell. Austen’s creation of door-bell is also a record of how language changes, which I will discuss below.

Affixes

“Feelings…too strict to suit the unfeudal tone of the present day” (136). By adding the prefix un-, Austen negates the adjective “feudal”. According to the OED, Austen is the first and last author to use “unfeudal” in print, but this is not surprising. Even today in regular conversation, English speakers use productive derivational morphemes to create words like “unfeudal” for emphasis, for humor, or for lack of better phrasing. Some examples may include words such as uncool or unfunny. Of course, this type of application of affixes is used with affixes other than un-: seven-ish, broken-ish, purpley, and as above, cousinly.

“The mansion of the squire,…substantial and unmodernized.” This is another example of a temporary word created by Austen. I think that “unmodernized” is used as a gentle euphemism for old-fashioned, but it still draws attention to the fact that the mansion is old-fashioned. Very clever, indeed.

Vocabulary

In “Persuasion” there are several characters that are members of the British Navy. Accordingly, Austen uses Navy jargon or slang in the characters’ day-to-day conversations to add depth and color to her characters.

“Yes, yes, we will have a snug walk together.” (166) Snug refers to a ship that is neat, compact, and properly prepared for bad weather.

“I wish Frederick would spread a little more canvas, and bring us home one of these young ladies to Kellynch.” (92) Of course, to spread a little more canvas means to release more sails in order to pick up speed.

“He does not give the least fling at Benwick.” (169) At different intervals in English history, fling is used in relation to the motion of the sea and to casting a fishing line or nets.

“But James Benwick is rather too piano for me.” (168) Piano is not navy jargon, but it is worth noting. Piano was borrowed from French as a noun to refer to the instrument, but piano was borrowed from Italian as an adjective that refers to playing the piano softly and quietly. Piano then became an idiomatic expression to describe a subdued and reserved person.

Other Compounds & Affixes

Austen offers up in her prose small pictures of how English was changing. For instance, “for ever” (237), “every body” (131), and ‘any body” (27) are presented open compounds, but “somebody” (193) and “nobody” (34) are closed compounds. If these compounds were anything like the “all right” versus “alright” debate today, the process of moving to closed compounds was probably a difficult one that made perscriptivists howl and gnash their teeth.

Like door-bell mentioned above, to-morrow (154), head-ache (78), hazel-nut (88), school-fellows (154), and scare-crows (138) are just a few of the examples of open compound nouns that have adopted hyphens on their way to closing completely. Today, compounding may be the most productive way that English speakers gain new vocabulary.

As demonstrated above, Austen is very comfortable using productive derivational morphemes. Just a few examples include: re-established (150), re-kindled (150), re-commencing (185), re-settling (186), re-urge (227), and re-entered (241).

Comparatives & Supurlatives

Another snapshot that Austen captures involves comparatives and superlatives. Today, there are specific syllabic rules regarding the use of comparatives and superlatives. However, Austen leaves a record that shows that we did not start out with these rules. “I believe Mrs. Charles is not quite pleased with my not inviting them oftener” (46). “You, who have not a mother’s feelings, are a great deal the properest person” (58).

Sentence Structure

Yet another record of language change in Persuasion involves sentence structure. “Anne herself was become hardened to such affronts” (35) feels odd because it uses “be” instead of the auxiliary “have” to create the past perfect tense. Instead we might say, “Anne had become hardened to such affronts.”

“But what a thing here is, by way of a boat” (165). This structure is so foreign that today we might reword it completely, instead staying something like “Look at this strange picture of a boat.”

Through Persuasion alone, we can see that Austen’s contributions to English are significant and undeniable. But her most valuable contribution may be her playful display of creativity with language. She demonstrates that English is a highly flexible language that becomes better as it grows and changes, adding color and depth to our communication.

Works Cited

Austen, Jane. Persuasion. New York: Barns & Noble Classics, 1999.

Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford, June 2008. Web.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Nov. 2009.

Ivanhoe and the English Language

Jessica Arnold

Elang 324

Cynthia Hallen

12-2-09

Ivanhoe and the English Language

Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe is a classic tale of romance, bravery, and adventure. However, on a deeper, more basic level, it is the story of a collision of cultures. The story is set in 12^th century England, shortly after the Norman takeover of the continent. Throughout the entire book, the reader sees the collision caused by two different peoples that have been smashed together and forced to coexist: Normans and Saxons. Much of the struggle between these cultures takes place on the front of language. Cedric the Saxon refuses to accept the French tongue. Brian de Bois-Guilbert cannot stand English, which he considers less dignified. The interplay of these two cultures and two languages paints a vivid picture of a particularly influential time in the history of the English language. It shows how these tongues became not only a way to communicate, but also a part of the identity of the land and of the people. The text of Ivanhoe demonstrates this cultural and linguistic conflict through its characters, through discussions of words themselves, and even through contributing new words of its own to the developing English language.

Before Scott even begins his story, he gives us a background of the state of the language in England at the time of Ivanhoe. “In short,” he says, “French was the language of honour, of chivalry, and even of justice, while the far more manly and expressive Anglo-Saxon was abandoned to the use of rustics and hinds, who knew no other,” (Scott 31). He then begins his tale by introducing the characters Gurth and Wamba, who speak the “inferior” (34) language and serve the Saxon, Cedric of Rotherwood. Cedric is extremely proud of his Saxon heritage and is naturally the strongest proponent of the English language in the entire book. He is so devoted to his tongue that he even argues with his Norman templar guest, Brian de-Bois Guilbert about which language reigns supreme. “I can wind my horn, though I call not the blast either a recheat or a mort,” he says, showing that English is no less able a language than French. “I can flay and quarter the animal when it is brought down, without using the new-fangled jargon of curee, arbor, nombles, and all the babble of the fabulous Sir Tristrem” (65). In fact, Cedric is so opposed to French that he makes sure that his charge, the “Saxon princess” (115) Rowena, does not learn Norman French. Cedric takes care of, fights for and protects Rowena in very much the same way as he does the English language itself. When she is addressed in the tongue which she “possesses not the language in which to reply,” (Scott 116), Cedric answers for her. Cedric and Rowena are emblems of the pride in the English language that offered resistance to the influx of French after the Norman Conquest. They represent those who, at that time, defined themselves so much by their history, and thus their language, that they refused to accept another.

On the other side of the language spectrum, we find the templar, Brian de-Bois Guilbert, who believes that “[t]he French . . . is not only the natural language of the chase, but that of love and of war, in which ladies should be won and enemies defied,” (67). Guilbert, with all the pride of a warrior, a conqueror, believes that his language is supreme in all aspects of life. Even his name – de-Bois Guilbert – is thoroughly French. If Rowena and Cedric are representatives of English, Guilbert stands for the opposing language of the Norman conquerors. This naturally drives a wedge between the templar and Cedric, causing a large amount of mutual enmity throughout the story. Just as Guilbert literally leads the forces of the opposing army in the tournament against Wilfred, son of Cedric, he leads the fight for the French language throughout Ivanhoe. He typifies the language with his pride, his words, and his name just as Cedric’s stubbornness, strength, and earthiness symbolize English.

In Ivanhoe, Sir Walter Scott also deals with the battle between French and English terms that was occurring at the time. As he so artfully shows, there was some conflict between the use of the Norman terms and the Saxon. On occasion, there were French words whose meanings did not even exist in English. Cedric’s assertion that “I can wind my horn, though I call not the blast either a recheat or a mort” (65) is one example of this. He is referring to the fact that there are some things for which his language simply does not have some of the specific words that French possesses. However, English, as Cedric argues is perfectly capable of functioning without these frivolous extra words. He demonstrates his ability to circumvent the French words to humorous effect. One other particularly amusing instance of semantic collision between French and English in Ivanhoe comes from a conversation between Gurth and Wamba, Cedric’s servants, who share his dislike for the Norman tongue. Wamba says:

Nay, I can tell you more . . . there is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet while he is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynherr Calf, too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner: he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment. (36)

Here, Wamba remarks on the fact that Saxon terms for animals only apply so long as the animals are alive and need tending. The French terms take over once the animal becomes a cut of meat. In this speech, we witness the inevitable merging of the two tongues – a fact that Cedric is doing his very best to fight. But, even though Cedric may be “displeased” that the speech of his Saxon friend contains “the Norman word melee,” (104), there is nothing that he can do to reverse the process. The futility of Cedric’s efforts is further shown by the fact that Ivanhoe was written long after the time in which it is set. William the Conqueror had already led the Norman invasion of England and his language, as Sir Walter Scott very well knew, had already scored a number of triumphs. Just the fact that Sir Walter Scott knew French terms shows that, in some form, they had been adopted and had survived. Ivanhoe does a marvelous job of showing the semantic battle over meanings that occurred between the French language and English, along with the slow and steady incursion of French terms into the general vocabulary of the people of England.

In addition to his in-depth illustration of the evolution of the English language, Sir Walter Scott also added to the language in his own way by inventing and using new words in Ivanhoe. Two words in particular are interesting to examine: freelance, and conditioning. It is almost surprising that Ivanhoe is the first source in which a word so seemingly modern as “freelance” is known to have appeared. Although Scott originally used the term in the context of “a type of military adventurer, typically of knightly rank, who offered his services to states or individuals for payment, or with a view to plunder” (“freelance” def. 1), the word has evolved today to be used in such common phrases as “freelance journalist” and “freelance professionals.” The meaning of the compound has changed. It is no longer the literal meaning of someone who sells their services in a military situation, or their “lance,” to anyone who wishes to employ them. Today we use “freelance” to describe anyone who is self-employed. This generalization of the meaning of the term has taking place over a long period of time, stretching from Sir Walter Scott’s day to our own. Although we no longer mean literal “lances” when we use the phrase, the term has stuck and evolved through various meanings and contexts.

“Conditioning” is another word that appeared first in Ivanhoe (“conditioning” def. 3) Originally, Sir Walter Scott used the word to describe something that was provided on a condition. In Ivanhoe, he uses it in the sentence, “That good grey gelding, whom I heartily wish upon his legs again, conditioning his master lay there houghed in his place” (421). In the history of “conditioning,” we see once again a situation in which the word has evolved, changed from its original meaning, but still remained in the language. Scott used the term in absolute sense – “conditioning” referred directly to the conditions that the word implied. However, the word today has evolved to a more abstract meaning, referring to the state of something or perhaps bringing something into a better or more preferable condition. Once again, though (like in the case of “freelance”) generalization has significantly changed the meaning of this word, Sir Walter Scott set this specific evolution in motion and through it added to the vocabulary of the English language.

Ivanhoe is more than simply a story of romance. It is a tale of two cultures and of two languages. Scott paints a careful picture of pride and of stubbornness as Cedric and Brian de-Bois Guilbert, proponents of English and French respectively, fight for their native tongues. At the same time, however, the reader sees that both sides must ultimately fail. Scott writes from the perspective and with the knowledge of a future English speaker. Even as he wrote this conflict, he knew that, in the end, the languages would come to a sort of compromise and combine into the English of his day. Scott shows this very carefully in Ivanhoe, pointing out the unstoppable influx of French terms into the language, but also the strength that would ensure the survival of English. In many passages in Ivanhoe, we see the war over meaning that occurred when new, French terms tried to assume meanings for which English words already existed, or at least adequately covered. In addition to showing the historical evolution of the language, Scott added to it himself, through introducing a few particularly viable new words and phrases into English vocabulary, some of which we still retain. The significance of Ivanhoe in the course of the development of the English language can hardly be overstated. Through showing and adding to the development of English, Sir Walter Scott made an impression that will not soon be forgotten.

Works Cited

"Conditioning." Def. 3. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford, 1989. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

"Freelance." Def. 1. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford, June 2008. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

Sir, Scott, Walter. Ivanhoe. New York: Signet Classic, 2001. Print.

Camille Lee - Book Review

Pride and Prejudice: English in the 19th century

Jane Austen was born on December 16, 1775 in England in the middle of the Romantic literary period. She has long been loved as a Romantic author who wrote her novels from the viewpoint of women, creating a uniquely feminine voice. In a society largely dominated by men, this perspective was uncommon and is now widely celebrated for bringing to light many of the issues and circumstances specific to women in that particular time period. Jane Austen was also a very fair and just author, exposing her characters’ admirable qualities as well as their weaknesses and faults. In all of her novels, the characters seem to always “get what they deserve” by the end of the story, whether this be fortune, poverty, marriage, loneliness, or joyful bliss.

One particularly interesting feature of Jane Austen’s writing is the language she uses in her novels for dialogue as well as narration and explanation. The language of Jane Austen’s characters illustrates much more than just the story in which they are involved. Rather, it is a complex depiction of the English that Austen herself was using, as well as her family, friends, peers, and society as she saw it.

I will discuss aspects of the language used in Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice, which was published in 1813. Pride and Prejudice includes wonderful examples of the language used by real people in the 19th century as well as insights into the lives of ordinary English citizens of the time. The language Austen uses in this novel can be seen as a slice – a snapshot – of the English that was used during her lifetime, granting us access to view a small portion of the history of the English language.

Pride and Prejudice tells the story of the five Bennet sisters, the daughters of a country gentleman living in Meryton, Hertfordshire, England at around the same time the novel was written. It specifically focuses on the affairs of Elizabeth Bennet, the second oldest Bennet daughter, and tells the story mainly from Elizabeth’s point of view. The Bennets are by no means part of high society or the upper class, but are also not poor or underprivileged. The novel deals with issues of love, education, marriage, moral appropriateness, etiquette, and pride; Mrs. Bennet has the utmost concern for the marital welfare of her daughters in an economically unstable world, while some of her daughters are more concerned with falling in love and the adventures they’ll have along the way. Elizabeth herself is a playful girl, though level-headed, who is considerably more socially aware than the rest of her family. Throughout the entire story – falling in love and being betrayed and experiencing scandals and having grand adventures – the language Austen uses gives great insight into the way English was used at the time.

