scholarly journals Early Modern English

Linguistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terttu Nevalainen

The English language spoken and written in the 16th and 17th centuries has many names: it is variously known as Renaissance English, as the language of Tudor and Stuart England, and as Shakespeare’s English. These labels reflect the various criteria used to identify the period. This bibliography follows the common practice of referring to it as Early Modern English (1500–1700), in distinction to Middle English (c. 1150–1500) and Late Modern English (1700–1900). The Middle English period is often characterized as an era of dialects because the textual evidence that has come down to us shows extensive regional variation. In the early modern period, the language of many forms of writing converged to the extent that it could no longer be localized. Cultural historians associate this development with “modernity,” which is also reflected in regional mobility, urban as opposed to rural residence, and contact with mass media, notably through the rise of printing. More people were able to read than those who could also write at the time, but full literacy increased as the period advanced. A related process was vernacularization, the expanding use of English in new registers, which shows in styles of writing and the linguistic means of expressing them. Many features of Standard English were consolidated in the 16th and 17th centuries. Standardization is visible particularly in spelling and the vocabulary that was created as a result of the spread of English into new specializations. Gradual developments were also under way in pronunciation, in processes such as the Great Vowel Shift, and in grammar, where changes often resulted in new means of expression and greater transparency. Word order, for example, became more fixed over time. Many of these processes had started well before the early modern period, and some have continued into the present day. Digital resources have promoted new research not only on the traditional levels of language but also on various other aspects of Early Modern English. Regional variation is increasingly discussed in its own right rather than in the context of language standardization. Furthermore, there is a growing body of work on the users and uses of Early Modern English. Sociolinguistic research has helped tackle the question of what kind of people were the driving force behind language change at the time and whose language was therefore preserved for posterity. Studies in historical pragmatics have, in turn, looked into the ways in which language was used at the time and how these uses gave rise to new means of expressing communicative needs.

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 137-147
Author(s):  
Amanda Roig-Marín

The study of copious Latin and French loanwords which entered the English language in the Middle Ages and the early modern period has tended to eclipse the appreciation of more limited—yet equally noteworthy—lexical contributions from other languages. One of such languages, Spanish, is the focus of this article. A concise overview of the Spanish influence on English throughout its history will help to contextualize a set of lexicographical data from the OED which has received scant attention in research into the influence of Spanish on English, that is, lexis dating to the late medieval and early modern period. It re-evaluates the underlying Arabic influx in English common to Spanish and revisits some of the lexicographical challenges in tracing the etymology of words which could have potentially been borrowed from a range of Romance languages.


Kalbotyra ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (69) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Richard J. Whitt

Most research on evidentiality has focused on classifying evidential systems synchronically; meanwhile, diachronic studies on evidentiality seem to have focused on the development of specific items into evidential markers with little regard to discourse context. This paper begins to fill this gap by presenting the results of a corpus-based study of evidential markers in Early Modern scientific discourse in English and German. The Early Modern period witnessed the transition from scholastic-based models of science to more empirical models of enquiry; this study demonstrates a decrease in the use of markers of mediated information and an increase in the use of markers of direct observation and inference accompanying these sociohistorical developments.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilie K. M. Murphy

The history of religious migration and experience of exile in the early modern period has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Neglected within this scholarship, however, is sustained discussion of linguistic encounter within these often fraught transcultural and transnational interactions. This article breaks new ground by exploring the linguistic experiences of religious exiles in English convents founded in the Low Countries. Most women within English communities in exile were linguistically challenged; focusing on the creative ways these women subsequently negotiated language barriers sheds new light on female language acquisition and encounter during this period.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-335
Author(s):  
Turo Hiltunen

This paper investigates how an intensifying phraseological pattern involving the adverb so followed by a delayed declarative content clause is used in medical English in the early modern period (1500–1700). So may occur with adjectival, nominal or adverbial heads, and the pattern is used for indicating degree, extent or manner. The analysis employs the recently published Early Modern English Medical Texts corpus to show (i) that the pattern was in use throughout the entire period, (ii) that it tends to be more frequently used in learned rather than popular texts, and (iii) that it is typically used for giving descriptions and less often in instructions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 204-216
Author(s):  
Raf Van Rooy

Chapter 16 discusses further evidence for the systematization and rationalization of the language / dialect distinction in the period 1650–1800, the age of rationalism and the Enlightenment. On the one hand, a kind of dialectological tradition emerged. The study of regional variation became a subfield of philology, albeit never an autonomous one; occasionally, it even now received the label of dialectologia, apparently introduced in 1650. For the first time, philologists presented dissertations on dialectal diversity that were no longer exclusively focused on the Greek dialects. On the other hand, scholars adopted more rational attitudes towards the conceptual pair. Some chose to supplement the binary contrast with new concepts. Others advocated distinguishing more clearly between different interpretations of the language / dialect distinction. Confusion persisted, however, throughout the early modern period. The first vocal sceptic of the conceptual pair was Friedrich Carl Fulda, who made it painfully clear how arbitrary and imprecise the distinction actually was.


Author(s):  
Andrew Bozio

Taking its cue from William Sly’s performance of a disoriented playgoer in the Induction to John Marston’s The Malcontent, this chapter puts theatrical performance in dialogue with two other modes of thinking through place in the early modern period: first, what Mary Carruthers has termed the “architectural” model of the arts of memory, and, second, chorography, or the practice of describing a region in terms of its topographical features and history. It argues that these modes resemble one another in depicting place as a kind of phenomenological assemblage, one that comes into being as the disparate features of an ambient environment are perceived and organized within embodied thought. This resemblance reveals the intimate relationship between environment and embodied thought within the early modern English playhouse, and it thereby suggests that theatrical performance was less a form of spatial abstraction than a means of transforming the way that playgoers perceived, experienced, and navigated their surroundings.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-476
Author(s):  
GLENDA GOODMAN

Here are two important lessons about information control: first, there is always “too much to know.” This phrase comes from historian Ann Blair, who argues in her book of the same title that in the early modern period the attempt to gather and systematize knowledge was already regarded as a hubristic task. Second, information control is inherently ideological. Think of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert's magisterial Encyclopédie (1751–77), which in thirty-two volumes attempted to map the world of knowledge and, in doing so, determined what counted as “knowable” and what was ruled out. Equally ambitious and ideological was Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (advertised 1800, completed 1828), a monumental undertaking aimed at codifying a national language for the new United States. Both of these lessons apply to the pre-1800 articles in AmeriGrove II, and, indeed, to the eight-volume dictionary as a whole. Confronted with the problem of “too much to know,” AmeriGrove II inherits the optimism of its Enlightenment ancestor and endeavors to expand systematically the knowable world of U.S. music history, yet it leaves much uncovered. Moreover, like Webster's dictionary, the focus of AmeriGrove II is confidently national. Whether it echoes Webster's nationalistic stance is a more complicated question, particularly for the articles on pre-1800 topics.


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan McIntyre ◽  
Brian Walker

In this article we report on a pilot project investigating the presentation of speech, writing and thought in Early Modern English prose fiction and news writing. The aim of the project is to determine whether discourse presentation changes diachronically and what the function of the various discourse presentation categories were in the Early Modern period. To study this we have built and annotated a small corpus of Early Modern English writing using the model of speech, writing and thought presentation outlined in Semino & Short (2004). We are thus able to compare our findings against those of Semino and Short for Present Day English writing. The quantitative results of our pilot study and our initial qualitative analyses lead to a number of hypotheses which we suggest are suitable for testing on a larger corpus of data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document