Elizabethan Punctuation

Greetings,

The punctuation of a language assists in its rhythm and therefore how it sounds. These small marks can make all the difference in the meaning of a passage.

Introduction

            Punctuation is how the words are assembled in order to express them. The punctuation determines the flow of the speech and how the language is expressed. Along with grammar, punctuation determines how the language is assembled and then transmitted to others either in writing or in speech. Without punctuation the reader does not know how the language should be read or where emphasis should be placed. The punctuation of the Elizabethan period was different from that of the modern period so it is useful to start with a comparison of the punctuation of both periods and to discover how one became the other.

            The next part of the process is to examine the punctuation marks themselves and see how they were used in the Elizabethan period. For the most part it will be found that they were used in similar if not the same ways. Their entrance into the language and how they were initially used is useful as this will describe much of how the language sounded and the reasons for this.

            The last part of the discussion will examine the influence of printers on the punctuation and how the printers affected the printed word. This is important for the researcher as it will raise some issues with regard to the period word and how it was changed by the printers in the process of their typesetting and printing. Other elements of typesetting associated with punctuation and the presentation of the words will also be discussed.

            The punctuation of a language acts as the signposts for the reader so that they may understand how the language should be read. Changes in punctuation by the printer either from the period or modern can change the meaning of a passage of text greatly, as such it is important to understand the punctuation and how it was used in the period in order to gain the original meaning from the text.

Comparison of Punctuation

            Just as with many parts of the language the foundations for the modern elements can be found in the Renaissance. “The basis of the modern punctuation system emerged during the Renaissance.” (Crystal, 2003:68). This does not mean that they were the same merely that the one was the foundation for the other which results in many areas of similarity between the two. This process was, as with many processes in England at the time, influenced by thought from abroad and especially from Italy. “The modern set of [punctuation] marks slowly emerged during the sixteenth century, with English writers influenced by continental practices.” (Crystal, 2008:65). This is further evidenced by the presence of Italian printers in England at the time whose editorial skills would have come to bear on their work.

            As with the rest of the language, the punctuation at the time was fluid as there was no exact standard which had been established. However, in the case of punctuation, “the basis of English punctuation practices was being established at precisely the time that Shakespeare was writing.” (Crystal, 2008:66). This is one of the reasons that Shakespeare makes such a useful source for language from the period.

“when a punctuation mark is used that is not required by Early Modern English grammar, then it has to be explained, and – once an error in transmission is ruled out – the most likely explanation is that it is there for phonetic purposes.” (Crystal, 2008:69)

            Error in transmission is a subject which will be discussed a little further along in the discussion as they are important. What should be taken from the above at this stage is that the punctuation mark is assumed to be there for phonetic purposes. Thus it is there to make the language sound correctly. This demonstrates an influence which can be found in many of the considerations of the language including orthography and grammar. “During the EModE period, punctuation was essentially rhetorical, reflecting much more closely the pauses and emphases of speech:” (Smith, 2005:127).

            The emphasis on phonetic spelling and punctuation reveals a process which was on-going in the entire language at the time and not just punctuation. The two approaches speaking and reading in which reading eventually dominates (Crystal, 2008:68) reveals an argument as to whether the punctuation should be based on how it is said or how it is read. Due much to the documents being written at the time and the printers reading eventually dominated. What is interesting about this is that the same consideration with regard to the flow of the language was still important, especially for pauses, “one period = two colons = four commas” (Crystal, 2008:67). This set a form of standard as to how the language should be read and thus pronounced also.

            One of the quotes above discusses the presence of marks not required by the language this is an important consideration especially as bare punctuation more common than over-punctuation in the English of the period (Crystal, 2008:70). The reader and researcher both need to take care in examining documents of the period and especially the search for standard forms in the language. These were not as present as they might have been.

“there was a great deal of idiosyncrasy and arbitrariness in their use, and attempts to find a neat correlation between punctuation and prosody in Early Modern English texts have never succeeded.” (Crystal, 2003:68)

            The language at the time was in flux, there were very little standards to go by so writers wrote as they felt was best at the time and to what suited them at the time. Errors of transmission are a very important consideration to be made by the researcher especially as the addition or deletion of punctuation marks in the process of translating the text can change the meaning (Crystal, 2003:68). On example of this is the addition of exclamation marks, which will be discussed further along. The errors in transmission are the reason why in examining the language it is important to find as close to the primary material as possible.

Punctuation Marks

“John Hart … had a great deal to say about both the rhetorical and grammatical functions of ‘pointing’. He distinguished the period (‘point’), colon (‘joint’), comma, question mark (‘asker’), exclamation mark (‘wonderer’), parentheses (‘clozer’), square brackets (‘notes’), apostrophe (‘tourner’), hyphen (‘joiner’), diaeresis (‘sondrer’), and capital (‘great’) letters. His detailed account greatly influenced the way grammarians and printers dealt with this area, and punctuation marks in books came to be more widely used as a result.” (Crystal, 2003:68)

John Hart was one of the influential reformers of the period and one who left his mark on the language. His goal was to standardise the language so that it was used in a more universal way and thus be easier to understand. He was not the only one pursuing this goal, but many of Hart’s determinations with regard to the language can still be found in the modern language. This list is especially useful as it describes those punctuation marks which were present at the time. Something that should be noted is that these marks did not all appear at the same time, but as with the language, developed over time. The punctuation marks presented here are those which have some significance interest to them especially for the researcher.

The apostrophe “arrived in England in the 1550s, and by the time Shakespeare began to write was appearing sporadically in plays.” (Crystal, 2008:83). The fact that the mark was sporadic in plays demonstrates that it took time for the use of the punctuation mark to be accepted. As is known of the mark in the modern language it has at least two purposes, and just as with the mark in general, they took time for acceptance.

“The use of an –s ending to show possession did not develop at the same rate as the use to mark elision [omission]. Most possessives in the original texts have no apostrophe,” (Crystal, 2008:85)

            The apostrophe is a most useful punctuation mark and allowed the language to develop in new and different ways that it otherwise would not have been able to without the mark. The simple addition of possessives allowed for simplification for the reader and the use of it in elision, while used in different forms beforehand, gave clear indication in the language as to what was happening. A similar story is the case with the hyphen.

            The hyphen is one of those marks which has continued to plague theorists from the Early Modern period and well into our own, the use of hyphens was uncertain then as now, but became increasingly common in 1570s (Crystal, 2008:96). There are few clear times when the hyphen is used, and it is used in several other places, this was the same case as in the Elizabethan period. What can clearly be said about the use of the hyphen is that it was used for breaking words at end of line and in compound words same as modern (Crystal, 2008:97). As can be seen the language collected a common use of punctuation marks over time.

            The semi-colon is a mark which was used quite frequently in the language over time, though its most frequent use did not occur until the Elizabethan period, “the semicolon, used with increasing frequency in English texts after about 1580, although its nomenclature remained doubtful for many decades.” (Lass, 1999:29). Just as with the hyphen, the use of the semi-colon was debated by theorists at the time. The presence of the mark is also useful in dating the language by the amount if times it is used. For some time the semi-colon was used in the same way as the colon (Crystal, 2003:68). As it became used more and more over the decades it developed a use of its own, which is found in the modern language.

“The mark [inverted commas] started to appear in English during the 1590s, and increased in frequency throughout the following century, … There is hardly any sign of it in Shakespearean texts” (Crystal, 2008:94)

            Inverted commas, or quotation marks, were used for speech just as they are in the current language. This means that this is one of the marks which attained and kept its use through the changes in language from the Elizabethan to our own. However, it should be noted that this process was slow as can be indicated by its lack of presence in Shakespeare’s works. What is interesting about this is that before the use of such a mark, the reporting verb was in parentheses or followed it with a colon (Crystal, 2008:95). This construction was simplified by the use of the inverted commas.

The question mark is one that was described in form and function by Hart, as indicated above. It was seen as a “point of interrogation” (Crystal, 2008:66) and therefore clearly used when a question was asked either of the reader or when one character asked another. While clear in their use in this particular instance, there was some confusion with this and the exclamation mark.

The exclamation mark was a relatively late introduction to the English language, and had some confusion in the beginning between it and the question mark. Exclamation marks were used in the 1590’s confused with question mark both physically and editorially (Crystal, 2008:72). Physically they look much the same as the question mark. Without the clear printing that is present in the modern world or even more so in the case of handwriting, it would be easy to confuse which was which in the editing process. For the modern researcher it is important to be aware of the presence of exclamation marks in Shakespeare’s works as they are not original, “it is important to know that, when reading such material … all exclamation marks (and indeed dashes too) have been added by the modern editor” (Crystal, 2008:77). In earlier works the case is even truer and thus the researcher needs to be careful. The exclamation mark was a late-comer to the English language and not common at all in the earlier periods.

“their [parentheses] main function is to enclose an observation which makes an extra or subordinate semantic point; if omitted, the rest of the sentence would still stand.” (Crystal, 2008:78)

            The fact that the above refers to the function expressed as their main function is significant. Just as with many words in the English language in the Elizabethan period with regard to use and spelling, many of the marks were also debated as to their correct function. For the most part there was no universal standard for usage of parentheses; for the most part that which they enclosed was for explanatory purposes, or to reduce the emphasis on it (Crystal, 2008:80). So in simple terms parentheses were used to enclose additional information which had little impact upon the surrounding information, topic or grammar.

            The marks which have been discussed here are those which have some significance in the language attributed to them. This is the case even if it is due to their dubious use and explanation. This does not deny the presence of other marks in the language, as there obviously are, but is more focused on those which need some explanation. To this, for the most part those which are absent are those which have the same or very similar functions in the Elizabethan period as they do in the modern.

Typesetting

“Students of Shakespeare’s language need to be aware of the layers of uncertainty surrounding the texts we have available, and understand the bibliographic variables involved,” (Crystal, 2008:40)

            The subject of printers and typesetting would seem to be unrelated to the subject of the language of a culture however it is through such a medium that languages of the Early Modern period became popular and known. With regard to punctuation it is even more important because the editorial decisions of the printers affected how the language was presented and thus understood by others. Some of the changes were simply editorial and others were due to the type. The typesetting and limited by type resulted in altered punctuation in many cases (Crystal, 2008:71).

The issue of typesetting would have been less of an issue if the printers themselves were native speakers however this was not the case. Many came from the continent and their editorial practices were not native. In 1561, printers and grammarians reference to Italians for punctuation (Lass, 1999:21). This led to even more confusion as to how the punctuation should be presented. Thus the presentation of typesetting was somewhat haphazard.

Capitalisation has become standard in the modern language. In the Elizabethan period this was simply not the case. Any noun, verb or adjective could be capitalised (Smith, 2005:127). This was dependent on what the author wished to emphasise at the time. In most cases the patterns of capitalisation in the language followed the description of what was important, but even this was not a set standard. There was great variation in capitalisation of names and “important” words, or due to personification (Crystal, 2008:50). Thus a word could be capitalised in one part of the text and then not in another, depending on the writer and the printer at the time.

Eventually some standardisation did come about even if it was only used for the structure of the language rather than expressing importance or similar ideas. Eventually for the structure of the language a capital follows period, sometimes follows semi-colon or colon especially when expressing break, and capital “i” for pronoun (Crystal, 2008:48ff). These practices of capitalisation were followed for the most part by the printers and became the standards in the language.

Further elements in the printed texts were merely present to save space or to ensure that the ends of the lines were lined up, or justified, space-saving measures used in the text, mostly for typesetting (Crystal, 2008:53). These space-saving measures are more associated with the punctuation than the alphabet due to them being marks, but there are some elements of cross-over in the subject due to the appearance of changes in spelling due to their use. Two examples of this are the use of the tilde and superscript letters.

Omitted letters were marked by the placement of a tilde (~) over letter to show following missing, it was use most commonly with “m” or “n” especially when doubled (Crystal, 2008:56). This technique was designed to shorten a word by a letter in order to fit the word into the line and thus have the line correctly justified at the end. In the case of superscript letters, they were used to shorten common words, “y” with “u” for thou, “t” for that, “e” for the (Crystal, 2008:57). In this case the line could be shortened by several letters depending on how many of the words were present and what was required by the printer at the time. These two are not usually found in the modern language, however other space-saving measures still are.

There are space-saving punctuation marks which are still used, and some which are present on the common keyboard of English-language computers today. Logograms are symbols standing for words, “&” for and, &c for et cetera, or for things which are assumed knowledge (Crystal, 2008:55). The “&” is present on the keyboard and is often used in many different places. For the most part it is used for expedience. Et cetera is for the most part shortened to “etc.” rather than using the logogram present, however the other can still be found. Another common space-saving element which is still present in the modern language which was used in the Elizabethan is that of abbreviations, and now just as then they were used for common things such as titles and money (Crystal:55).

Italics are really a form of print rather than a punctuation mark, just as in the modern language, in the Elizabethan they were used to highlight particular points in the text. In fact in the Elizabethan texts they were used for several things most of which continue on today. Most commonly italics were used for stage directions, titles, foreign words, names for speeches and unfamiliar words (Crystal, 2008:89). As with the modern language the italics were used to highlight something which was important or different which the reader was meant to pay attention to. What should be noted here is that it was the printers who had the real control as to what would be italicised and what would not as this was difficult to express in handwriting.

Conclusion

            Punctuation is like the signposts on the road and gives us directions as to how the language should be read and pronounced. Without such indications the meaning derived from the language can turn out much different and lose its understanding for the reader. It is of little use for the punctuation to be present without rules to guide its use and the reasons for it.

            The punctuation of the Elizabethan was much less organised than that of the present day and this needs to be taken into account. Even with this taken into account the punctuation of that previous period laid the foundations for punctuation in modern English. The reader needs to be aware that even with the similarities in the languages and the punctuation care still needs to be taken in the reading as there are still differences of note which can alter the meaning of the punctuation and thus the language.

            A selection of punctuation marks have been indicated and discussed. The discussion of these select punctuation marks claims neither that they are the most significant nor that they are the only ones. Other punctuation marks were used and used in similar manner as is found in modern texts. The ones which have been discussed are those which demonstrate differences between their presence in Elizabethan language and in the modern. This is significant as they mark both changes in the language and also differences between the modern and the Elizabethan.

            Printers and typesetting seems to be a subject which emerges regardless of which part of the Elizabethan language is discussed. This is simply the case as most of the language which is left for the researcher is in printed form rather than in hand-writing. What needs to be acknowledged here is the impact which the printers had on the use of punctuation and also the significant marks which were added to the language either as space-savers or as marks of significance some of which have travelled through to the modern language and typeset.

            Punctuation is a subject which is significant and cannot be ignored for a complete discussion and understanding of a language where it is present. For the researcher it is significant that while very similar to the punctuation of the present language there are differences which need to be acknowledged and recognised. This discussion has pointed out some points of importance which a researcher needs to take into account in the reading and discussing of the language of the Elizabethan period.

Bibliography

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

Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

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

Smith, J. (2005) Essentials of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA

Elizabethan Vocabulary

Greetings,

The subject of vocabulary would seem to be the next logical step in the progression and examination of the English of the Elizabethan period. Here follows the examination of this subject.

