A history of English: A sociolinguistic approach. (Reviews).

A history of English: A sociolinguistic approach. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 17.) By Barbara A. Fennell. Oxford and Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Pp. xiv + 284.

What would one not give for a freshly conceived up-to-date and reliable history of the English language, one that would be neither too concise nor too detailed, one that would be, for instance, mindful of the difference between a phone and a phoneme, but would remain accessible to the neophyte, a work with a perfect balance between internal and external language history! Unfortunately, what is under review here is not that ideal book by a long shot. Too much seems to have gone horribly wrong.

The problems do not lie with the structure or the plan of the book. True, the subtitle announcing a sociolinguistic approach to the history of the English language might raise some concern, as for most of the time-span covered there is just not enough relevant information on which to base stringent sociolinguistic scenarios. The "Sociolinguistic Focus" sections in the historical chapters (Pre-Old English to Early Modern English) range from speculations on the spread of the Indo-European language to the introduction of the printing press and a discussion of the Great Vowel Shift. Most of this is only vaguely sociolinguistic. In other respects the organisation of the material in this book entirely follows established custom: There are the usual preliminaries (pp. 1-14) (periodization of the English language, nature of language change, linguistic terminology, etc.), then chapters on the prehistory of English (pp. 15-54), Old English (pp. 55-93), Middle English (pp. 94-134), Early Modern English (pp. 135-166), Pr esent-Day English (pp. 167-207), English in the United States (pp. 208-240) and World-Wide English (pp. 241-269). Each chapter is preceded by a timeline listing assorted dates from the historical, cultural and technological spheres. (Whether the invention of the ball-point pen in 1938, for instance, merits inclusion may be debatable.) Illustrative texts ranging from a few lines of Beowulf to excerpts from computer manuals are given. A bibliography (three items dealing with Pictish matters are listed, but no standard Old English manual) and a somewhat skimpy index (there is an entry "noun", but no "pronoun" or "verb", for example) conclude the volume.

The real problems become immediately apparent in the body of the work and have to do, as will be shown, with the author's apparent lack of any deep familiarity with the earlier stages of the history of the English language. At times she seems to be plainly at sea and appears only somewhat more comfortable once she reaches the comparatively safe haven of Present-Day English. There are far too many errors and infelicities. For reasons of space only a selection of the various kinds of more or less serious blunders can be printed here: (p. 33) "Frisian, a coastal German [!] dialect, ..."; (p. 33) Furstenburg [on the Oder], I. Furstenberg; (p. 38) "Thus, I-E [p], [t], [k] > [f], [theta], [x] (Grimm's Law) or [b], [d], [g] (Verner's Law) depending on the position of the stress accent in the I-E etymon concerned. The picture is further complicated in the development of OE, as Germanic [f], [theta], [x] could be voiced> [v], [""], [g] or [x], with the voicing of the voiceless spirant [s] > [z]": [x]> [Y} by Verner's law; the environments for voicing in OE should be indicated; [x] is not a voiced sound; (p. 38) "In OE the voiced consonants [""], [g], [z] then underwent a secondary development to [d], [g], [r] -- hence the opposition of wear"" 'became' and word-en 'become' (p.p.),freas (froze) and fror-en (frozen), etc.": [""]' [z]> [d], [r] in West Germanic already; the "secondary development" [g] (should be [Y], of course)> [g] looks decidedly odd; (p. 38) "(1) p-, t-, k- > OHG pf, ts, k(x)": German schopfen, sitzen, wecken do not seem to belong here (-pf-, -tz-, -ck- < geminates); (p. 56) The Saxons apparently also settled in Essex, Middlesex and elsewhere north of the Thames. (p. 59) "We know that the Anglo-Saxons spoke West Germanic, a sister [!] dialect to Old High German, Old Frisian, Old Low German, Low Saxon [?] and Old Low Franconian." (p. 61) [east], l. [ae:**st] (in F.'s notation); (p. 61) "The sound spelled with the letter <c> was either [k] (before a consonant or back vowel) or [c]/[t**] (next to a front vowel) ...": [c]/[t**]? (p. 61) "This voiced velar fricative [sc. [Y]] coalesced with [g] by late OE or early ME": certainly not in all positions! (p. 61) The phoneme /3/ did not appear "late in OE". (p. 61) *Bed 'prayer' (l. bed, of course) and bedd 'bed' are not a minimal pair, CC and C before pause were neutralized early in OE. (p. 63) OE tellan is not pronounced [t[epsilon]lan], but [t[epsilon]llan] (or, more likely, [tellon]); (p. 64) OE eoel means 'native land', not 'native lord'; (p. 69) The preterite plural of drifan is drifon, not drifon. (p. 70) The preterite subjunctive of drifan is drife(n), not drife(n). (p. 72) Wunundon, l. Wunudon; (p. 80, 81) [Orosius'] Historiarum Adversarum Paganos Libri vii, l. Adversus; (p. 81) Byrthferth, l. Byrhtferth; (p. 82) British Museum, l. Library; MS Vitellius A 15, l. A.xv; (p. 83) Junius XI, l. 11;

(p. 83) One would be curious to know what the "two later editions" of the Exeter Book are. The author claims that "[t]he main text contains 123 pages [l. folios] with the originals [!] of Phoenix, Julian (l. Juliana], The Wanderer, The Seafarer, Widsith, Deor, Wulf and Eadwacer, The Wife's Lament and The Husband's Message"; (p. 83) Codex Vercellis: l. Vercellensis; (p. 83) Beowulf also tells about a fight against an anonymous dragon. (p. 83) "..., and the poetry is alliterative, with stress on the first syllable": this sounds odd; (p. 85) "and Northumbrian, spoken north of the Humber (hence the name), excluding Scotland, where, again, (Gaelic) Celtic was spoken": in parts of what is today Scotland Northumbrian was spoken; (p. 86) "The Kentish dialect is represented in the eighth century from glosses in Latin charters, ...": for glosses read names; (p. 94) [Timeline] 1346 Battle of Poitiers, l. 1356; (95) "the German emperor, William V", l. Henry V; (p. 98) "hnappian [hnaepjan]": l. [hnappian]; (p. 98) lihtlic [lixtlic], l. [li:ctlic]; (p. 98) [OE] bedde: l. bed(d); (p. 98) "Amongst the long vowels, the most important change was the raising and rounding of long a> o: ...": open o! The author does not make sufficiently clear that the OE three-height long vowel system developed into the ME system with four vowel heights. (p. 100) "a + Y au gnagan [gna:yan]", l. [gnayan]; (p. 100) ME newe 'new' does not go back to OE "neawe [ne:we]"; (p. 101) "**:+w ou growan [gro:wan]", l. o" + w; (114) "Finally, ae is still a front vowel, as indicated by the spelling <e> as in pet and red": there was no in the antecedent of pet; (p. 115) "..., and Sir John Mandeville's account of his travels is also probably to be counted as prose": ? (p. 121) "..., since the poor people now had more say in the affairs of the country": really? (p. 123) The author of The Ancrene Riwle did not write in Southern Middle English.