Much of the language in Pride and Prejudice is a bit foreign to speakers of Modern, 21st century English. For the most part, (native) speakers of Present-Day English can decipher the meaning of Austen’s language, but strange vocabulary and phrases as well as irregular word order and sentence structure illustrate the somewhat dramatic changes that the English language has experienced in the past 200 years.

Vocabulary
For example, characters say “three-and-twenty” mean meaning twenty-three and “tomorrow fortnight” to mean two weeks from tomorrow (180). After a festive ball, the Bennet women return home to find Mr. Bennet peacefully reading a book. Austen describes him with this phrase: “With a book he was regardless of time,” meaning he had no worry or concern about the passing time (183). Here we see a slightly different use of the word “regardless;” in Present-Day English, “regardless” is usually used in reference to specific circumstances or situations, not a specific person (e.g. “Regardless of the classes you’re taking, you still need to get a job). However, Austen uses it to describe Mr. Bennet’s state of mind, which shows that the “regardless” in Present-Day English has probably undergone a bit of generalization.
Another word usage in Pride and Prejudice that differs from Present-Day English is found on page 273. After Lizzy has read a letter from Mr. Darcy detailing his side of several complicated events, she feels a “contrariety of emotions.” While the word “contrariety” is still a part of the English language (meaning something contrary or of opposite character; a contrary fact or statement), it is certainly not commonly used anymore. This is representative of vocabulary usage changes that have occurred since Jane Austen’s time.

Another usage example that is quite widespread in Pride and Prejudice is “shall” instead of “will.” This is most likely a difference between British and American English customs; in British English, “shall” is still commonly used. In Present-Day American English, “shall” is hardly ever used except in set phrases like “Shall we go?” while “will” is (almost) always to communicate the future tense. In Pride and Prejudice, however, “shall” is used in phrases like “I shall depend on hearing from you” and “That you certainly shall.” These differences could also embody changes in English in general, not just cultural differences. Yet another example of older vocabulary is the word “profligacy,” meaning reckless extravagance, which Austen uses to describe a particularly unlikable character’s behavior.

Phrases
Phrases and sayings are an integral part of the English language. Whether they be idioms or just convenient ways of getting a point across, common phrases are often representative of a language as a whole.
After Mrs. Bennet discovers that Mr. Bennet has already gone to visit Mr. Bingley, the new gentleman in town, she exclaims, “How good it was in you, my dear Mr. Bennet!,” instead of saying “How good it was of you,” or a similar phrase that would be used in Present-Day English (181).
When discussing the arrival of a strange new gentleman in town, Mrs. Bennet says “We are not in a way to know what Mr. Bingley likes…,” meaning that their family was not in a situation that would allow them to know Mr. Bingley personally [emphasis added]. This phrase is certainly not used frequently in Present-Day English – at least not in Standard American English – and is indicative of the changes that have occurred in the English language in the relatively short space of 200 years.

Word Order and Sentence Structure
Aside from the considerable differences in vocabulary usage and colloquial phrases, the word order and sentence structure used by Jane Austen are often markedly unlike those regularly used in Present-Day English.
When describing the preparation that was taking place before an important visitor arrived, Austen says “...already had Mrs. Bennet planned the courses that were to do credit to her housekeeping” (182). The more modern word order would instead place the adverb “already” next to the verb “planned” and the auxiliary verb “had” directly after the subject, creating instead “Mrs. Bennet had already planned...” This change in word order is the result of years and years of people simply speaking English; there was no specific point in time when it was decided this rule would change. Rather, word order often changes gradually as we have seen it change here.
Much of the language in Pride and Prejudice that is unfamiliar to speakers of Present-Day English would be considered much more formal English than modern speakers would normally use. For example, after Elizabeth reads Mr. Darcy’s detailed letter, she reflects: “How differently did everything now appear in which he was concerned!” (275). The inverted word order in this sentence is not altogether uncommon in Austen’s English, and while it is still very understandable English, most ordinary people speaking Present-Day English would never put those words together in that order.
The examples outlined here are just a few of the hundreds in Pride and Prejudice that all characterize the stage of English that Jane Austen used and loved. Although clearly intelligible to speakers of Present-Day English, it differs it significant ways and is key to understanding the history of the English language.

Works Cited:

Austen, Jane. Jane Austen: The Complete Novels. 1st. New York: Random House, 1981. Print.