Introduction

            The vocabulary of a language determines how flexible and comprehensive the language is. The enhancement of the language through vocabulary is something that the Elizabethans were dedicated to and thus created, borrowed and even re-used words in order to increase their vocabulary. This is a discussion which is necessary in order to understand how the words were formed and where they came from which will describe some of the influences on the language and thus how it developed over time.

            This investigation will start with an overview of the vocabulary discussing the changes in the language and also how the words may differ from our own. The aim of this is to provide a general overview of the approach of Elizabethans to the vocabulary and also make a small comparison to our own laying the foundation for the following subjects. Glossaries discuss different and difficult words the two must be defined so that the difference between the two types of words can be clearly seen and understood, this is once again for the modern reader to understand the Elizabethan’s language. These must also be compared to some of their modern counter-parts for better understanding of the differences in meanings.

            With the introduction for the modern researcher established it is then possible to examine the vocabulary of the Elizabethans and where it came from. The first place is to examine native words and how they came about as the formed the foundation of the vocabulary. These were enhanced by new words created through methods which will be described in some detail for a complete explanation. The investigation of word formation presents the origins of the words and how the vocabulary and the words changed.

            Loan words are those which come from other languages and were inserted into the language, for the most part. Some were created within the language, but these are the ones which were for the most part borrowed to fulfil particular roles. They were not always popular and they did not always survive as will be demonstrated. The introduction of words and the changes in the language also resulted in some changes in meaning of words, this is especially important to understand for the modern reader.

            The vocabulary of the language is what allows the users of the language to express themselves. The words from the vocabulary are the building blocks of the language and determine what people can describe and talk about. This is important for the understanding of the language and the changes in the vocabulary can have a marked change upon the language itself as changes in vocabulary have demonstrated in the modern world.

Vocabulary Overview

            The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. For the most part the collection of the vocabulary of a language comes from the creation of words or the borrowing of words from other languages. These words are specific, but for the most part not collected in any recognised manner. “Vocabulary is the area of language least subject to generalization. … the learning of vocabulary is largely ad hoc and of indefinite duration.” (Crystal, 2008:146). What this means is that words are plugged into the language as they are required to fulfil a role which the language otherwise could not fill. With the great expanse in knowledge in the Renaissance period, it is of little surprise that the English language was subject to extreme growth.

“the Early Modern English period is marked by an unprecedented lexical growth. It is achieved both by extensive borrowing from other languages and by exploiting native resources by means of word-formation.” (Lass, 1999:332)

            The subjects of borrowing and word-formation are ones which will be discussed in some detail further along in this investigation. The language expanded dramatically, which makes the study of the vocabulary in this period exciting. For the modern reader it is important to realise that while there are words which are very familiar if not the same as the modern words, they were not necessarily used in the same way (Crystal, 2008:98). This is where the idea of different and difficult words emerges in the discussion.

Easy, Different and Difficult

            The first time a modern reader comes upon the language of the Elizabethan period, or indeed any period before their own, it can be a little daunting as the language looks very different. For most people this will happen in high school when they are confronted with Shakespeare. In order to assist the modern reader researchers have compiled glossaries. These glossaries focus on difficult and different words, difficult and different are not the same, some words are unused and others are the same words with different meanings (Crystal, 2008:146).

            In order to be clear about this, classification is required of the words in order to better understand them and see how they are organised. There are some words which are found in the Elizabethan texts which are familiar if not used frequently in modern speech, these are easy words; these are often used in a special context, or are very familiar e.g. oft, perchance, morrow (Crystal, 2008:147). These words sometimes appear in the glossaries but not often.

            It is the difficult and different words which appear in the glossaries the most, and it is useful to know the difference between the two. Difficult words are “words where it is not possible to deduce from their form what they might mean” (Crystal, 2008:152). These are often those which come from different languages or are situational or require previous knowledge, one example of such previous knowledge is classical study (Crystal, 2008:147). Without such previous knowledge it can be very difficult to determine the meaning of the word and this makes them difficult. In general, difficult words are difficult either because it was an Elizabethan usage no longer current or because it would pose a problem to a modern readership despite its continued currency.” (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii).

            Different words are often simply different. They have a similar form as the modern word but a different meaning was attached to them in the Elizabethan period. In some cases, some words different due to extra syllable for metre – for the effect of verse and keeping meaning of word (Crystal, 2008:150). This changes the pronunciation of the word and sometimes the spelling, but the same meaning is kept. Further, some words of the period are still used in the modern period but their meaning has changed over time which is different to their original (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii), this makes them different.

In the Elizabethan period the language was extremely malleable and the writers of the period used the words which they saw fit at the time. In cases these usages were different to how they would be used in the modern period and this makes them sometimes difficult to understand, simply because they have a different use. Some words were converted from other forms to verbs for example and others simply assembled to suit the situation (Crystal, 2008:148).

With the change in meaning of words the modern researcher and reader needs to be careful about the meaning derived. There are false friends (faux amis) where the modern meaning is different from the period meaning, these are familiar words which actually are not, the context of the word is important for definition (Crystal, 2008:156). The reader, in order to gain the correct understanding of the language needs to approach the language with some care and understanding in order to appreciate and gain a true understanding of the language.

            The meaning of words can and often do change over time. This is a prime example of the reason why the old words taken from the previous language were not as readily accepted as the new words, something discussed further along. There are many examples of this which can be pointed out one example is “politician”. The word politician comes from politic which means to be “shrewd” over time it gradually gained a double-meaning as “crafty” thus the word is left with a two-faced meaning of the word, one describing political office and the other describing the person as a “schemer” (Gooden, 2009:78). In the research of language, especially languages of the past the reader and investigator both need to be careful of this.

Learning the Vocabulary

            In learning the language of the Elizabethan period a person must sit back and have a look at exactly what they are embarking upon. The language of the period and indeed toward the end when Shakespeare was beginning to make his mark was very similar to the modern language; the idea of perspective is important (Crystal, 2008:175).

In order to achieve this correct perspective it is important to take into account the history of the word, even more so for its correct meaning (Crystal, 2008:157). The historical perspective of the language is important as the history which surrounds the language has a huge effect upon the language. This is even more important as the language of the period was not the same for all as it was going through changes.

“When we study Shakespeare’s vocabulary, it is important to recognize that his period off the language – as all other periods – is not linguistically homogeneous.” (Crystal, 2008:159)

            The process of learning the Elizabethan vocabulary and indeed the language as well is the same as learning any foreign language (Crystal, 2008:152). The past is a foreign place and as such needs to be treated as such including the language, and just as with learning a foreign language it needs to be approached with formality and regularity. Limited, spaced learning makes it difficult to build up intuition about “normal” vocabulary of Early Modern English (Crystal, 2008:152). Familiarity with the language and the words makes them easier to understand.

            In the investigation of the words, it is best to discover and investigate words as they are come across, this allows for better comprehension, they are best learnt in contextual situation (Crystal, 2008:153). What this means is that the words should be identified and researched as they are found rather than noted and investigated later on. The context of the word is very important as it gives determination to the meaning of the word. The associations between word assist with their comprehension such as antonyms, hyponymy (inclusion), synonymy, collocation (specific association), semantic fields (Crystal, 2008:154).