(p. 137) "At this time [sc. 1707] the parliaments of the two countries [sc. England and Scotland] were united, not to be separated again until 1999": At the time of this writing there is still a United Kingdom parliament, and its Scottish members may freely vote on purely English matters. (p. 140) "Up to the mid-sixteenth century ME short vowels retained their original qualities, but later short /a/ raised to /[epsilon]/ while /eo/ lowered to /[epsilon]o/ and /1**/ centralized and lowered to /1u/": This looks extremely odd. (p. 141) "(3) When followed by a nasal (usually in combination with a velar element) /[epsilon]/ was raised to /1/, as in wing, single, thing, link, singe, etc. [in Early Modern English]: this was a Middle English sound change and there was no /[epsilon]/in thing that could have been raised at the time; (p. 141) "(4) A minor development is that of/**/ to /o/ after /l/, as in old, cold, etc.": l. before /1/? PDE /**u/ in old, cold, however, reflects the unconditioned development (OE /a:/>) /**:/ > /o:/ (>/ou/, **u/); (p. 145) "..., Baugh and Cable (1993) discuss the fact that in Old English there were participial forms such as he waes on laerende ...": Baugh and Cable (1993: 287), in fact, have he waes laerende, *he waes on laerende is not an attested Old English construction. (p. 157) "Chomsky and Halle (1968)" are not listed in the bibliography. (p. 185) "The Education Act of 1870 established English public schools, where middle and upper classes mingled for the first time.": The author does not seem to understand what the Education Act of 1870 was meant to do. Public schools like Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow etc. had existed long before 1870. The Education Act was about the general provision of elementary education throughout the country. (p. 188) "On the grammatical level there are a number of variants within RP: ...": RP is an accent. (p. 192) Although the nature of the Pictish language is extensively discussed, it remains quite unclear just when Old English was first spoken in what is today Scotland. Din Eidyn (Edinburgh) was captured by the Northumbrians in 638; cf. (p. 56): "The Angles settled the huge area from north of the Thames to the Highlands of Scotland." (p. 193) "Under James I(1406-37) the Acts of his predecessors were translated from Latin into Lowland Old English, not Gaelic, and his own legislation was written in Old English, ...": Scotland as an Old English relic area? (p. 218) "Of course, Native Americans had lived in America for hundreds of years before the settlers, ...": even for thousands of years; (p. 267-8) "Language teachers in Britain and the United States feel that the drop in students enrolling in German and Russian classes is a temporary phenomenon, linked to their present financial and internal difficulties.": some very loose writing here!

The illustrative texts supplied do not fare much better. In twelve lines from the Ohthere interpolation in the OE Orosius (p. 81) I count six miscopied items. In the excerpt from the Ayenbite of Inwyt (p. 113) a line is missing. In the short Beowulf excerpt (pp. 83-4) the author attempts to supply a literal interlinear version, but repeatedly fails to understand individual words and constructions: line 2: byrnum werede "mail-coats wearing": l. "protected by mail-coats"; lines 8-9: No her cuoxlicor cuman ongunnon/lindhwbbende, ...: "No warrior more boldly came ashore/shieldbearers,...": The translation is complete gobbledygook: her is 'here', not 'warrior' (confusion with here 'army'?), the subject is lindhaebbende, cuolicor, in the first instance, means 'more openly', ongunnon is left untranslated; line 20: ofost is selest "haste is needed", l. "haste is best"; line 21: to gecyoanne, hwanan eowre cyme syndon: "to know, from where you come are": to gecyoanne is 'to make known, announce', a literal translation of the last four words in the line would be "whence your comings are". Serviceable cribs and editions with reliable glossaries are readily available, and, oddly enough, a more accurate (albeit not literal) prose translation of the excerpt by E. Talbot Donaldson is even provided by F. (pp. 84-5). In the Cursor Mundi prologue (p. 119) the author mistranslates lede 'people' as 'language'. She would have found a correct translation in Baugh -- Cable (1993: 401-2).

In fact, substantial stretches of F.'s narrative are, without proper acknowledgment, heavily indebted to Baugh -- Cable (1993) or (1978). (As will be seen, she apparently used both editions. A textual scholar with spare time on his hands might be able to throw light on this problem.) Section 4.4.1. (pp. 116-20) "English Re-established", for instance, is essentially an abridged retelling of a corresponding chapter "The Reestablishment of English, 1200-1500" in Baugh -- Cable (1993: 124-53) whose influence may be detected elsewhere in the author's Middle English chapter, too, even in a misunderstanding: compare (p. 116) "William Langland (1362-87) is the author of Piers Plowman,..." and Baugh -- Cable (1993: 152): "... William Langland, the reputed author of a long social allegory, Piers Plowman (1362-1387); ..." (An instance of miscopying also crops up again in that ubiquitous quotation from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales concerning the Prioress (p. 120): "And Frensh she spak ful faire and fetishly/After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe": l. fetisly (a variant of featously 'elegantly, with correctness and propriety'. Baugh -- Cable (1993: 138) have the correct reading. -- The French of Stratford, by the way, is discussed by Rothwell (1985), whose numerous articles on Anglo-French matters should be sought out by anybody writing on the Middle English period.) Reviewing these sections would only mean re-reviewing Baugh -- Cable (1993) and its often outdated scholarship. Sir Walter Scott's "sociolinguistic" treatment, itself derivative, of swine, ox, calf vs. pork, beef, veal in Ivanhoe is laid under contribution yet again (pp. 106-7), and it is probably totally useless to point out once more that Scott is utterly mistaken, see Berndt (1981).

More unacknowledged borrowings, misapprehensions and miscopyings: (p. 158) "The long ae in Old English spelling [vowel length is usually unmarked in OE spelling] represented two sounds: in certain words it stood for /a:/ in West Germanic. It represents a close /e:/ outside the West Saxon area and remains /e:/ in ME (North-West Saxon [!] ded > ded; slepan > slepen). In many words OE/ae/[!] resulted from the i-umlaut of /a/[!]. This was a more open vowel and appears as /[espilson]:/ in Middle English (OE chvne > clene; dcelan > delen). The two sounds have now become identical: deed, clean)." Compare this to Baugh -- Cable (1993: 231-2), who themselves are certainly not beyond reproach here: "The long ae, so characteristic a feature of Old English spelling, represented two sounds. In some words it stood for an a in West Germanic. This sound appears as a close e outside the West Saxon area and remains e in Middle English (Non-WS ded > ded, deed; slepan > slepen, sleep). In many words OE ae was a sound resulting f rom the i-umlaut of a. This was a more open vowel and appears as e in Middle English (OE claene > clene, clean; daelan > deelen [sic], deal). These two sounds have now become identical (cf. deed and clean)." Or compare the discussions of Celtic and Scandinavian place-name evidence by F. (pp. 89-90, 92) and Baugh -- Cable (1993: 73, 96). Some attempt has been made to cover the tracks and rephrase, compare: "But is in the names of hills, rivers and places near such phenomena that the Celtic names survive primarily:..." (pp. 89-90) to Baugh -- Cable's (1993: 73) original: "But it is in the names of rivers and hills and places in proximity to these natural features that the greatest number of Celtic names survive." The indebtedness, however, remains all too clear. The suggested readings at the ends of F.'s chapters never recommend the more detailed Baugh -- Cable (1993) to the reader, although she herself must have considered the book eminently useful. One of the few instances where the author gives credit to "Ba ugh and Cable [...] (1993)" at first leads into a cul-desac (p. 269). The lengthy "wondrous bout of Anglocentrism" attributed to them (and torn from its context) is nowhere to be found in the fourth edition of their book. Closer investigation reveals that the quotation, again not entirely accurately transcribed, is from Baugh -- Cable (1978: 6-7).

Reviewing F.'s book has been a depressing experience. Whether the nadir has been reached as far as the production of histories of the English language is concerned is impossible to tell. The book under review was reprinted, apparently without corrections, in 2001. Like many other books this one too comes with fulsome advance praise on its back cover. An encomiast from Arizona was looking forward to using the book in her classes, and typing its title into one of the web's search engines reveals that it has been adopted as a coursebook around the world. One can only hope that it will be used with utmost caution. This shoddily-produced book was issued by a reputable publisher, who should not have accepted it for publication in its present form. It should be withdrawn immediately and pulped.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Edwin Abbott 

1869 A Shakespearian grammar: An attempt to illustrate some of the differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. (3 edition). London: Macmillan.

[1870]

Baldwin, Thomas Whitfield

1944 William Shakspere's small Latine and lesse Greeke. 2 volumes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Blake, Norman Francis

1989 The language of Shakespeare. (The language of literature). Houndmills -- Basingstoke, Hampshire -- London: Macmillan Education Ltd. [Originally published as Shakespeare's language: An introduction, 1983].

Kopytko, Roman

1993 Polite discourse in Shakespeare's English. (Filologia Angielska 24). Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

*[Text unreadable in original source]