When the banana was first introduced to the British Isles nobody knew what to call this new long, yellow object. The easiest way to make up for the want of a concise expression was to borrow the word from the languages spoken in the banana’s countries of origin, i.e. Spanish and Portuguese. In 1597 Hartwell remarked: ”Other fruits there are, termed Banana, which we verily think to be the Muses of Egypt and Soria.” (OED). Extra - linguistic circumstances had led to change, here addition, in a language’s lexical system.
But the process of change is not always as straightforward as here. First of all, obviously not only the lexicon is subject to change, but likewise are the phonological, the semantic and other systems of a language. Secondly, also intra-linguistic modifications, however triggered, can result in further adjustments within other areas of the language. Thirdly, addition is certainly not the only possible change. Replacement, loss and shift are some other phenomena that might succeed both extra- and intra-linguistic developments. One could add that, for instance in the case of addition, it is not always clear whether the need for a new word or the new word, having been used synonymously with some other expression in the beginning, occurred first. But the main confusion definitely arises from the interdependence of all movements within language and beyond. Linguistic change is usually far more complex than was the case with the banana. But, as Smith (1996: 43) has pointed out, there are three main factors with the help of which linguistic change can be understood and described, namely contact , variation and systemic regulation. So contact between different varieties or languages may add elements that are not necessary, i.e. two or more elements are used in variation until the system adjusts itself in order to improve its efficiency. I am not going to discuss in detail these three mechanisms underlying most processes of change and the various ways they might be interwoven. Rather, this paper will investigate how personal pronouns as an example were affected by them in the ME period, an instance where change was all but straightforward. The focus will be on language contact. An attempt will be made to give answers to the following questions:
* How do the developments of the second and the third person pronoun respectively differ from the ‘normal’ change of words from OE to PDE?
* Which role does the contact with France and Scandinavia play?
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 HOW THE BANANA DIFFERS FROM PERSONAL PRONOUNS
1.2 THE USE OF STELLA
1.3 LIMITS OF THE HELSINKI CORPUS
2 MAIN BODY
2.1 THE OLD ENGLISH PERSONAL PRONOUN PARADIGM
2.2 THE SCANDINAVIAN INFLUENCE
2.2.1 Some Historical Notes
2.2.2 Some Linguistic Notes
2.2.3 The Third Person Plural Pronouns
2.2.4 A Remark on Parallel Developments
2.3 THE FRENCH INFLUENCE
2.3.1 Some Historical Notes
2.3.2 Some Linguistic Notes
2.3.3 The Second Person Pronouns
2.3.3.1 Changes Induced by French Contact
2.3.3.2 Other Changes
3 CONCLUSION- SUMMARY, DEFICIENCIES, PROSPECT
Research Objectives and Main Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to investigate how Middle English personal pronouns were affected by language contact, specifically examining the divergent impacts of Scandinavian and French influence on the pronominal system.
- The role of Scandinavian and French contact in English linguistic evolution.
- Morphological versus pragmatic changes within the pronominal system.
- The transition from Old English to Middle English pronoun paradigms.
- The shift in second-person address forms due to social and pragmatic factors.
- The application of electronic corpora (Helsinki Corpus) in historical linguistics.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3.3.1 Changes Induced by French Contact
This phenomenon is again paralle led by the development within the personal pronoun system. This time the second person pronoun system is affected. In the following, ye, you and thou, thee will represent the range of possible spellings of the second person pronouns during ME and EModE. So me of them are (OED):
thou (nom. sg.): ðu, þu, þou, thu, þow, thow
thee (obj. sg.): þe, þeo, þi, þee, the
ye (nom. pl.): 3ie, 3e, 3ee, yhe, 3he, yee
you (obj. pl.): eow, eou, 3eu, 3ew, ou, hou, howe, 3uw, ow, owe, yu, 3ou, 3ow, yow
Until the middle of the 13th century the second person plural was the form used to address two or more people at a time. From then on, based on the French distinction between formal and informal addresses, ye started to be used as a term of formal address for one or more persons. Possibly ”Originating in the Latin of the later Roman Empire” (Leith 1997: 106), which was ruled by two kings, the use of the plural form when addressing one of the kings made it the general pronoun of formal address. French vous is the counterpart of ME ye, tu of thou. Havelok and Kyng Alisaunder, from 1250-1350, are among the earliest texts in the HC using this distinction.
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: This chapter defines the scope of the study, explains the use of the STELLA software and the Helsinki Corpus, and acknowledges the limitations of using a corpus for historical linguistic analysis.
2 MAIN BODY: This central section details the Old English pronoun paradigm and analyzes how Scandinavian and French contacts, respectively, triggered specific morphological and pragmatic shifts in the English pronominal system.
3 CONCLUSION- SUMMARY, DEFICIENCIES, PROSPECT: The final chapter summarizes the findings regarding the distinct nature of Scandinavian and French influences, evaluates the study's methodological limitations, and suggests future avenues for research.
Keywords
Middle English, Personal Pronouns, Language Contact, Scandinavian Influence, French Influence, Helsinki Corpus, Morphology, Pragmatics, Second Person Pronouns, Third Person Plural, Historical Linguistics, Diachronic Analysis, Pronominal System, Address Forms, Linguistic Change.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how language contact during the Middle English period, specifically with Scandinavian and French, influenced changes within the English personal pronoun system.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study covers historical linguistics, the diachronic development of pronouns, morphological changes resulting from contact, and the social pragmatics of address forms.
What is the main research objective?
The main objective is to demonstrate that Scandinavian contact resulted in fundamental morphological changes, whereas French contact primarily induced pragmatic shifts in the use of pronouns.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The research utilizes an electronic corpus, the Helsinki Corpus, to analyze early English texts diachronically, supplemented by comparative studies of secondary historical and linguistic literature.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body discusses the Old English pronoun paradigm, the lexical and morphological influence of Scandinavian on third-person plural pronouns, and the impact of French on second-person address pronouns.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Middle English, personal pronouns, language contact, Scandinavian and French influence, morphological change, and the Helsinki Corpus.
How did Scandinavian contact specifically affect the third-person plural pronouns?
Scandinavian contact introduced 'th-' forms, which gradually replaced the native Old English 'h-' forms due to a need for a more distinct pronominal system during a time when verb endings were becoming less distinguishable.
Why did the use of 'ye' and 'thou' change during the Middle English period?
Following French custom, English speakers adopted 'ye' as a formal address form and 'thou' as an informal one, a distinction that later led to the merging of forms as social class boundaries blurred.
- Quote paper
- Gesa Giesing (Author), 1999, The Influence of Language Contact on the English Personal Pronouns, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/28616