            The most frequent case is a difficult word in amongst words which are reasonably familiar; however this is not always the case. Clusters result in variability of comprehension, resulting in patches of difficulty (Crystal, 2008:165). These patches of difficulty can cause issues for the reader in the comprehension of the passage. However the context of the words is important and the further surrounding words can help with comprehension. It is important to read the entirety of speech/passage before worrying about difficulty in part of it (Crystal, 2008:177). The entire passage can give some direction toward the meaning of the individual words. This is a perfect example of the use of context in order to achieve comprehension. In some instances the same word will come up again and again. This can be most useful as it allows for the reading of a word in a different circumstance and thus allowing for a better understanding of the word. Words which are repeated ensure meaning established and demonstrated to be apt usage (Crystal, 2008:168).

            The approach to learning the vocabulary and indeed the language of a different period needs to be approached in the same manner as a foreign language. This needs to be methodical in process and needs to appreciate the origins of the overall text and also the individual words. The context must be used and accounted for as it is often the greatest tool the researcher will have in order to determine the meaning of words.

New Words

            New words are the way in which vocabulary expands and becomes more comprehensive. There are also cases, however in which old words are given new life and new meaning in order to fill a gap. New words are important but also old ones were given new use and meaning in change (Crystal, 2008:164). This allows the vocabulary of the language to expand in new directions. In the case of the Elizabethan vocabulary these new words combined with the old words resulted in a many and varied vocabulary.

“An influx of foreign words and a habit of creating new English words out of foreign elements made the early modern vernacular lexicon a ‘hotch-potch’ of native and alien forms.” (Mugglestone, 2006:212)

            The Elizabethan period is really located at the highest point of this influx of new words and this was only increased by writers such as Shakespeare. The expansion in the vocabulary was massive and while much of the study is focussed upon the introduction of new words, old words and those developed natively cannot be ignored.

            Words in the Elizabethan language were borrowed from other languages it is true but many were also developed at home. Words also formed in English through affixation, compounding and conversion, probably more words by these methods than borrowed (Barber, 2000:182). The formation of words through these methods will be discussed in some detail further along in the discussion. These words were developed in order to meet the challenge of an ever-changing language.

            This method of word formation was actually the dominant way in which words were introduced into the language. It is true that many foreign words were also borrowed an added to the language where native words could not fill the gaps, however this process was not totally accepted by all, based on the transparency of meaning of the native words over the borrowed ones.

“many writers and translators in the sixteenth century were against excessive foreign borrowing and promoted native means of word-formation as the basis for creating new terminology.” (Nevalainen, 2006:59)

            Shakespeare is considered by many as one of the most influential writers of his time, indeed even across the history of the English language. Shakespeare had a talent for using the language at his time in order to express what he needed and thus he was able to manipulate the language as he saw fit. “Like the English language in which he revelled, Shakespeare was a literary magpie,” (McCrum, 2010:76). He would pick and choose words from the language and use them as he felt they would fit into what he was writing at the time. Along with this ability he is credited with the invention of about 2,000 words, he did not necessarily invent them but was the first to record them (Crystal, 2010:42). The influence of Shakespeare is undeniable not only across his own period but also across the language and into the modern period.

The words Shakespeare recorded or invented, it does not really matter, filled holes for words which were not present in the language at the time and some are less obvious than others (Crystal, 2008:161). These new words were not only the work of Shakespeare but also others as well. The fact that about 10% can be credited to him in some form makes him the most prolific.

New meanings were attached to the new words and then they were merely slotted into the existing semantic network (Crystal, 2008:163). In this way the new blended in with the old giving the vocabulary of the language more room to move and the ability to express things it could not before. The coinages themselves reveal patterns of literacy or dramatic interest (Crystal, 2008:171) and thus the ability to follow the development of the language and even how the words themselves were formed as word formation is significant in the understanding of how the vocabulary was formed.

Word Formation

            Word formation is one of the most significant ways in which words are added to a vocabulary. Even in our modern language the process of word formation still introduces new words to the vocabulary, and for the Elizabethans the process was much the same. “Early Modern English is modern as fixed base forms are used in all word-formation processes.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). This means that there were fixed base forms of words and then additions were made to these words in order to create new words. However for the Elizabethans the strict controls on these formations were relaxed allowing for different words to be created.

“It is often assumed that an established word blocks the derivation from the same base of another word with the same meaning. In Early Modern English this strict economy principle was often relaxed. Synonymous operations were applied to one and the same base quite freely.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60)

            What this means is that words were developed side-by-side with the same base form resulting in the different meaning, or even with a different base resulting in the same meaning. This meant that there were words which meant the same even though the original word was different in its base form. This process allowed for the expansion of the vocabulary at a huge rate, and the process was not restricted to native words.

“In principle, word-formation does not make a basic distinction between loan words and native vocabulary in Early Modern English. Both provide material for compounding, affixation and conversion.” (Nevalainen, 2006:70)

            Compound words are those which are formed by the attachment of one word to another resulting in a new word. This process is referred to as compounding. The compound word becomes a new word in and of itself. “Compound words behave like non-compounds in that they have a form and a meaning of their own.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). These compound words could be formed of words which have different parts of speech depending on what was required by the writer at the time. Not only were there compound adjectives using a noun and an adjective, but also compound verbs consisting of a particle and a verb often with a variable meaning, either concrete or abstract, depending on the result (Nevalainen, 2006:61). This process is simply taking a word and attaching it to another, a simpler process, used in the language and in the modern is the use of prefixes and suffixes.

 “As new loan words were integrated into Early Modern English, prefixes and suffixes adopted from foreign sources came to be applied to older loan words and ultimately to the native word-stock as well. It took some time before the affixes derived from loan words established themselves. Many of them continued to be associated with borrowed lexis.” (Nevalainen, 2006:61)

            Prefixes and suffixes can alter the meaning of a word and allow the development of new words, especially where multiple additions are used. These additions need not necessarily come from the native language, as indicated above, but can be derived from other languages resulting in words different from their originals.

The process of conversion was one which Shakespeare used quite often it takes place where a words is changed from one part of speech to another, e.g. noun to verb in “lump”, and adjective to verb in “dirty” (Nevalainen, 2006:64). These conversions were a common form of word formation in the Elizabethan period. This is a simple change in the use of the word rather than a change in the word itself, making the process different and in some ways easier than other word formation processes.

New Concepts

            The Renaissance period revived much of the learning which was lost to the western world over the early medieval period. This encouraged learning and investigation into many different fields of endeavour. One thing that had to happen in order for this to be truly achieved was for the language to also catch up with the latest concepts. The solution to this problem was to increase the vocabulary.

“When new concepts need to be named, borrowing and word-formation are not the only solutions – an existing word can also undergo a change of meaning.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65)

            Old words were also used to explain new concepts through a change of meaning in the word. These changes in the words allowed the vocabulary to be expanded to include new concepts. These changes in meaning were widespread and connected not only to scientific advancements but also other aspects of the culture. “Early Modern English semantic changes can often be related to the social and cultural developments of the time.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65). These changes in meaning in the words is one of the reasons why the modern reader may have issues with reading and understanding what an author is discussing as the word written may not have the same meaning now as it did when it was written. In order to achieve understanding the reader needs to appreciate the context and understand what the author is indicating.

“Meaning generalisations also took place with many specialist terms in Early Modern English,” e.g. “humour” being physiological, disposition and modern understanding of amusement dependent on context (Nevalainen, 2006:66)

Loan Words 

“The focus of interest was vocabulary. There were no words in the language to talk accurately about the new concepts, techniques, and inventions which were coming from Europe, and so writers began to borrow them. Most of the words which entered the language at the time were taken from Latin, with a good number from Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Loan words were used to fill in those gaps where native development could not, or it was felt that the native words did not adequately fill the role required. Much of the foreign words and their introduction was also as a result of the general feeling, especially of the upper classes, that foreign was more refined, expressed in the requirement of travel for education. This feeling of superiority also resulted in a dual purpose for the introduction of new words.

“two different motives for the loans: a utilitarian one (‘necessity’), because the language needs new words to say new things; and ‘mere brauerie’, which means ‘sheer ostentation’.” (Barber, 2000:179)

            The use of a foreign word instead of a native one was thought to demonstrate some sort of education on the part of the user of the word, and there were those who supported this idea. For the most part they were thinking of the increase in the vocabulary of the language rather than for other purposes, but this did not prevent the other from being the case. New words were designed to allow people to express new concepts and ideas and were this required to expand the vocabulary.

“Some writers, such as Thomas Elyot, went out of their way to find new words, in order (as they saw it) to ‘enrich’ the language. They saw their role as enabling the new learning to be brought within the reach of the English public” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            As with the introduction of anything new to an established system, there were those who would resist the changes which were taking place. In some cases it was thought that the language was already robust enough to handle the new ideas and that the new words from other places were not required, “the influx of foreign vocabulary attracted bitter criticism, and people leaped to the language’s defence.” (Crystal, 2003:60). This resistance was small and felt that the invasion of foreign words would damage the language, but as with most things the new would take over the old.

“The increase in foreign borrowings is the most distinctive linguistic sign of the Renaissance in English. Purist opinion did not, in the event, stem the influx of new words – nor has it ever,” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Latin is one of the root-languages of English and it is of little surprise that in the search for new words to explain concepts Latin would be a source for words to explain these new ideas. But Latin had a more lasting effect than the simple introduction of new words to the language. “Not only did Latin influence bring in new words; it also caused existing words to be reshaped in accordance with their real or supposed Latin etymology.” (Barber, 2000:180). Thus the language was in some cases brought back to its roots and these roots used to influence the new vocabulary and thus the language.

            What is interesting is that many words from Latin already present from earlier (Barber, 2000:178). This is a result of the monastic domination of the language previously and their attachment to Latin through religious teachings and through the Bible, being printed in Latin. However this adoption of Latin into the English language was not universal or with particular emphasis on accuracy, as some words given Latin endings others had endings omitted (Barber, 2000:179). Thus the words were manipulated to suit what was required at the time by the author. The dominance of Latin in loan words is not to say that others were not present, indeed they were and these can even be seen in the present. Latin was the main source of loan-words but certainly not the only one, words borrowed from French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch (Barber, 2000:181).

            An example of the use of two languages resulting in one word is colonel. It is from the French coronelle adopted from Italian colonello – mid-sixteenth century spelled with “r” but Italian spelling and pronunciation challenges it, for a time both were used however the final word has French pronunciation and Italian spelling (Bryson, 2009:113). Thus a single word is affected by two languages simultaneously, one for spelling and the other for pronunciation. This is a prime example of the manipulation of the language in order to suit what was required. Of course this attitude toward the language also led to some problems as well.

“The fundamental problem with neologisms was that, even granting their utility, they remained hard to interpret. … the use of ‘inkhorn’ terms … depended on knowledge of the very language they were designed to translate and supersede.” (Mugglestone, 2006:222)

            “Ink-horn” terms are those which are manipulated by the author to suit what the author required at the time from the language. Often these were so twisted that they defeated their own purpose and actually led to more misunderstanding. The term “ink-horn” comes from the idea of inserting something where it really does not belong, “inkhorn terms” were words added but not needed, used in order to seem more important, often rebelled against (Barber, 2000:180).

These new words were a problem of the language at the time as writers struggled both to express new ideas but also to do so in such a way that their use of the language would attract attention to their skills. As can be expected these new terms people argued strongly against their use, indeed as were the use of words of the old language which were used but had lost their original meaning, ‘inkhorn’ and archaism examples of extremity and departure from accustomed English (Mugglestone, 2006:229).

Old Words

            One of the alternatives, as already indicated above was the use of archaisms, or old words. These words were taken from previous forms of the language in order to fill in some holes present in the language. This was an attempt to solve the problems of the present with information from the past and with native language.

“By the sixteenth century, old words, generally culled from Chaucer and other Middle English writers, were often set forward as native alternatives to foreign borrowings and inkhorn languages as resources for enriching the language.” (Mugglestone, 2006:228)

            While these words were native as compared to the inkhorn and foreign introduction words that were being used and seen as an alternative. However, as has already been expressed old words not universally supported due to being “too distant and removed” for contemporary (Mugglestone, 2006:229). These words had been used previously and can be seen by the modern reader reading from a previous era, the language and meaning changes, thus the old words were seen as less useful and too confusing to be useful by many, especially to express new concepts.

New Words and Survival

            New words were not guaranteed their survival just because they were new. The survival of a word was dependent on its acceptance and therefore its usage. It was not enough to invent a word, but it had to become common in usage. Of course even in such a process there was room for abuse, in much the same way as a child with a new toy. New terms were used to impress, baffle and for exploration of the language, and sometimes all of the above (Gooden, 2009:75). The same can be seen in the modern language with the latest catch phrases, often used by the media.

            The invention of such new words was meant to fill in the gaps in the vocabulary where another word was not present. However, in many cases some words were created even where synonyms already present (Gooden, 2009:76). This was even the case where a new word had been created to fill in a gap in the language and then another is created for the same purpose and to fill the same gap in the language.

The survival and use of words was more instinctive than deliberate and without obvious logic (Gooden, 2009:76). Some words came to exist and be used and thus accepted into the language and others did not and without any real logical reason behind them. It could be attributed to the creator of the word and who used it but details for this are rather thin and thus the reader is left with the same absence of reason. There are many examples of words which did not survive into the modern language, cohabit [restrain], deruncinate [weed], eximious [excellent], illecebrous [delicate], suppeditate [supply], demit [send away] (Crystal, 2003:61), in the terms of the language of the time and a perfect example of the use of one of these words, these words were deruncinated from the language.

Conclusion

The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. A limited vocabulary limits the things which the language can express and with new concepts being introduced to the Elizabethans, new words had to be found to express these new concepts, thus there was a requirement for the vocabulary to expand. The result of this expansion was that the Elizabethan period saw a huge expansion in the vocabulary of the English language. Understanding this expansion and the vocabulary which resulted is essential to understanding the language.

The first part of the process of examining the vocabulary of Elizabethan English was to examine the words and attempt to isolate them into different types based on the difficulty in comparison to the modern language. This resulted in three types of words, easy, different and difficult. These are very flexible in their determination as to which category a word fits into in some instances. The vocabulary then is learnt like any other language and is a process which needs to be attended to in a systematic manner in order for the reader to gain a real understanding of the language.

In examining the vocabulary, it is the new words which are the most significant as they describe the change in the language in the period. In this process it is useful to examine how the words are formed, both from the original language and also as a result of the introduction of foreign words. Both sets of words need to be looked at as often words from the native language would be combined with those of foreign and vice versa.

The new words were designed to deal with the new concepts which the language in its original form was not ready to deal with or simply did not have the words to do so. In this process there are three roots from which the new words came. The first was as a result of word formation using the language as it was. The second was using words borrowed from foreign languages and the third was using words taken from an older form of the language in order to fill the gaps. Each of the three processes had their successes and failures. Regardless of the objections to a particular process of word formation, or its origin, each had their part to play and each gave the language words in order to express new concepts which were being introduced.

The survival of a new word was not guaranteed and, for the most part, dependent on the acceptance and thus use of the word. This acceptance was of a more instinctive nature rather than based on any particular plan. For the most part it could be claimed that the acceptance of one word over another was based on how the word fitted into the language. These new words were like new toys, bandied about and used by authors and orators alike in order for them to seem more educated. The interesting thing in this process was that words were created where they were not even needed just because they were new.

Regardless of the rhyme or reason for the creation of the words, the result was a richer, though occasionally more difficult language with the ability to express new concepts as they arose. Understanding the vocabulary of a language is part of the struggle in order to understand the language as a whole. The words found in the Elizabethan language are sometimes the same as the modern language but also are sometimes very different and the researcher needs to understand that both types exist and that the language needs to be understood for what it was understand it completely.

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 (2^nd 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. (2010) Evolving English: One Language, Many Voices, The British Library, London, UK

Crystal, D. and Crystal, B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion, Penguin Books, London, UK

Gooden, P. (2009) The Story of English: How the English Language Conquered the World, Quercus Publishing Plc, London, UK

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

McCrum, R. (2010) Globish: How the English Language Became the World’s Language, Penguin Group (Australia), Camberwell, Australia

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

Elizabethan Orthography

Introduction

            Orthography is more than just spelling, but it is often recognised as the most significant part of the concept. As a result most of this investigation will focus on the spelling element of orthography. This discussion will relate back to the alphabet of the language as the orthography describes the use of the language. The use of the alphabet is important to the formation of words especially with regard to phonetics and pronunciation. As a result of orthography’s relationship to the alphabet the result is that some of the discoveries found in the alphabet will re-emerge in the discussion of orthography.

            Again the subject of printers will emerge as they present the highest volume representation of the language which is accessible. Indeed most of the spelling examples which are available to the reader and researcher in the current period come from printed works as hand-written ones are rare and often inaccessible. The printers will present an effect which was both positive and negative in effect, while their printed word established a standard for spelling; they also changed spellings to suit themselves.

            The discussion will proceed with a general overview of the subject of orthography and then proceed to look at the important impact of the Great Vowel Shift which altered pronunciation and as a result spelling as well. This will be followed by a more in-depth investigation of spelling and the various aspects of this which need to be taken into account. The final part of the discussion will examine what has already been hinted at, the impact of printers and typesetting on spelling.

  

General

What is orthography? Orthography is “practically synonymous with spelling, but refers more especially to the system as a whole” (Lass, 1999:33). Orthography also refers to the way in which words are formed and how this relates to issues such as phonetics and pronunciation. For the most part in this discussion it will be more focussed on spelling.

In the Early Modern Period there were two standards of orthography, a standard for scribes and professionals, second for private correspondence affected by local dialect or regional orthography (Lass, 1999:15). What this meant was that there were two different, at least, sets of spellings of words in the period. With little surprise this was bound to cause issues, especially with the spelling being so closely related to the pronunciation of words. In this all manner of variations had to be considered.

“Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the problem of the orthographical representation of variations of pronunciations became an even more important topic of discussion. Age, class and region were recognised as potential sources of variation;” (Lass, 1999:17)

            The spelling of a word tells the reader how the word should be pronounced, thus with different spellings there would be also different pronunciations. Indeed the reverse could is also true, and this is where dialect is important. Each dialect has its own idiosyncrasies which affect the pronunciation and spelling of the language. Attempts were made in order to remove such idiosyncrasies, and there is evidence of similar orthography present c.1570 and further along, but due to various idiosyncrasies it failed to take hold, but attempt was made (Lass, 1999:26ff). This was evidence of the standardisation of the language, or at least a beginning attempt at such a process. The attempt at standardisation through orthography was influenced by a process which was already in the process from the beginning of the Early Modern Period.

Great Vowel Shift

“Some scholars date the beginning of the Early Modern English period from the effects of the Great Vowel Shift (GVS), a series of sound changes affecting the quality of all Middle English long vowels.” (Nevalainen, 2006:7)

Great Vowel Shift occurred in the Middle English period and resulted in changes in the pronunciation and use of vowels in the English language indeed converting more to a language of its own rather than heavily based upon either French or Latin as it had been previously influenced.  The Elizabethan period was toward the end of the Early Modern English period, meaning that this process had for the most part been completed. The spelling of the Elizabethan period is more reflected in the Modern English due to the completion of this process. Thus much of what is found in Middle English seems to be foreign.

“Present-day English spelling does not reflect the outcome of the sound change because the principles of spelling conventions had largely been fixed before the chain shift was completed.” (Nevalainen, 2006:7)

            The Great Vowel Shift is significant for the Elizabethan period in that it demonstrates the willingness to use language and experiment with how it should sound for the people of the period. This phenomenon also demonstrates the beginning of the language establishing itself as significant and as a language in and of itself. It could even be claimed that this shift was one of the prompts for the examination and experimentation with the language.

Spelling

“it is true to say that most people throughout much of the history of the English language have seemed remarkably unconcerned about niceties of spelling” (Bryson, 2009:116)

            The Elizabethans were no exception in this particular instance. The spelling in the Elizabethan period was a mess (Crystal, 2008:58). There were no real rules established for correct spelling of words during the period and people more or less spelt words as they felt they sounded. It is actually the pronunciation of the words that became the key to establishing a standardised spelling, “we may be pretty confident from spelling evidence or other descriptions that a particular pronunciation was emerging or increasing in the period,” (Mugglestone, 2006:154)

            This pronunciation is directly related to the dialect which is being spoken and while it is a subject which fills an examination of its own, as a dialect becomes more dominant in an area, and thus the pronunciation so too does the spelling move in the same direction. One of the great pressures which assisted this particular process was that of printing which was focussed, for the most part in London, thus as the dialect of London dominates through printing so the language becomes to become more regular.

“throughout the early modern period, English is becoming more familiar to the modern eye, as spelling … becomes more regular, encouraged by the commercial pressures accompanying the introduction and spread of printing.” (Mugglestone, 2006:150)

            The important point here is that it is becoming more regular, the standardised forms of spelling which we are so familiar with in Modern English were an advent of a period beyond the Elizabethan. Even in the time of the great bard Shakespeare, spelling still had not established itself in any form of standard. In the period variations in spelling were something which were expected and part and parcel of the way things were.

“there was no system of standardized spelling at the time he [Shakespeare] was writing; the concept of ‘correct spelling’, with its associated social sanctions, did not clearly emerge until the eighteenth century.” (Crystal, 2008:31)

            What does need to be noted is that even in the process of regularisation the variations in spelling have not disappeared from the language by the end of the Elizabethan period. Thus the idea of the ‘correct spelling’ of a word in the Elizabethan, aside from a vaguely phonetic orientation is essentially absent. While this is the case the words did begin to tend toward a standard and many words of the period can be found which are spelt the same way as in the modern language (Crystal, 2008:60).

            The process of change is something which has to occur for a reason and these reasons are primarily influenced from within and from without, either separately or in combination. In the case of Elizabethan English it was a combination of influences from within and without which would affect the spelling of the words in the language. Several factors influenced the spelling in Elizabethan English: the influence of French on Old English (OE), continental printers bring spellings with them, new foreign words introduced into the language, pronunciation shift in spelling, and finally the influence of spelling reformers (Crystal, 2008:58).

            Some of these factors have already been addressed previously, what needs to be noted is that it is the combination of these influences which makes the result rather than any one individual influence. Locally it was the influence of the reformers attempts to formalise the language and also the printers which had the greatest effect on the language.

“authoritative norms of spelling in English only appear in the practices of printers in the sixteenth century, alongside the writings of the orthoepists and spelling reformers such as Hart and Cheke.” (Mugglestone, 2006:136)

            With the general ideas about spelling and its background addressed, it is possible to address some of the specific spelling idiosyncrasies of the period. These idiosyncrasies allow the reader to approach the language with some very general rules to follow in the understanding of the language. Indeed it is useful to look at the language in comparison to the modern. In reality there are five processes which mark 80% of the difference between the languages: 1. Addition of final “e” (againe); 2. Apostrophe used to replace letter “e” (arm’d); 3. “ie” instead of “y” at end of word (busie); 4. Double instead of single consonants; and 5. use of “ie” or “ee” for phonetic “ee” (neere) (Crystal, 2008:61). Each one of these differences can be related to either typesetting or phonetic reasons. The double consonant had a purpose for being used.

“The usual way of marking a short vowel was to double the following consonant … But a tendency had also emerged to add a final e as well – thus producing such forms as fitte, hadde, sette, and gette.” (Crystal, 2008:60)

            The differences in spelling are related closely with how the alphabet is used and thus the positions of letters in words resulting in differing spelling, even if the different spelling has the same phonetic result. The additional “-e” which appears on some words in Elizabethan texts had at least two reasons, “In EModE, it became generally conventional to distinguish the historically long vowel by adding –e,” (Smith, 2005:126). To present a long vowel is only one reason that the addition was made, there was also a printer’s reason as well, the final “–e” was added for justification of type or decoration (Smith, 2005:126). This is an issue which will be addressed below. The other changes where letters changed but not the phonetic spelling of the word are more and issue with the alphabet rather than the actual spelling. For the most part “u” and “v”, and “i” and “j” were interchangeable (Crystal, 2008:44). This affected the spelling but not the pronunciation. Even in the spelling of personal names there is variation present.

            One of the places where it would be expected that spelling would be an important factor is in the name of the individual and their family. In actual cases in the Elizabethan period this does not seem to be the case. In this instance Shakespeare will be used as an example of this. “More than eighty spellings of Shakespeare’s name have been found,” (Bryson, 2009:116). It could be considered a little self-destructive to have so many different spellings of a name especially if you are, or wanted to be a public figure as was the case with Shakespeare. Even in the modern world attempting to determine the correct spelling of a person’s name through their signature would be foolish.

“a person’s signature, whether he be an Elizabethan playwright or a modern orthodontist, is about the least reliable way of determining how he spells his name.” (Bryson, 2009:116)

            However, in this particular example it was not only in his signature that his name was spelt in various different ways. The name also appeared differently in print depending on who published it and the original source material. This reflects the nature of spelling in the Elizabethan period being fundamentally unestablished.

Elision, the removal of letter or reduction in the spelling of a word was common in Shakespearean English, more so than in Modern English. Most of these were quite common though there are more unexpected ones also (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:146). Elision appears in print and in hand-written documents and presents a blending of words together, in the case of printers it would have been to save space, for the average writer it would have served a similar purpose as well as reducing the amount written, this shortening of words and blending using deletion common in period, in some interesting variants (Lass, 1999:179). Elision is one of the examples which can be seen where the hand-written and the printed used a technique in order to save space, however the printers had more tools at their disposal to achieve their end.

Printers and Typesetting

            The printing press and those who operated them had a surprisingly large effect upon the spelling of words. It was through the printing press that documents became public and as a result the printing press enabled spelling to become more uniform (Bryson, 2009:118). This was because the spellings were put into the public eye where they would be recognised and used as they were printed. It was not just the printer’s spelling of words that changed things, the actual printing process also had an effect, typesetting and letter form also changes spelling of words (Crystal, 2008:34). In some instances this would change the spelling of the word from the original as the author had written them, for the modern researcher, this is something that has to be taken into account.

“Students of Shakespeare’s language need to be aware of the layers of uncertainty surrounding the texts we have available, and understand the bibliographic variables involved,” (Crystal, 2008:40)

            In the case of the printers themselves choices had to be made as to how the work was to be presented, and thus there had to be considerations about the spelling of words in the final print. Simply following the author’s spelling was one option, but as there was so many variations in spelling at the time, a choice had to be made about the spelling of words, ideographic, logographic or phonetic spelling (Lass, 1999:16). This was further complicated in that most of the printers came from other nations and thus English was not their first language, resulting in spelling issues.

            Even with the issues present the fact that attempts were being made to formalise or at least standardise the spelling of words is significant, “it appears that, in general, printers of the later sixteenth century were making some attempts at both regularity and consistency.” (Lass, 1999:27). This would inspire the reformers at the same time to work on the standardisation of the language, not just in spelling but also in grammar and punctuation. Even with these inspired individuals it would still be a long time before the need or want of a standard spelling would emerge. “In general, however, printers of the early sixteenth century demonstrate little obvious interest in working towards a standard orthography.” (Lass, 1999:25).

            In the case of printers it was more important for them to present the work well so that the material would be saleable. For them it was more of a financial consideration more than any consideration of correct spelling. This was even more important for works such as plays which would have to be performed after being printed and thus the spelling affected pronunciation and thus presentation, “The ‘correct’ relationship between the spoken and the written word was an issue which occupied printers and grammarians alike;” (Lass, 1999:18).

            Even with the need for the presentation of the words correctly in order that they could be pronounced and thus presented correctly, there was still a financial issue which hovered over the printers’ heads, along with one of presentation. The idea of full-justification so that all the ends of the lines lined up was one which was an obsession of printers, this combined with the fact that such measures would result in less paper used, thus making the work cheaper meant that they developed space saving measures for typesetting (Crystal, 2008:53).

            There are many examples of these space-saving techniques, some which would have an effect on spelling and others which would not. Some even appear in the modern language, a perfect example of this is logograms, symbols standing for words, “&” for and, &c for et cetera or for things which are assumed knowledge (Crystal, 2008:55). While not so commonly used in normal texts they do appear in the modern language. Assumed knowledge was an area in which the printers identified as a place to save space in the printing and typesetting, thus abbreviations were used for money and titles for example (Crystal, 2008:55). While these did not have a great effect on spelling their presence is significant. The effect of printers and their typesetting measures should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

            While the focus of this investigation has been on spelling, it is important to remember that orthography is much more than that. It is the formation of the words also and this is based on phonetic principles due to the pronunciation of the words. The result of this is that this discussion has focussed on several different areas which affected the spelling of words in the Elizabethan period.

            The Great Vowel Shift marked the end of the Middle English period and the presentation of Early Modern English. This is significant in that it describes how the language began to be recognised for itself. This is significant for Elizabethan English in that this process was well and truly complete by that period resulting in the language being much more refined than it could have been, not complete but more refined.

            Spelling is something which is very vague in the Elizabethan period and much of the spelling was still up to the person who was writing at the time. There were efforts made to standardise the language and some recognisable patterns which can be used to better understand the language and its spelling. These form a foundation for relating the language to our own where differences are present. Even with these differences present there are many words which are spelt the same as they are in the modern world.

            The impact of printers can be seen in both a positive and negative light. The printing of the words enabled some standardisation of some spelling practices. However, the printers themselves were not always so fluent in the language in order to understand the effect that they had on the language. This resulted in some spellings which were not so close to the original text as they might have been. For the modern researcher, who is for the most part reliant on printed works, this effect is something that needs to be taken into account in the study of the language.

            Spelling is something that cannot be ignored in the study of a language regardless of its age or its origin. The spelling of words is related to their pronunciation and the formation of the words and thus is extremely significant. It is so closely related to the alphabet which is used and how they are used that it is often difficult to separate the two subjects. In the case of Elizabethan English there are many good examples of the language present in many formats, and the only real way to understand the formation of the words is to read them in as close to their original format as possible.

Bibliography

Bryson, B. (2009) Mother Tongue: The Story of the English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK

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

Elizabethan Alphabet

Greetings,

With the history of the language investigated, it is time to move on to the language itself. The alphabet of the language is the building blocks of the language. This is the first part of the investigation of the language.

Introduction

            Why is it important to discuss the alphabet of the language? This would be the first question that is asked about this particular part of the investigation into Elizabethan English. The letters form the building blocks of the words which form the language and some of the spelling idiosyncrasies which appear in the printed words of the Elizabethan period are due to the changes in the letters rather than a difference in spelling and this needs to be taken into account.

            This part of the overall investigation is to discover the way in which the letters in the alphabet were used and also how they were not used as both elements of this equation are important. The results give a clearer overall understanding of how the letters were or were not used and also give some information about the language which is useful to the overall investigation. Further, the information presented by the investigation of the alphabet lays the foundation upon which the formation of the words is based.

            Many of the specifics which will be related will seem to be more appropriate to printers rather than authors. This is due to the simple fact that not much that was hand-written has survived, whereas much more of the printed texts have. The printed texts are also easier to deal with as they have less of an issue with author preferences. In the end the product which is to be produced by this investigation is the recreation of a printed work and thus the printed works are actually more appropriate to the investigation overall.

            What also needs to be revealed before a real discussion of the alphabet and spelling is possible is that there is a difference between the language and typesetting. This will be revealed in this investigation and will also reveal the large impact which printers had upon the language with regard to alphabet use and the resulting spelling and orthography. Hence this investigation will be divided into two areas the first being general rules and the second addressing typesetting.

General Rules

            Before a detailed discussion is possible it is necessary to find out the general rules of the alphabet as it stood in the period. It is helpful to relate this to the modern alphabet as this gives a foundation of commonality. This foundation allows for comparison and thus understanding of the alphabet of the period.

The alphabet much like that of present with some archaic forms present, “-th” replaced thorn though “y” was still present for closed words “ye” as “the” becomes less common in the later period (Smith, 2005:125). The period being referred to here is the Early Modern period, thus as the Elizabethan period is toward the end of this period, such considerations need to be acknowledged. While it is difficult to isolate the differences to a particular date an overall picture is possible. The easiest way to look at this is through an examination of the letters themselves.

To begin with, “i” and “j” interchangeable, the “j” form was rare in English, and was only used in Latin words, and numerals in the final position (Crystal, 2008:46). For the most part it could be accounted that the forms of these two letters were so much the same that to discern between the two in general correspondence would have been difficult. The same could be said also for “u” and “v”. The “v” used initial and “u” elsewhere (Smith, 2005:126). Once again this could be seen as a result of the similarity in the forms of the letters themselves.

Other letters used could also be seen to be interchangeable due to their phonetic nature. The “y” was still used in some, where “i” in modern (Smith, 2005:126), this is a hangover from the older language and could be argued to be different from the “j”. Further, “-ie” used for “y” frequently (Smith, 2005:126). Once again a phonetic argument of similarity could be argued. The phonetic argument is one which is still used and argued.

Even today there is still the question of whether a word should be spelled with a “c” or “s” as in “defence” or “defense”, this is an argument which extends back to the Elizabethan period where “c” and “s” were sometimes changed (Smith, 2005:126). The general rules were based on the phonetic nature of the letter influenced by previous rules established. For phonetics, “-ic” appears as “–ick” (Smith, 2005:126), there being no real difference in pronunciation of the words resulting. Of course in special cases such as, the use of “- ph” for “f” in quasi-learned words (Smith, 2005:126), the idea was to emphasise the word by the spelling as important. These issues and differences in the use of the letters of the alphabet make spelling from the period interesting and often this was not assisted, and in some instances made more confusing by the printers of the period.

Printer’s Influence

            One of the first things that need to be noted is that many of the printers in England in the Elizabethan period were imported from other countries and as such English was not their native language, this created problems in and of itself. However, when examining the impact that they had on the language and the alphabet and how it was presented they were the primary presentation of the language to the world at large and our biggest resource. Most of the rules presented above were established or reinforced by the printers of the period.

            Just as with many of the rules above there was some confusion as to when certain letters were to be used and when others should be used. “Printers made no progress, however, in establishing the use of <j> and <v> to represent consonants, <u> and <i> vowels.” (Lass, 1999:28). As a result just as above in the general rules established the two sets of letters remained interchangeable. Of course it was not just these two sets of letters where the use of the letters was reflected by the printers of the period. “They [printers] did not distinguish the uses of <i> and <y> either, although there was a preference for <y> or <ie> in final position.” (Lass, 1999:28). Of course being a preference this was not always adhered to. The point is that the letters use is reflected by the printers as much the same in general as the rules reflected above. However, there were also typesetting considerations that need to be made.

            Typesetting is the process by which a printer constructs the text for printing. In this process a printer may make alterations to the words in order that they are presented better or to suit the type which is being used. Combine this with the use of the letters as described, and it is of little surprise that there were spelling issues in the Elizabethan period.

            To relate this process back to the rules established, there are those rare times where a “v” will be positioned next to a “u”, thus resulting in “uu”, this was unpalatable unless in original word (Crystal, 2008:46). In this case it was unpalatable for presentation’s sake and ease of reading the text. Thus spellings could be changed for appearance. A similar case is with “s”. There were three forms of “s” present; standard, capital and long (ſ) (Crystal, 2008:43), the use of the form was dependent on the word and the fit in the typesetting. This idea of the fit in the typesetting resulted in changes in spelling.

            There are several typesetting tools which were used in order that letters did not have to be used too many times as there was a limited supply of the letters. An example of this letter-saving are ligatures (“joined letters”), a single piece of typeset for two letters such as ct, ff, ſ i, ſ t (Crystal, 2008:44). This was designed not only to save letters but also to save space so that the type lined up. Another example of a typesetting tool used in this way are the logograms which are symbols standing for words, “&” for and, &c for et cetera or for things which are assumed knowledge (Crystal, 2008:55). As stated before these tools were used in order to ensure that the type lined up at the end of the line to make things neat in the printing. Two more tools for the same purpose were to omit letters and use superscript letters, omitted letters were marked by placement of tilde (~) over letter to show following missing, most commonly “m” or “n” especially when doubled (Crystal, 2008:56). In the doubled cases, it was the second letter that was omitted. Superscript letters were used in a similar vein to shorten common words, “y” with “u” for thou, “t” for that, “e” for the (Crystal, 2008:57), once again for typesetting purposes. Another example of this which was to affect spelling was the addition of a final “-e” on words (Mugglestone, 2006:150) in order to fill in a space for typesetting purposes. These typesetting elements alone make it difficult for the modern reader and also made spelling in the period problematical.

Conclusion

            While an alphabet may be standardised and commonly used, it is the use of this alphabet which can affect the orthography of words and change their spellings. This can lead to confusion and misrepresentation of words. The modern reader who picks up an Elizabethan text is confronted by an alphabet which is for the most part the same as his own but has variations which affect the readability of the document which has been accessed. This is especially the case with regard to spelling which, while phonetic in most cases will jar the modern reader.

            The situation with the variations in use in the alphabet were not established firmly in the Elizabethan period, though it is possible to lay down some useful guidelines as to how it was used and these can assist the modern reader in understanding texts from the period. What should be noted is that these general uses were not universal and printers also had their own ideas about how the texts should be printed and this does affect the spelling of words and the presentation of what was written. This is especially the case where typesetting tools were used in order to present the text in a more professional manner, ensuring that the ends of the lines all lined up properly.

            The alphabet forms the building blocks for the words which form a language and thus it is important that this is taken into account before even considering looking at the words themselves, little less the language. This is especially the case for the modern reader attempting to make his way through a period text. In the study of a language especially of a previous period, the alphabet and its use gives clues as to how the words, and thus the language will be formed and thus a key to understanding the language overall.

Bibliography

Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 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

Smith, J. (2005) Essentials of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA