The Reformers of Language

Greetings,

This the fourth part of my short history of Elizabethan English. This post deals with the reformers of the language, those brave individuals who took it upon themselves to strive to standardise the language. They had varying successes, and their influences can still be felt even in our modern language.

Introduction

            The reformers were those individuals who decided that there needed to be some changes made in the language and put their minds to the task. Their idea was to standardise the language with regard to the make-up of the language in spelling and other areas. While we can generalise and refer to them in a group, it is important that they were not some organised group and they did not always agree with one another, indeed there were some fundamental areas in which they did not agree.
            While the main area of discussion will be spelling, there are other elements of the language which will appear in the discussion. It is merely that spelling would seem to have been the focus of their reform for many, other elements such as punctuation and grammar were present but not as prevalent. With regard to the discussion of spelling the first area that will be discussed will be the question of logographic versus phonemic spelling reform. This will lead on to a closer look at phonemic forms of spelling and ideas related to it.
            There are three reformers which will be spoken about in this discussion for the most part; however more of the focus will be on two. These two, John Hart and Richard Mulcaster had the greatest impact on the reformation of the language even if their ideas were put aside to begin with. Some detailed discussion will be made of these two especially but others will also be mentioned and their contributions noted.
            The final part of the discussion will be the effects of the reformers on the language, both immediately and later on. This aspect of history is important as it demonstrates how the language was changing and evolving over time. The fact that these individuals wished to reform the language and refine it demonstrates a clear interest in improvement in the language in the Elizabethan period and a step toward what is now Modern English.

Spelling as Key Argument

            The key argument that the reformers were examining for the most part was to standardise spelling practices, however the methods for which this was to be executed were varied. There were, however some key arguments made by the various reformers focussed upon how words should be spelt. For the most part they supported a phonemic orthography, spelling words how they were pronounced. Other points which were raised were with regard to revealing the etymology of the word in its spelling, making distinction between homophones, morphological spelling, indication of vowel length by doubling vowels and adding –e, and doubling consonant for short vowel (Lass, 1999:21). What will be demonstrated is that some of these ideas would come to pass as supported ideas and others were left by the wayside. While most supported a phonemic system of spelling there was an argument against it and support for logographic spelling.

“Fixing English in its Present-day form was virtually completed in print by about 1650. The process was astoundingly rapid … bear in mind that even the basic principles of spelling continued to be debated by orthoepists and grammarians in the sixteenth century. There was no agreement as to whether English spelling ought to be phonemic, reflecting pronunciation as closely as possible, or logographic, distinguishing words pronounced alike … but spelling them differently.” (Nevalainen, 2006:32)

            So the grand debate amongst the reformers in the Elizabethan period was between those who supported a phonemic form of spelling and those who supported a logographic form of spelling. Of course both approaches had their advantages and disadvantages and what will be found in the modern form of English is really a combination of the two in operation, some words are spelt how they sound and some are not. The problem with a phonemic form of spelling is the question of dialect and other different forms of pronunciation.

“Whatever phonemic fit there was between spelling and pronunciation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was further upset by ongoing sound changes in the southern pronunciation system.” (Nevalainen, 2006:32)

            In order to understand the problem here it needs to be understood that there was not a single dialect of English in England at the time; indeed it could be argued that there still is no universal dialect. This meant that spelling formed based on pronunciation was an issue as the same word could be pronounced differently depending on whom it was said by and where they were from. Indeed even as the more dominant dialect centralised on London took over still there were issues of pronunciation based on dialect. Still, the supporters of a phonemic spelling had a long history and presented their arguments well.

“In the sixteenth century there were many advocates of a more phonemic spelling system, most notably John Cheke, Thomas Smith, John Hart and William Bullokar. Hart first presented his proposal in The Opening of the Unreasonable Writing of the Inglish Toung (1551) and almost two decades later in An Orthographie (1569) and A Methode (1570).” (Nevalainen, 2006:32)

John Hart

            John Hart promoted the idea of the phonemic spelling system over the logographic as has already been presented above, however it is more useful to examine the reforms proposed by Hart in more detail. The two main areas of interest in reforming the English language which Hart was interested in was spelling and punctuation. His first argument was against the haphazard spelling conventions or lack thereof found in printed works of his time (Lass, 1999:25). There was no standard form present meaning that words could, and often were spelt several different ways.
            As stated, his argument was a phonemic one connecting spelling and pronunciation, “Hart’s remarkable work [An Orthographie (1569)] was the first systematic exposition of the belief that spelling should reflect pronunciation.” (Crystal, 2010:37). The fact that he took a systematic approach to the discussion is important as it can be seen that there was an attempt to present his ideas on scientific principles, or at least close to them. Indeed this phonemic idea with regard to spelling was the same way that he approached the idea of punctuation.
             John Hart expressed his own views on punctuation in 1551 in his ‘The opening of the unreasonable writing of our Inglish toung’ explaining that punctuation teaches how to say what is written (Lass, 1999:21). With what has already been presented a clear statement is made with regard to the phonemic nature of the language and the importance of the language being presented as it is spelt. This requires the language to use the punctuation marks to put in those parts of the spoken language which are not in the written.

Indeed most of the punctuation marks, which are found in the modern language are explained and detailed for use by Hart with an exception being the semi-colon which is absent. In this description he also explains the difference between the use of round and square brackets, the former for that which could be left out and the latter for extra notes (Lass, 1999:21). Further Hart then proceeds to explain how capitals should appear in the language when it is written and explains their use. For his part Hart feels that capitals should be used for the beginning of a sentence, proper names and important common nouns (Lass, 1999:21), thus using their inclusion to highlight important words within the text and for the clear beginnings of a sentence.

William Bullokar

“The first grammar written in English was by William Bullokar (c.1530 – 1609). His full Grammar at Larg[e] is now lost, but an abbreviated version which he called Pamphlet for Grammar, is known from 1586.” (Crystal, 2010:39)

            William Bullokar is most noted for his exposition of the grammar of the English language of his period and the presentation in a methodical manner. Bullokar, as noted previously was also a supporter of phonemic language practices, especially with regard to spelling, so it would be expected that the same would be true for his grammar. What is interesting with regard to this is that Bullokar’s grammar is heavily indebted to William Lily’s Latin grammar (Crystal, 2010:39). Even as the language was changing and other aspects coming into play in order to anglicise the language, still there was the influence from the classical languages. This is important as it meant that Latin would still form the foundation for how the language was formed and constructed. However, the phonemic system was not without resistance as has been mentioned previously.

Richard Mulcaster

“Despite its supporters, the general idea of a spelling reform based on phonemic principle met with staunch opposition. Richard Mulcaster, an influential schoolmaster, denounced the idea in his Elementarie, a popular guide for teachers which he published in 1582.” (Nevalainen, 2006:35)

            Mulcaster had his own methods and reforms for spelling and these he detailed in Elementarie. His reforms were based on the shape of words according to rules established for each letter. Indeed Mulcaster made it very clear as to what his seven principles were as he laid them out.

            1. General – properties and functions of letters

            2. Proportion – homophones the same spelling
            3. Composition – writing of compounds
            4. Derivation – writing of derivatives
            5. Distinction – punctuation and accents
            6. Enfranchisement – spelling of foreign loans
            7. Prerogative – traditional orthography over new (Lass, 1999:33)

            These seven key principles underwrote all that was written in his exploration of the language. The first gives specific functions for each letter describing how each will function, followed by the second supporting the idea that words that sound the same should be spelt the same. The third discusses the writing of compounds, words attached to one another, to follow this is how derivative words, ones based on others should be formed. With little surprise Mulcaster also attributes some of the effect of punctuation to the pronunciation and spelling of words. The final two principles are focussed on the many loan words which came into the language giving preference to native spellings over new ones. With these principles established and especially with the last two, it is of little surprise that Mulcaster was in favour of using native words over new and thus also a traditional alphabet.

“Mulcaster bases his principles of spelling on the traditional alphabet and suggests that the use of each letter of the alphabet should be governed by general orthographic rules.” (Nevalainen, 2006:35)

            These orthographic rules were designed to simplify the spelling of words and enable for a more universal approach to the spelling of words. Once again a scientific approach to the formation of the language is evident in Mulcaster as it was in the previous reformers. What can be noticed is that Mulcaster’s approach is a logographic one rather than a phonemic one. Mulcaster opposes purely phonetic orthography on the basis of dialect and general speech patterns and superfluous letters not representing any sound (Lass, 1999:33). According to Mulcaster each letter needed a purpose in the word, and that this should be firmly established based on rules of the letters rather than how they sound. Indeed his approach reached for a universal spelling of the language and the establishment of singular spellings for words established in his book.

            The book being discussed is Elementarie as previously discussed in this part of the discussion. While the principles upon which the book was based have been expressed here. It is useful still to look at the book itself a little to see some of what it was. The book expressed the rules and principles presented above but it was more than that, Mulcaster’s (1582) Elementarie a milestone “because this was the first consistent attempt to codify and promulgate detailed rules for normalising and regularising traditional English spelling.” (Lass, 1999:20). It is the codification and normalising of the language which is most significant here, and indeed the same ideas have promulgated into the present period of the modern language in the form of dictionaries.

Effects

            Once the reformers and their principles and proposals have been discussed, it is then time to move on to the effects of these proposals on the language, both in the era of the reformers and also later on. With regard to these effects, it will be noted that for the most part the reformers’ proposals had little effect on the development of the language but shaped the views of later orthoepists and later printing houses (Lass, 1999:21).

What can also be noted here is that while the various reformers may have seen things from different points of view it was similar problems that were attempted to be remedied. The abuses noted by Hart were exactly the same as Mulcaster attempted to remedy both failed, but influenced following reformers and printers (Lass, 1999:26). In the rivalry between Hart and Mulcaster on paper they approached the same problems from different points of view, and eventually one of the methods was bound to eventually win out over the other.

“In the seventeenth century, the advocates of a phonemic spelling system lost their battle against custom. Textbooks for reading and spelling like Mulcaster’s had a direct impact on how English orthography was taught and learned. Edmund Coote’s The English Schoole-Maister (1596), which contained a spelling-book with exercises and a hard-word dictionary, was one of the most popular textbooks of the time” (Nevalainen, 2006:36)

            While the phonemic spelling system would eventually lose out to the logographic system this is not to say that the reforms proposed by these theorists would have no impact whatsoever. In the case of Hart the problem was not that it had no impact it was the lasting impact was deficient. “Although it did have an impact on some contemporaries, Hart’s proposal for a spelling reform failed to gain general acceptance.” (Nevalainen, 2006:33).

For a system to be completely accepted it needs to gain general acceptance. However this was not to say that the ideas which Hart proposed had no impact at all, “although his [Hart’s] particular system was never adopted, his views helped to form the climate that would eventually shape the character of English spelling.” (Crystal, 2010:37). The fact that some of the proposals for spelling which Hart made have had an impact upon English spelling is important in and of itself. More to the point examining Hart’s punctuation system, it was here that Hart would also have an impact on the language.

“Hart’s system of punctuation largely went back to the continental models introduced into England in the early sixteenth century. The system was adopted with some modifications by printers and educators in the following decades.” (Nevalainen, 2006:35)

            With the loss of the battle by the proponents of the phonemic spelling system it can be seen that it would be Richard Mulcaster whose proposals would have a greater impact on the language. Indeed it was Mulcaster’s proposals which would present an opportunity for the language to flourish and the beginnings of the standardisation of the language overall.

“[Richard] Mulcaster’s own views did a great deal to hasten the growth of regularization at the end of the 16^th century. His Elementarie provided a table listing recommended spellings for nearly 9,000 words, and influenced a generation of orthoepists (pronunciation teachers) and grammarians.” (Crystal, 2003:67)

            The proposals and principles presented by Mulcaster would eventually become generally accepted and his Elementarie presented many examples of these principles in written format so people could see them. Indeed over half of the principles presented by Mulcaster remain in use today (Crystal, 2010:38). The fact that these proposals, even half of them are present in the language more than four hundred years later presents an impact on the language recognised only by authors of the calibre of Shakespeare. Not only did Mulcaster’s principles become accepted by grammarians and orthoepists, but his book also can be seen as the forerunner to modern dictionaries.

“The book [The Elementarie 1582] includes a discussion of English spelling, and provides guidelines which proved influential. … the forerunner of modern spelling dictionaries.” (Crystal, 2010:38)

Conclusion

            While it can be seen that Mulcaster’s proposals would seem to have had the greatest impact upon the language, especially with regard to spelling, it is the overall effect of the reformers which is important. The language had been struggling for some time with instability in its form and little control over spelling or grammar. The reformers which have been presented and indeed other ones made their various attempts to standardise the language in order that some sort of rules could be used to govern the language. It could even be claimed that it was due to this standardisation that the language began to come to the fore.

            For the most part spelling became a focus for the reformers on the basis that without a standard form of spelling it would be difficult to communicate ideas. A standardised form of spelling enabled words to be understood better and become a foundation upon which much of the rest of the language could be based. This is not to say that other parts of the language are unimportant, quite the opposite. Punctuation and grammar were also parts of the language which were discussed in some detail. Interestingly all three, spelling, punctuation and grammar were all discussed on the basis of the same principles.
            The three reformers which have been presented, Hart, Bullokar and Mulcaster have been presented as three proponents of elements of the language which they expressed a need for reform. For the most part it was Hart and Mulcaster which were the focus, being two reformers on the same end of the same argument but with different views on how to solve the problems presented in the argument. The fact that these men would put so much energy into their arguments presents the importance of them.
            While many of the proposals presented were pushed by the wayside but the fact that elements of them can be found in the language shows a history of development through the language. These changes also present Elizabethan English as a language in flux with many changes happening in and around it. With this part of the history of the language presented, it is of little surprise that the language was in such a state of change and that there was only a very vague idea about the standard form of the language, and this was based upon previous models of it. Indeed the presence of the reformers demonstrates the goal of a standard language as important and something which was being striven for.

Bibliography

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2^nd ed), Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

Crystal, D. (2010) Evolving English: One Language, Many Voices, The British Library, London, UK

Lass, R. (ed.)(1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume III: 1476 – 1776, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Nevalainen, T. (2006) An Introduction to Early Modern English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland