Now it comes to the usually very unexciting subject of grammar. This discussion of the grammar of Elizabethan English is an examination of the grammar as it was. This examination is performed with some comparison with the modern language but not for the purposes of evaluation, more for the purpose of setting a foundation from which the discussion may be made.
Introduction
The grammar
of the Elizabethan period is not our grammar and it should not be confused as
such. More importantly the reading of the grammar of the Elizabethan period
should not be constrained by grammatical rules which were included centuries
after. Elizabethan grammar along with the rest of the language needs to be read
and understood as it was not as it is considered by some to “should be”.
The purpose
of this investigation into Elizabethan grammar is to explore and discover the
grammar of the Elizabethan language as it was. This means delving into the
rules as they were expressed in the language as it was. It also means
understanding the language as it was, and attempting to make some sense of the
language as it was. Only through investigation and understanding of the
language as it was is it possible to really understand the language and thus
the documents of the period as they were.
The
division of the investigation will be by subject headings of those important
parts of the language that need investigation. More to the point, more for the
usefulness of the reader, the modern language, or Present Day English (PDE)
will be used as a reference point but not as a comparison point to declare the
language to be advanced or primitive. Such evaluations are not suitable for
this investigation as such values are useless for the study of the language as
it was.
The grammar
is important to the overall understanding of the language regardless of how
particular or detailed or annoying these rules may be. These rules actually
express to the reader and investigator how the language is formed and in some
way allow us to have a glimpse of the thought-processes of the author. Such a
thing can only be seen as a boon. Approach this investigation with an open mind
and much more will be available for understanding of texts of the period, and
indeed as a result the individuals of the period.
General Items
Importance of Grammar
The first
part of the process of investigation is to examine some of the general items of
importance both to Early Modern English (EModE), more specifically Elizabethan
English, and also to the investigation. One of the first that emerges is the
importance of grammar in general, “Grammar makes sense of language. That is
what it is for. Words by themselves do not make sense.” (Crystal, 2008:178).
The grammar of a language describes how the words are assembled in order that
they make sense. The words themselves while some may convey individual meaning
do not come to their full until they are placed with other words.
The placement allows for a
greater understanding of the language, and can even tell us more. “Grammar
reflects the way we think – more precisely, the way we process our thoughts”
(Crystal, 2008:179). To be able to look into the mind of a previous period
allows us to have a greater insight into not only what they have left behind
for us to read but also insight into the authors and the readers of what was
written. In order to achieve this understanding investigation must be made.
Study of Grammar
There are
two branches of grammar; syntax and morphology, syntax is concerned with
word-order, and morphology is concerned with word structure (Crystal,
2008:180). These two are the key to understanding the grammar and as a result
understanding the language which is being studied. However it is important that
the method and thought behind the investigation must be examined.
Deep
examinations of language all too often result in some sort of comparison to our
own language and some sort of value placed here. This is not useful to us to
understand the language as it was. “We have to be particularly on our guard
against reading into Shakespeare the grammatical norms from a later period,”
(Crystal, 2008:181). Indeed the same applies to all authors of the period. The
application of later norms of grammar is useless to the understanding of the
language; it needs to be examined as it was the comparison needs to be
valueless.
Three
perspectives are useful to the investigation of the grammar: forms or
constructions used then and still used; forms or constructions used and not
still used; and forms or constructions not used and now used (Crystal,
2008:181). These three perspectives on the language give a greater
understanding of the language, but as stated this needs to be valueless. The
language needs to be understood and valued as it was in order to understand the
writers as they were.
What is
useful in such an investigation is that, “Parts of speech are the most enduring
categories in Western grammatical thinking.” (Nevalainen, 2006:73). This means
it is possible to follow these parts of speech both forward and backward
through the time period for comparison, and as a result much of the following
discussion will result in the headings often being such parts of speech.
Similarities
The similarities in the language
assist us in understanding the language due to these similarities. These lay a
foundation of commonality upon which understanding can be built, and this is
the case for grammar, “In general, EModE grammar is very like PDE although
there remain a few features which are more characteristic of earlier stages of
the language.” (Smith, 2005:131). It is the features of earlier stages of the
language which cause confusion in the reading and understanding of the
language.
These similarities in the
language flow through it often from earlier periods to much later ones, for
example: because appears in Chaucer, but
for (that) remained normal way of
expressing cause until early seventeenth century (Crystal, 2003:70). This
demonstrates a trend which lasted a period of at least three hundred years.
Changes in language can happen quite quickly as they did in the Elizabethan
period, but for most often they happen quite slowly. It is here we find many similarities,
“In the larger historical perspective Early Modern inflectional changes are
quite limited;” EModE is similar to PDE in many ways (Lass, 1999:138). However
there are changes in the language which are also important.
Changes in Early Modern English
“The major shifts in English
grammatical structure were over by the time of the Renaissance … but even a
casual glance at texts of the period shows that many important changes were
continuing to take place,” (Crystal, 2003:70)
By the time
of the Renaissance the turbulence in the language that happened over the Middle
Ages had ceased. The Great Vowel Shift of this period had ceased so the
sounding of words had been established along with some of the spelling. However
it should be noted that neither of these had found a true base. Changes over
the Renaissance period are important and need to have note taken of them.
The
language in EModE was “modernised”, there was a simplification of verbs,
verb-endings, and pronouns, especially with the addition of the use of “do”
(Mugglestone, 2006:149). These changes in the language as it developed over the
period changed it to become more and more familiar to the modern reader. This
familiarity is useful to the researcher, but caution still needs to be present
as it was not all the same as PDE. These changes in the language were all
important and some will be detailed throughout this investigation, such as the
flexible use and changes in parts of speech of words, however to give a taste
of the changes in grammar;
“In grammar, the auxiliary do is introduced to negative and
interrogative clauses; the relative pronoun which
is replaced by who with reference to
humans; and the second-person singular pronoun thou and multiple negation disappear from most contexts of use.
Some of these changes are shared by most varieties of English, while others
have come to be associated with the rise of the standard language.”
(Nevalainen, 2006:8)
Latin Influence
“Sixteenth-century texts are
characterised by a richness of variant forms and constructions, inherited from
Middle English and, to a lesser extent, influenced by Latin.” (Lass, 1999:187)
The
influence of Latin on English, even in the modern period, cannot be denied. In
the Renaissance period this was quite marked in some instances. Indeed it was
thought that the parts of speech of “ancient” writers and their manners of
speech should be imitated in order to achieve a pinnacle of language, “The
influence of Latin syntactical style on English became marked in the 16th
century. Cicero in particular was much imitated.” (Crystal, 2003:70).
This idea
of the use of Latin as a foundation for the language to develop from was not a
uniquely English idea indeed throughout Europe this model was already adopted.
In some ways it could be accused that the English were simply following the
same model in order to imitate others on the continent.
“Latin grammatical categories
constituted the basis for language learning throughout Europe at the time, and
they were also followed by English grammarians and educationalists.”
(Nevalainen, 2006:16)
In theory
this sounds like a sound idea due to the long heritage of Latin as a language
and the access to materials written in Latin in the period. However this was
not without rather significant issues. English was so grammatically different to
Latin so this proved to be artificial requiring a lot of excessive adding and
subtracting needed (Nevalainen, 2006:12). English needed to be based on a model
of its own. While there is evidence, even in PDE of the influence of Latin, it
was also influenced by other languages, and developed in a different fashion to
other languages of the same period.
Phrases
One of the
first things about Elizabethan English is that it was a complex language and
should in no way be assumed to be simple in construction. There was complex
sentence construction with many conjunctions present (Crystal, 2003:70). Some
of these conjunctions were the same as we use today, but some of them were also
in the punctuation.
What should be noted with regard
to the phrasal aspect of the language is that the “same basic phrasal
categories and functions apply from Old to Present-day English,” (Nevalainen,
2006:103). In this there was very little change. Both the Noun Phrase (NP) and
Verb Phrase (VP) were present in sentence construction. The VP was the hub of the
sentence on which others depend typically NP (Nevalainen, 2006:103). The action
supported by the things being acted upon or acting. Much of this is the same as
PDE.
Word Order
Rather that
diving straight into the subject of various parts of speech, it is useful to
have a further overview of the language while focusing on a particular subject.
Word order is important as it is the order of the words which forms the phrases
which have been indicated above. This subject has three sections, the overview,
collocation and double negatives. Each one of these gives insight into how the
words were ordered.
The
subject-verb-object (SVO) is the basic formation of language found in English.
It was during the EModE period in which this became fixed (Nevalainen,
2006:113). This does not mean, however, that there was no deviation from this
format of the language. In EModE and as a result in Elizabethan English this
pattern was not always followed.
Deviations
from the SVO format of the language results in the language becoming a little
unclear to the modern mind. This also results in increased complication in the
language (Crystal, 2008:204). The complication of the language results in some
rather interesting patterns in the word order. The verb could be seen to be the
glue which holds it together with the subject and object being the peripherals
of the sentence.
Verb/subject reversal order is difficult;
as is reversal of a verb and verb-like adjective (Crystal, 2008:204). This
results in increased complication in the language. The reversal of the subject
and verb would seem to be a major issue in the language except if it is read
correctly such an issue is minimalized. However once there is more than one
thing happening at once further complication and issues in understanding the
language results (Crystal, 2008:205).
These
changes in the language for the modern reader can result in some issues of
understanding in the language. In some cases it can result in a complete
misinterpretation of what is being said. A change in subject and verb order can
catch the reader off-guard as order is changeable e.g. “From speech, and
fearlesse, I to thee allow” = “I allow thee free and fearless speech” (Crystal,
2008:205). This construction in the language is often what puts students into a
state of confusion the first time that they encounter the works of Shakespeare.
Over time
the complication of word order especially in the inversion of elements of the
construction gradually disappears, as do many similar issues with regard to
word order in the SVO construction (Nevalainen, 2006:113). The use of adverbs
in the language can also confuse the new reader to EModE texts as the word
order is not always the same. The adverbs and their use are reasonably flexible
in nature (Crystal, 2008:203). These adverbs could be placed dependent on their
use and association with the key elements of the language.
The word
order for the most part in Elizabethan English is like modern English with some
changes in format and order. This means that the language is like the modern
but not the same. One of the clear places of this particular instance can be
found in verse, where the word order is changed for correct metre (Crystal,
2008:199). This is where looking at some specifics in the language is useful.
Collocation
Collocation
is the appearance of two words together where more often than they would by
chance. This is the deliberate appearance and association of words together in
order to express and idea or meaning. These collocations are often found in
both verse and prose in order to reveal something. “Collocations are the formal
expectancies that exist between words in a sequence.” (Crystal, 2008:173). Such
word associations allow for the reader to see patterns in the language. More
importantly such collocations allow for more striking images present (Crystal,
2008:173).
The
collocations of words can be seen to be a formation where the words are often
seen together in order to make an expression of something in particular. Just
as with any aspect they are governed by rules, thus these words are expected to
be seen together. Breaking the rules of collocation creates impact in the
writing (Crystal, 2008:173). This is a tool for the author to bring something
to the reader’s attention.
For the
researcher and new reader of a language collocations can be used as a tool for
understanding. “A useful technique is to take a single word, … and explore its
collocation range.” (Crystal, 2008:174). Thus examining the words which are
associated with the word gives an impression of what the word means. This is a
most useful tool especially where the word is misspelt. What is even more
interesting in Elizabethan English is the collocation of neologisms (Crystal,
2008:174). New words placed together for increased meaning, or in order to
create meaning for the new word. Such things can also cause issues for the new
reader of the texts due to the unknown nature of the words.
Double Negatives
Double
negatives in mathematics result in the answer being positive. This is not the
case in language. Double negatives are even present in the modern language
these are actually a hang-over from the Elizabethan period. Interestingly they
are actually used the same way. Double negatives are present and a part of
normal speech, with the more negatives mean more emphatically negative in
meaning (Crystal, 2008:182). Thus this rejects the idea of the double negative
as is found in mathematics, as some would assume, and results in a further
negative in the expression. The mathematical, and often modern, perspective of
things is what leads to confusion. “The rule is simple: the more negatives in
the clause, the more emphatic the negative meaning.” (Crystal, 2008:183).
Nouns
Nouns are
naming words; they form in the language the ability to name things being a
general term or a specific term. Most of the uses of nouns are the same today
as in EModE, however there was no apostrophe marking possession, and there was
capitalisation for common nouns (Crystal, 2008:184). The lack of apostrophe for
possession can cause some issues as in some cases it is difficult to determine
whether the author means plural or possessive. In the case of the
capitalisation, this was to bring attention to the noun, in some cases, but not
all.
“The Early Modern English system
of noun inflections is essentially that of Present-day English, and the same
regular forms are found in number and case-endings. … Some more variability,
however, exists in Early Modern number and case marking than in Standard
English today.” (Nevalainen, 2006:74)
What this
means is that there is a lot of commonality between the two languages and this
is useful to the reader. However it should be noted that they are not exactly
the same. In the case of EModE, rare nouns are countable (Crystal, 2008:185).
This means that while there are nouns which will give issues to a modern reader,
they are not as prevalent as in Middle English for example, and also their
meanings can be determined relatively easily.
Genitives
The
genitive case is also known as the possessive case, therefore is concerned with
possession. The system of possession and notation of such was relatively simple
in EModE, “The only case ending in Early Modern English nouns is genitive –s, which is added to words in the
singular … and to irregular plurals” (Nevalainen, 2006:74). This means that in
most cases a simple “s” was added to the end of the word in order to signify
the possession of something. It seems simple but when added with the idea of
pluralisation, which will be discussed later, things can get a little
confusing.
“no distinction was usually made
in Early Modern English between the common-case plural (kings), the genitive singular (king’s)
or the genitive plural (kings’): all
three were spelled kings and
pronounced alike.” (Nevalainen, 2006:75)
The
demonstration above presents an issue with the simple addition described
previously. This can create a lot of confusion for the modern reader of the
language. The only way that the case is determined is often by the sentence
structure and what is being read in the sentence. However, this is not the end
of the issue. “This genitive suffix [-(e)s] was also sometimes replaced by the
possessive pronoun his in Late Middle
and Early Modern English texts.” (Nevalainen, 2006:75). This was particularly
with masculine nouns ending in an “s” sound. This was in order for smoother
pronunciation and understanding.
In some
circumstances the formation of the genitive was changed quite markedly. There
was similar tendency to the above for female her for similar sound ending but
both less common than usual –(e)s ending (Nevalainen, 2006:75). So in both
cases the simple ending was replaced by a complete new word. This is not the
entire case either as it results in a third method of indicating possession
through the use of “of”. The genitive case may also be replaced by an of-construction e.g. Prince of Denmark’s forces instead of forces of the Prince of Denmark
(Nevalainen, 2006:76). This was construction was used in most cases, as
indicated, where a title of an individual was being used rather than their
name.
So there
were essentially three forms of indication of possession for EModE: simple
addition of “-s”, “his” or “her” construction depending on gender and the “of”
construction. These were the three prime ways to indicate possession with
regard to nouns. However, rather than the confusion of which method was
appropriate to what a simple rule was created; “The genitive case came to be
confined largely to personal pronouns, and the of-construction to non-personal nouns.” (Nevalainen, 2006:76).
Plurals
From
possessives to plurals, these accompany each other quite well due to the common
issue which abounds from them. The interesting thing is that then and now are
more or less the same, “In Early Modern English, the plural of nouns was
regularly formed with the –(e)s
ending. There were a few exceptions, most of them the same as now” (Nevalainen,
2006:74). This allows for an area of commonality between the languages and a
foundation, so long as the plurals are not mixed up with the possessives.
Of course
the addition to create plurals was not without problems of its own. Dialect and
the way words are spelt and used create issues in establishing a foundation for
a language, plurals complicated by dialect, and other differences in usage,
spelling and form (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:336). This means that if a person
were to travel out of an area or indeed discover a document of a different
dialect area the plurals may or may not be the same.
What has to
be noted is that in the EModE period, there were changes that were made in the
area of plurals which brought them closer to what is known today. The
differences in spelling and use of plurals found commonality, plurals by
Shakespeare’s time ending in –s or –en, both still used, some of them still
remain in use today for example, children and oxen (Bryson, 2009:55). On this
comparison it is also useful to look at the “zero” plurals, those where no
addition was made in order to make a word plural. In this particular instance
there are some differences which the modern reader needs to be aware of,
several nouns plural in Shakespearean which are singular in PDE, other
differences also present in language (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:336).
With the
background to plurals established it is possible to look at some specifics. In
the Middle English period often a plural was indicated by the suffix “-z”,
however this was to change during the development of Early Modern English. The
dominant plural becomes –s and only in some instances in the early sixteenth
century –z (Lass, 1999:141). This shows a trend toward what most would call the
modern language. However, this change was not instant, and the dominance of the
–s ending was not clear, “other evidence suggests that the {-s} suffix system
was not entirely stable even in the late sixteenth century:” (Lass, 1999:144).
Further to this idea of stable and not so stable ideas, at least one other
example can be presented. The f – v plural was present in the sixteenth
century, but not firmly established in all cases (Lass, 1999:145). This is with
reference to words such as wolf and knife, where their plurals are wolves and
knives respectively. There is some evidence of the simple addition of an “-s”
in these cases.
The idea of
the zero plural has already been expressed, and that there were some issues and
differences when EModE and PDE are compared. What also should be noted is that
there were some similarities also. Examples for this include words such as
foot, year, shilling and pound (Lass, 1999:141), all of which exist in PDE in
their zero plural form, along with others.
Noun Phrase
The Noun
Phrase (NP) is a basic building block of the English language. The NP often
functions as verb subjects and objects, as predicative expressions, and as the complements of prepositions or postpositions; meaning
that such a phrase can occur at almost any part of the sentence. The basic
structure of the noun phrase is the same in PDE as it was in EModE (Lass, 1999:204).
The
determiner is the word which references the noun in the phrase and indicates to
what the noun refers to in the sentence. The determiners in EModE are like the present,
mine and thine still present in the sixteenth century with it being possible
to have two possessive and demonstrative precede noun (Nevalainen, 2006:104).
However
even with these similarities there are some complications in Early Modern
English which need to be taken into account; the “noun-like use of adjectives
was more widespread in earlier English.” (Nevalainen, 2006:105), in some cases
noun is not expressed. This leaves the reader to either assume that the
adjective is the noun. In the case of determiners possessive and demonstrative
less frequent, replaced by of-construction
(Nevalainen, 2006:105). For the most part the language is formed much like in
Present Day English.
Pronouns
Pronouns
are used instead of proper nouns in order to indicate an individual or more
than one person without having to repeat the proper noun. These pronouns are
categorised by person, being first to third person depending on the individual
or group being indicated. In Early Modern English the pronoun paradigms were
much the same with some differences in second person; the differences in third
person were “out of date” by the end of the sixteenth century (Smith,
2005:142).
With regard
to the specifics of the pronouns, in the case of the singular pronoun, the
third person nominative was “hit”, first person genitive was my or thine, and
third person neutral was hit, in all other cases they were the same as the
modern language (Lass, 1999:146). With regard to the plural there were much the
same, aside from the second person genitive which was ye or you (Lass,
1999:147). Pronouns are most useful and with these changes, most of which
disappeared by the end of the sixteenth century. Many of these differences were
hang-overs from previous forms of the language which persisted.
One of the
biggest innovations in the Early Modern period was the introduction of “its” in
order to apply to inanimate forms, or forms not relating to humans.
“his, where we now use its
was the usual form until about 1600, … Similarly, which was until about the same time often applied to animate things
as well as inanimate,” (Bryson, 2009:55)
“Its” is a
most useful pronoun as it is used to refer to things rather than individuals,
or even animals. This introduction allowed for the reduction in confusion as to
whom or what the reference was being made to. The “his” genitive is a from an earlier
form of the language; “his-genitive” (Jesus Christ his sake) present in 16th
century from earlier (Lass, 1999:146). This form of the language was replaced
in the late sixteenth century. However this innovation did take time to catch
on in the language.
Two other
differences between PDE and EModE must be noted in order to understand the
change in the language and how it was formed. “Early Modern English used the
ordinary pronouns, not forms with –self;
these were reserved for intensive or emphatic use,” (Barber, 2000:187). This is
the reason why the “himself” expression makes its greatest appearance in the
Bible especially in reference to either God or Jesus. The other pronoun which
is different in the Renaissance period as compared to the modern is the use of
the possessive to indicate parts of the body. The modern uses the possessive
pronoun whereas the EModE form uses the article e.g. “your lip” vs. “the lip”
(Lass, 1999:193).
This gives
a general overview of the similarities and differences between Early Modern
English and Present Day English. It is important, however that some of the
specifics need more attention paid to them in order to have a greater
understanding of the language as to how it was written and expressed.
Ye, You and Thou
“The most important development
in the use of the pronouns in Early Modern English, the substitution of the
second person plural forms ye, you for the singular form thou,” (Lass, 1999:191)
The
development indicated above allowed for a simplification in the language. This
development is one which indicated a change from Middle English toward a new
more modernised language. The simplification of the language has been much
discussed and investigated. Particularly the second person pronoun system has
been much investigated with the distinction between subject and object uses of ye and you disappeared, you
becomes normal (Crystal, 2003:71). This takes the expressions from three terms
down to one and begins to make the language much like the modern version of it.
The same can be said for the use of thee.
“our [EModE] period sees a
gradual but comprehensive decline in the use of the second person singular
pronoun thou (in subject position)
and thee (in object position).”
(Mugglestone, 2006:149)
As
indicated this is a gradual decline in the use of both of these pronouns. They
all, including “ye” were used in some contexts all the way up into the end of
the sixteenth century. The change from thou to you was especially important as
there were particular situations where the change would be made those where it
would not. The use of these two is most important.
“You” and “thou”
were both used to some extent throughout the Early Modern period in text but
also in speech. The modern form and use of “you” was developed in this
period, you developed the ambiguity still present today, and became the
singular alternative to thou/thee which was used to distinguish
higher rank, and standard expression of upper class, but also upper to lower
(Crystal, 2003:71).
Class considerations in this
period were of importance and thus the knowledge of the correct use of words
was important. A simple misuse of either word could mean trouble for an
individual. Thou was used when the speaker and spoken to were familiar but also
from upper to lower, you more formal lower to upper, it was always dependent on
the speaker and also the situation (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:450). The misuse
of in such a situation could result in some emotional situations, and these
terms were used as such.
The change
from “thou” to “you” and vice versa was used to reflect mood or emotion,
positive or negative dependent on the situation (Crystal, 2008:193). The
deliberate misuse of a term in speech or in writing could be done in order to
present a feeling on a particular matter or about a particular person. Thus it
is the emotional content which can break the convention, you being the formal, thou
being the intimate, thou used to
superior for the expression of anger, thou
used to an equal was seen as an insult (Crystal, 2003).
Relative Pronouns
There are
rules for relative pronouns in Present Day English, that and which are not used
for humans. This was not the case with Early Modern English, relative pronouns
were in an unstable state, the distinction between which and who was not
systematic in EModE, instances of both used for “human” and “non-human”
(Crystal, 2008:197). This demonstrates another rule in PDE which is not present
in EModE and is often confused, especially where the attributes of the subject
are unclear.
The instability of the relative
pronoun actually extended further. Relative pronouns were sometimes absent or
simply not used (Barber, 2000:187). Of importance to Elizabethan English, is
the convention of using that and which for common objects and who for people
introduced and used (Smith, 2005:132), but this was later in the period. The
relative pronouns on the whole are not really of much concern to the modern
reader save that attention needs to be paid to the subject matter.
Reflexive and Dative
“Early Modern English allowed a
personal pronoun after a verb to express such notions as ‘to’, ‘for’, ‘by’,
‘with’ or ‘from’” e.g. but hear me this – but hear this from me (Crystal,
2008:198)
With regard
to the reflexive and dative pronouns, there is little to comment on, but there
are some points of significance that must be noted, as demonstrated above. The
form of the language is somewhat different from the modern language and needs
some attention paid to it. This form is for the most part absent in the modern
language; the idea of the ethical dative pronoun was going out of fashion by
Shakespeare’s time (Crystal, 2008:198). In the case of the reflexive case there
are also instances where this was not present (Crystal, 2008:198), in some
cases absent or simply not used. Once again this is an element of the language
some attention needs to be paid to in reading texts of the period.
Demonstrative Pronouns
The
demonstrative pronoun is used to point something out, thus demonstrate its
presence to the listener. This is a form of the language which gives direction
to the audience. “In Early Modern English, … there are three demonstrative
pronouns, this, that, and yon (yond, yonder).” (Lass, 1999:194); the first being for the speaker, the
second being remote from the speaker, and the third being remote from speaker
and listener. The third form has actually been for the most part replaced by
the second in the modern language. These are not the only ones of concern. This
is especially the case with reference to people; “one” was more common than
“body” as pronoun as in “everyone” and “everybody” with human reference, “one”
used for emphatic effect (Lass, 1999:196). The emphatic effect sought was the
pointing to a group of singular individuals rather than a group of individuals.
On the other side of things there
is the expression of a general idea not pointing to individuals at all. In this
case; “one” was also used alone as “a certain” or non-specific someone/everyone
(Lass, 1999:197). The certainty of the individual being presented or
demonstrated is the important point here. This changes the form of the language
as does the use of the other pronouns expressed above.
Verbs
“English verbs have changed more
than nouns between the fifteenth century and the present day. With the loss of the
second-person singular pronoun thou, person and number marking was reduced in verbs. The third person present-tense
singular suffix changed in the General dialect as -(e)th gave way to -(e)s by
the middle of the Early Modern period.” (Nevalainen, 2006:89)
The various
changes in the language from the use and change in use of verbs is the reason
why this was placed after the nouns, where fewer changes are present. The form
of the verb is important in its original form and also the changes made. Verbs
come in the forms of weak, strong, regular and irregular. In the case of Early
Modern English, verbs are weak, strong and irregular; they account for person,
number, tense and mood; there is a change in the third person singular present
–eth for –(e)s (Smith, 2005:145), this last point will be explained further on.
At this point it is important that the changes were not regular in the language
at all, for the most part they were changed as they were used. The verbs had undergone
erratic process of regularisation in the process from EModE to PDE; the strong
drives out weak for example the use of torn instead of teared (Bryson, 2009:55).
The forms
of the words, as already indicated did not the same. Some words even remained
as they were but were different, some verbs changed over the EModE period, some
irregular to regular, some regular to irregular, some irregular stay but
different (Crystal, 2008:192). This form change changes the language and places
different emphasis on the language and the speech. In this a useful place to
start the investigation is in the categories of the verbs as the critical
category for verb was tense at expense of person, number and mood (Lass, 1999:158).
Tense
Tense in
grammar is how time is expressed in language and with regard to this it is an
important consideration with regard to EModE. “Most of the distinctive features
of Shakespearean verb usage relate to the way these forms are used to express
time (tenses).” (Crystal, 2008:188).
Tense is marked in different ways and in this particular case there are four
which need to be presented, present, past, perfect and future. Each one is
different and is used to express the passage of time in some form.
“Tense marking relates the action
of the verb to the time of the utterance. The present tense is unmarked in their base forms in Early Modern and
Present-day English alike:” (Nevalainen, 2006:92)
Present
tense in modern English is sometimes absent because it is assumed that the
action is going on at the time that it is spoken. This is more or less the same
with regard to Early Modern English, except for some exceptions which are
present in the earlier form. This distinction is worthy of consideration in
order to understand the language properly.
“The verbs be and have distinguish
the first, second and third person in the present tense in the singular (am, art,
is; have, hast, hath/has),
but not in the plural (be/are; have).
The present-tense plural of be became
distinct from the base form in the General dialect” (Nevalainen, 2006:90)
The General
dialect is the one which emerged from London and became the dominant dialect
upon what “proper” English is based upon. It is from this dialect that the
majority of rules for the language are based. For EModE there were some terms
and forms which are now not included in the language, “to be” also included
art, beest, weert, wast (Crystal, 2008:188). These are all present tense forms
of verbs, which also allowed some breadth in expression of the language.
Past tense
expresses things that happened in the past. There are a few changes, but for
the most part these followed through into PDE, past tense verb both used (-ed)
or (t) both with or without deletion (Lass, 1999:172). Thus describing word
forms such as the past tense of “form” being “formed” and the past form of “go”
being “went” depending on the word being used and whether it is regular or
irregular. This is much the same as is found in the modern language, however
there was a mix of older forms and newer forms in the language at the time.
Past forms exist with newer forms some for changes in meaning and nuance, past
forms also use –en alongside –ed, change PDE to EModE both regular to irregular
and vice versa (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:319).
Future
tense expresses events or actions which will or are likely to happen in the
future. This could be called the opposite of past tense. This form of tense is
much the same as the modern form of the language, shall and will used to
express future tense (Nevalainen, 2006:95). The forms of verbs for future tense
are much the same as they are now.
There are
many different ideas about perfect tense and what it is. This is a tense which
does not always occur in languages. In principle it is used to discuss an
action which did not happen in the present but at some other time, however this
expression focuses on the result rather than the action. In EModE, perfect
tense was formed with “have”, but also with “be” commonly with motion or change
verbs (Barber, 2000:188). This is the same in form as it is in the modern
language.
Voice
The voice
of a verb describes the relationship between the action and the participants
whether the participant or the action is what is performing. In this EModE had
a form of voice which is no longer used in modern English which is called
progressive voice which describes an action in the process of happening.
“The progressive be plus –ing construction was only consolidated in the Early Modern Period.
That might be related to an earlier verb noun is suggested by an alternative
structure with a remnant of a preposition preceding –ing in cases like … (‘on playing’). But overall, the simple verbal
be plus –ing construction was more common in Early Modern English and
steadily gained ground in the course of the period” (Nevalainen, 2006:94)
This
progressive voice is actually not all that present in Early Modern English
often being replaced by the simple form. Progressive voice is one which is only
difficult due to the changes in the positions of the elements of the sentence
involved, and for the most part was replaced by the simple division of active
and passive voice. Indeed progressive verb forms were not present in
Shakespeare’s time (Bryson, 2009:58). Thus with the active being common and
unchanged along with the passive, the only real concern is the use of
progressive which has been expressed above.
Person
Person
refers to the individual who is talking or whom is being spoken to. Needless to
say with regard to verbs this is an important consideration and there are some
differences between our modern English and Early Modern English with regard to
this aspect of language. These differences need to be noted.
“Early Modern English verbs
typically mark person and number contrast in the second (-(e)st) and third person singular (-(e)th/-s) as opposed to zero marking in the first person singular
and the whole of the plural. But the third-person singular ending applies only
in the present tense.” (Nevalainen, 2006:89)
The first
person is the same for both Present Day English and Early Modern English. So it
is more significant and useful to address both the second and third person and
their associated differences. The changes in second the second person verb it
is thou which presents the changes in
the verb in this person.
“recessive second-person singular
thou which really justifies us
talking about person marking in Early Modern English: the second-person
singular suffix -(e)st also attaches
to past-tense verbs.” (Nevalainen, 2006:89)
This is appended to lexical verbs
when there is no auxiliary verb present e.g. thou shalt/wilt/art/hast. The
subject of auxiliary verbs will be dealt with further along. The second person
as revealed in the pronouns previously generates the changes in the language
due to the difference in the pronoun. Similar issues exist in the third person
as indicated above. “Early Modern English also showed the tendency found in
many present-day regional dialects to level person marking in the third person
singular.” (Nevalainen, 2006:91), thus simplifying the language. The
simplification was in order to make the language more readable and usable. This
change was a change gradually from the ending of –eth to –es (Barber, 2000:185).
In the case of the third person this changed the form of the language, and also
simplified it across the dialects.
Indicative Mood
The mood of
language in grammar allows the individual to express their particular mood
toward a subject which is being spoken about. The indicative mood is the most
common as it is expresses statements of fact, thus it can be seen expressed in
many parts of the languages both modern and Early Modern. Many of the changes
in the language which have already been expressed apply to this mood such as
the change from the –th and –est ending to the –s ending.
What should be noted is that by
Shakespeare’s time –s dominant, but he used both –s and –th (Bryson, 2009:54),
meaning both forms were still used at the time. The important thing about their
use was context. The choice of the ending during the sixteenth century was
dependent on the situation in which the author found himself and also what was
being written about, the choice was a pragmatic one (Lass, 1999:138). The major
changes in the indicative mood have already been discussed.
Subjunctive Mood
The
subjunctive mood is less common than the indicative mood in both languages
simply because of what it is and was used for. The subjunctive mood is used
typically for things which are not in a state of reality at the time. Such
examples of the subjunctive mood use are for things such as emotion, judgement
and wishes. These are not factual but more unreal in their state.
The
subjunctive mood clauses are not as common as the indicative, as has been
expressed, but their form was accepted in the language. In EModE the subjunctive
mood is found in second and third person singular present in the base form of
verb, the subjunctive was normal even in colloquial styles (Barber, 2000:185).
The fact that this mood was present even in more common use indicates some
importance in its role.
The
subjunctive allows for expressions of the future based not on factual evidence
but the wishes of the individual. This aspect of the language allows for more
forward thinking, both in life and also in the language. The subjunctive in
mood had a more significant role to play in EModE, triggered by hypothetical,
conjectural and volitional contexts include that-clauses
(Nevalainen, 2006:96). This relatively new view of things, which were not real,
allowed for the expression of opinion and ideas allowing for more use of the
language and expansion in the form of it.
Auxiliary Verbs
“One difference between the
Present-day and Early Modern constructions is that Early Modern English
normally preferred the auxiliary be
with verbs of motion” (Nevalainen, 2006)
Auxiliary
verbs are designed to enhance the functional or grammatical meaning of a phrase
and usually accompany a verb. This is their purpose. In the modern language
these small words are often taken for granted, but their development and
increased use in the Early Modern period is significant.
“the first contracted auxiliary
verbs and prepositions to appear frequently on the printed page were in
dramatic texts of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries,” (Lass,
1999:18)
It really
should be no surprise that these auxiliary verbs made their presence known in
dramatic texts of the period. Much can be said of the use of such texts in the
exploration of the language not only in the use of language but also the
creation of words and language. The auxiliary verb is most useful as it allows
the expression of what can be or may be. The most significant auxiliary verbs
of the period were; be, have, do, can, may, would, shall (Crystal and Crystal,
2002:481). These allowed for expression to advance and increase. The auxiliary
verb “do” is one of the most significant.
The forms
of “do” are much the same as the modern usage, as are most auxiliary verbs, such
as “go”, “say” etc. (Lass, 1999:177), but the increased use and flexibility of
do in particular allowed for greater expression in the language. Such a simple
word but great potential, and in the earlier language it was not as restricted
as in the present. The usage of the auxiliary “do” was different to the
present; the usage of “do” optional, and not as restricted as in present-day
(Barber, 2000:188). This flexibility for the modern reader can cause some
consternation in the understanding of a passage. The restriction of the use of
the word comes later in the period of the language.
The usage
of do in the period is strong but, as indicated, the rules were not established
so its use was flexible. In EModE do
spreads to negative questions, then to affirmative, most negative statements
and some affirmative statements (Nevalainen, 2006:108), such was the flexibility
in the use of the word. For the most part the restrictions are absent in the
period. Earlier the word is used with some form of control placed upon it, but
“by the sixteenth century, do is
commonly used as a semantically empty auxiliary, simply as a stylistic variant
(Barber, 2000:191).”
Eventually as the adventure with
language begins to settle, the more modern restrictions placed on the language
were enforced, but it must be remembered that such restrictions were more or
less absent in the Elizabethan period. “Do
comes to be fixed as an obligatory element in certain sentence types in Early
Modern English.” (Nevalainen, 2006:107); the important word being “comes”.
Verb Phrase
The verb
phrase is composed of at least one verb and the dependents of that verb, and it
is here that we find a change in mode from simplification to increasing
complexity. The verb phrase simpler in EModE than in PDE due to a wider range
of meaning, but was much the same in essence (Lass, 1999:209). The purpose of
the verb phrase functioned for the same reason. However, as indicated there
were some differences in the actions of the verbs and how they were used; of used with abstract and mental verbs, by with more concrete actions and
events, some used both (Nevalainen, 2006:110). This is where some of the
constructions are different between the two.
The
similarities actually outweigh the differences between the older and the more
modern forms of the language. The form of the language is even much the same.
The verb phrase grammar much same as modern, will and shall retain volition and
obligation in expression (Smith, 2005:135). This is important as the same rules
for the most part apply, except where exceptions have been noted. It was this
process of change and format which caused other changes in the language,
marking negative polarity of sentences with not
close to aux even fusing two resulting the removal of double negation
(Nevalainen, 2006:111).
The formats of verbs in EModE
were different from PDE, and the differences have been noted. Care needs to be
taken in order not to impose modern rules where they are not appropriate or
were absent in the older form of the language. It is only through such careful
understanding and exploration of the language that it can be understood as the
author intended.
Adjectives
An
adjective is a describing word, it is used to describe something in more detail
than the noun alone can supply. This description also tends to add a form of
value to the noun, or more specifically what is being described. In the case of
Early Modern English, as with much to the language, there are differences
between it and the modern.
In the case
of the simple approach to adjectives, sometimes sequence of adjectives
different, some appear both before and after noun they modify (Crystal, 2008:188).
In the modern language they often appear before the thing that they are
describing, in the case of EModE, this was not necessarily the case, and could
appear before or after. However there were elements which are similar.
Articles used roughly the same as
in PDE; Zero expressions are more common in EModE than PDE; these are single
word expression of concepts “The French”, “the law” and also specific things
such River Thames – Thames (Lass, 1999:191). In some instances the identifying
“the” or describing attribute at the beginning of the concept are absent, as
demonstrated above.
Adjectives are used to describe
and thus give value to an object or concept, thus there needs to be an ability
to compare such descriptions. The system in EModE was in development, but there
was a system for adjectives for comparison: a short adjective has the addition
of “-er” or “est” depending on the degree of comparison; a long adjective has the
addition of “more” or “most” depending on the degree of comparison (Crystal,
2008:186). The use of more and most was more common in EModE than in the
modern.
The popularity of the use of
“more” and most in the Early Modern period is demonstrated by the presence of
double comparatives in the language with more frequency than found in PDE.
These ‘double comparatives’ and ‘double superlatives’ were quite common and
used for more emphatic effect “most unkindest” (Crystal, 2008:187 and Smith,
2005:144). Such double comparatives are used to increase the effect of the
statement and as such would be used more in poetry and such creative forms than
in formal forms. What needs to be stated is that double comparatives less
common than assumed (Nevalainen, 2006:99).
Adverbs
Adverbs are
some of the most flexible words in the English language. In essence they work
the same way as adjectives in order to describe something and give it value;
however adjectives primarily used to describe nouns while adverbs are primarily
used to describe verbs. The adverb can also be used for other descriptive
purposes such as to describe an adjective. This makes it a very complex
category of word.
It would
appear that this would result in the adverb being a complex thing in the Early
Modern period due to the space in time; however this is not actually the
case. Adverbs use the same patterns as in
present language (Smith, 2005:144). This means that the same rules will apply
to adverbs in both languages. In both cases the formation of such a word is
simple; the adverb is formed by an adjective + ly (Nevalainen, 2006:99).
The “double
comparative” which was mentioned above in the section with regard to adjectives
actually applies to adverbs as well, as is the construction of them. The comparison
is made mostly by using more and most, +er also but less common
(Nevalainen, 2006:100). The comparison is the same construction and the “double
comparative” the same formation. This would seem to make it all simple, but the
modern reader needs to beware. The languages are not universally the same, as
per usual with the English language there are exceptions to the rule. Some
adverbs ending in –ly in PDE do not in Shakespearean, also some in reverse
where –ly simply added to word (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:269).
Prepositions
Prepositions
express the spatial relationship of one subject to another, or create
understanding within a sentence. For the most part, prepositions are the same between
EModE and PDE, there are, however some reduced forms present (i’th – in the)
(Smith, 2005:145). There are is an aspect of prepositions that needs to be
examined being the use of “a” and “an”. These rules are similar to those found
in Present Day English, but need to be noted. The rules for use of “an” or “a” are
mostly the same as PDE rules; however “an” used before “yu” sound in
Shakespearean English. “An” is also used “when the h-word is monosyllabic or
begins with a stressed syllable:” (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:17).
“A-“
“a-“ was used as a grammatical
particle, particle emphasising durative nature of a verb, “commonest used is
before a verb ending in –ing”,
“Historically a form of on,” (Crystal
and Crystal, 2002:2)
While it
would seem that this belongs under the prepositions above, this is actually a
grammatical particle, thus not actually a word. This is a particle, thus part
of a word used in order to enhance a word. The idea of a durative verb is one
whose effect is extended further than it would normally. For verbs not by nature
durative “a-” is dramatic or serious in nature, often used as another syllable
(Crystal and Crystal, 2002:2). This means that the tempo of a phrase can be
extended, clearly the prime use of this is in poetry and other such forms of
the language.
Numbers
The modern
expression of numbers, such as “twenty-three”, is something which was developed
through the Early Modern period. What is important with regard to this is that
it was in the process of development in the period. It was still being affected
by Middle English, indeed the constructions of the numerals of Middle English were
still common, such as “three & twenty” (Smith, 2005:133).
What, Who and Withal
Two of
these words will be familiar even to a modern audience, the third not so much.
These words are more complex than their appearance might appear. The uses of
these words were wide and so was their form.
What associates with people and
things, also present in more compound forms (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:495).
This makes the concept of what more complex in form than it was in EModE as
compared to PDE. This is especially complicated when taking into account its
derivatives. “What and its
derivatives had a wide range of interrogative and exclamatory uses,” (Crystal
and Crystal, 2002:495). The derivatives are those where what is used and then
had additions to it such as “whatever”.
The next is who. The word “who”
in the modern language is a form asking or describing a human, as is its
derivatives. This was not the only case in EModE. “Who” was less complex than
what, most is the same as in PDE, but there is wider use after preposition
rather than using whom, it was wider semantically, counts concepts, objects and
animals (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:497).
The final word is withal, and
also its derivatives. This is an adverb expressing additive meaning, simple
form also used as a preposition at end of construction in place of with
(Crystal and Crystal, 2002:501). The word “withal” can be used in place of
“with” and also as a preposition and an adverb, this makes for flexible word
usage. These words are unique in the language, both modern and Early Modern in
that they cross over the boundaries of language.
Conclusion
Grammar is
one of those important elements which need to be understood in order to understand
the language properly. The foundation elements of the language are vital in
order to understand the language as a whole and grammar is how we make sense of
the language. It is grammar which determines how the words are formed and
collected together in order to make sense. This is one of the driest subjects
in any language but it is of great importance if we are to understand and be
able to use the language which is the subject.
Early
Modern English and Present Day English are similar but not the same. This means
that their grammar is also similar but not the same. It needs to be in the
forefront of a person’s mind when discussing and especially reading the
language. Such a language should not be evaluated from the perspective of a
newer language or an older language but accepted and appreciated for what it
was at the time. In the case of Early Modern English and more specifically
Elizabethan English, this was language at a time of great changes in the
language a time of flux where there was great experimentation, and this alone
should excite the reader.
Elements must be taken into
account in order to understand the complete. This means that each element of
the grammar needs to be taken into account in the language, even where they are
similar or the same. These similarities allow the reader to find elements of
foundation to understand the language. Indeed this is why the study of foreign
languages is often difficult. In many ways studying a language from a previous
period is a similar pursuit. It is important that this language needs to be
understood from the point of view and governed by the rules which applied to it
without being biased by more modern ideas.
As a study of Elizabethan English
is made there is clear evidence of development toward our Present Day English.
Some of this can be found in punctuation and vocabulary, but the real evidence
is presented in how the language is assembled, and thus the meaning of the
language. This forward drive into their future to our present makes this
language significant and worth study.
Bibliography
Barber, C. (2000) The
English Language: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Bryson, B. (2009) Mother
Tongue: The Story of the English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK
Crystal, D. (2003) The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed),
Cambridge University Press, New York, USA
Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think
on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Crystal, D. and Crystal, B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion, Penguin
Books, London, UK
Lass, R. (ed.)(1999) The
Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume III: 1476 – 1776,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Mugglestone, L. (ed) (2006) The Oxford History of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Nevalainen, T. (2006) An Introduction to Early Modern
English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland
Smith, J. (2005) Essentials
of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA
