History of the English Language: Project Possibilities

• Sentences you have never heard or even imagined before are being created by you and people like you every day. When you go to Burger King , you might notice your soft drink cup has a sentence like this: "It's what 'Have it your way™' is all about."

  On television, a character in the television series "Now and Again" (1/14/00) said: "The kid who was watching porn's mother walked in."
  
  At first blush, these may or may not seem grammatical to you, but they do accord with contemporary sentence-formation processes in the English language.
  
  Pay attention to what you are saying and hearing and start to collect 'oddments' like these. For a project, you might try to do some of the following:

  • Determine at what point in the development of English such structures became possible for speakers of the language.
    
    
  • Speculate about the ways in which speakers of early phases of English might have had to structure similar utterances.
    • This could include innovations/changes in vocabulary, sentence structure, inflectional requirements, etc.

• Dialect Project [details follow elsewhere in this packet]
  
  
• Standard/Nonstandard English Project: Select a passage from a novel that uses non-standard English [e.g., Tony Morrison, Beloved or Sula, Alice Walker, The Color Purple, Lee Smith, Oral History, Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn]. First, "translate" the passage into Present-day Standard English [this is for your own use only--you needn't turn it in]. Analyze the vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology as compared with that of Standard English. Discuss the stylistic effect of using non-standard English in this context. How would presenting the passage as you have translated it change its effectiveness? Discuss the ramifications for lexicographers who base their claims about usage on the "usage of the best writers and speakers." [NB: Toni Morrison won the Pulitzer Prize for this Beloved].
  
  
• Dictionary Project (suggested options):
  
  
  1. For a particular usage problem, either survey a wide range of contemporary dictionaries [and/or grammars and handbooks] to determine whether or not there is a consensus on the problem [for an example of this, see the following collection of entries on "hopefully"] [EXAMPLE]; or
     
     
  2. Examine a range of dictionaries such as the OED, Johnson's Dictionary, Webster's 1828 ed., and others to determine whether attitudes and advice on a particular usage matter has changed over time.
     
     [For each of the above, you should familiarize yourself with the editorial policy of the dictionary by reading the prefatory material. Does the policy statement lead you to expect a "descriptive" approach, or a "prescriptive" approach, or what? What function do you think a dictionary should perform as regards matters of usage? (see the index in Crystal for the terms descriptive and prescriptive)]
     
     
  3. Using the "online" OED2 (there is a link also from our class home page), examine, for example, the kinds of words borrowed from , say, Arabic during a hundred-year time span. What is the "semantic domain" of these words? Can you assign a motivation for their borrowing (i.e., external historical and/or social events)? This is just to get you thinking; there are any number of project possibilities available to you through this new tool.
     
     
  4. Believe it or not, the Internet provides a new database of usage informants. E. J. Dionne, Jr. in his "Chattering Class" column in the Washington Post Magazine (1/19/97), cited a letter complaining about "'The (bad) habit of creating verbs out of words that are not verbs.'" This is an old bugaboo that someone gets mad about from time to time (I think it was Eisenhower who was castigated for using "finalize"). Dionne cites the new coinages "incentivize," "securitize," "concretize," and "immentize," and then enters each into a WWW search engine (e.g., Metacrawler). The initial search turned up 13,500 sites employing "prioritize as contrasted with 223 sites using "incentivize." The raw numbers are interesting in and of themselves, but one can then explore a sampling of the "hits" and examine the context for the usage (register, audience, etc.). Using the World Wide Web, then, one can access the cutting edge of usage and neologism. For a project, select an example or examples of controversial usage (some examples can be found in Crystal, "Grammatical Mythology," pp. 190-197; and many more are provided by the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage) and examine the evidence turned up through an internet search. 

   

• Technology and HEL: It would be very useful to develop some online tutorials (preferably with no copyright problems and marked up in HTML) for any aspect of the History of the English Language. A few years ago, I had a student come up with the idea of a "Jeopardy" game that was based on the differences in spellings of a given word as recorded in Johnson's Dictionary and Webster's 1828 ed. (Amercian vs. British). You might get some ideas for this from the link on the HEL home page to the British/English materials. That's one example; make your own proposal and I will certainly consider it.
  
  
• Semantic Change Project: Examine the history of a cluster of words (e.g. "wife," "hussy," "girl," "queen") for changes in meaning. What kind of changes occur? Can you determine what influences these changes? What do changes of this sort mean for those who insist on the "etymological" meaning of a word rather than the meaning that the word has come to have in the hands (mouths) of the "language abusers"? (see Crystal, pp. 138-139)
  
  

  For each project, at least some part of what you turn in should take the form of a polished essay [or, in the case of the technology option, a well-written introduction/user's manual]. The length will vary: for instance, if you choose the regional dialects project, you will turn in a great deal of data, and perhaps 2-3 typed pages of analysis (more, of course, if the data requires more). A more straightforward prose essay should be somewhere in the 6-8 pp. range (ca. 250 words per page). If you think you are doing too little or too much, we can discuss the qualitative/quantitative expectations individually. Please use the MLA format for your formal written work. When you refer to words or phrases that are not part of your own syntax, please differentiate them by using quotation marks, bold-face, or italics.

  For each project, you are expected to demonstrate a familiarity with the assigned readings and materials that are appropriate for that topic.

Call numbers for some reference works [Those marked with a * are on reserve; those with a # are photocopies on reserve.] Most other dictionaries are shelved in the Reference section on the second floor of the library. However, reference works sometimes end up in the stacks shelved under their call numbers exclusive of the "REF" designation.

*Baily, Nathan. Etymological English Dictionary. [REF PE1620/B3]

*Coles, Elisha. English Dictionary. [PE1620/C7/1973]

*Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. [REF PE 1620/J612/Vols. 1&2]

Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language. [REF PE1625/W34/Vols 1&2]

Brown, Goold. The Grammar of English Grammars. [PE1105/B7/1873]

Williamson, Juanitia V., and Virginia M. Burke. A Various Language: Perspectives on American Dialects. [PE 2808 W54]

Williamson and Burke contains essays by various authors on many varieties of American English.

*Dillard, J.L. Black English: Its History and Usage in the United States. [PE 3102/N4/D5]

---. Lexicon of Black English. [PE3102/N46/D5]

*---. Toward a Social History of American English .[PE2809 D544 1985]

Clark, Virginia P. Paul A. Eschholtz, & Alfred F. Rosa, eds. Language: Introductory Readings. 4th ed. 477-492. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

Cassidy, Frederic G. Chief Editor. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. 1 [PE2843 D52 1985]

#Marckwardt, Albert H., and J. L. Dillard. "Social and Regional Variation." From American English, 2nd ed., by Albert H. Marckwardt, revised by J. L. Dillard. Copyright 1980 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Reprinted in Virginia P. Clark, Paul A. Eschholtz, & Alfred F. Rosa, eds. Language: Introductory Readings. 4th ed. 477-492. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

#Shuy, Roger W. "Dialects: How they Differ." From Discovering American Dialects by Roger W. Shuy. Copyright 1967 by the National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted in Virginia P. Clark, Paul A. Eschholtz, & Alfred F. Rosa, eds. Language: Introductory Readings. 4th ed. 493-514. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

*Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. [PE3102/N42/S5]

---

Example of Dictionary Variation on "Hopefully"

The following are nearly verbatim records of various dictionaries' attitudes toward "hopefully" as an adv. I have left out pronunciation advice and have modified some of the symbols used in the original. The text is (hopefully) accurate.

• Morris, William, ed. The American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd College Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.
  
  • hopefully adv. 1. In a hopeful manner. 2. It is to be hoped.
    • Usage: The use of hopefully to mean "it is to be hoped," as in hopefully we'll get there before dark, is grammatically justified by analogy to the similar uses of happily and mercifully. However, this usage is by now such a bugbear to traditionalists that it is best avoided on grounds of civility, if not logic.

  Mish, Frederick C., ed. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1985.

  • hopefully adv. 1. In a hopeful manner. 2. It is to hoped.
    • usage: Only the irrationally large amount of critical fire drawn by sense 2 of hopefully requires its particular recognition in a dictionary. Similar use of other adverbs (as interestingly, presumably, fortunately) as sentence modifiers is so commonplace as to excite no notice whatever. While it still arouses occasional objection, hopefully as a sentence modifier has been in use at least since 1932 and is well established as standard.

  Erlich, Eugene, et al., eds. Oxford American Dictionary. New York & Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1980.

  • hopefully adv. 1. In a hopeful way. 2. it is to be hoped, hopefully we shall be there by one o'clock. usage: Many people regard the second use as unacceptable.

  Gove, Philip Babcock, ed. Webster's Third New International Dictionary. 1961; Rpt. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1981.

  • hopefully adv [listed under the entry for the adjective hopeful. No reference is made to alternative meanings or usage problems]

  Longman Dictionary of the English Language. England: Longman, 1984.

  • hopefully adv 1. In a hopeful way. 2. it is hoped, <hopefully, he will arrive in time >
    • usage: The increasingly common use of hopefully to mean "it is hoped", as in sense 2, is widely disliked both in Britain and in the USA, and in Britain is felt to be an Americanism. If one uses it, it is important to ensure that there is no ambiguity, since <they will depart hopefully in the morning > has two meanings; but it is sometimes a usefully impersonal word, since its user is not obliged to state who is doing the "hoping".

  Morris, William, and Mary Morris, eds. Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.

  • hopefully
    • Hopefully in the sense of "in a hopeful manner" (as "The mayor aspires hopefully for higher office") has been a part of the language for centuries. The OED gives examples of its appearance in print as far back as 1639. However, in recent years, hopefully had been very widely used in the sense of "we hope" or "it is to be hoped" (as "Hopefully the Dodgers will win the doubleheader"). Panelist Paul Horgan, commenting on this latter use, writes: "We've had 'hopefully' as a hanging adverb for a while now. Imagine my dismay to see 'thankfully' in a New York Times movie review used in similar construction. Are we to put up with 'Thankfully', son of Hopefully?"

      The prevailing opinion of the panelists would indicate that they reject hopefully in the second sense (and, by implication, "thankfully") in writing, though they are somewhat more tolerant of it in speech. One panelist who takes an intransigent stand in the matter is Jean Stafford, who writes: "On the back door of my house ther is a sign which I had made by a gifted calligrapher. It reads: The word 'hopefully' must not be misused on these premises. Violators will be humiliated."

      "The question put to the panelists, with the percentages of replies, follows, together with typical comments, many of them just as emphatic as Miss Stafford's."

    Usage Panel Question

    • The adverb hopefully is often heard in the sense of "we hope" in such sentences as "Hopefully, the war will soon be ended." Would you accept this formulation?
      • In speech Yes: 42%. No: 58%

        In writing Yes: 24% No: 76%

      Shana Alexander: "No. Slack-jawed, common, sleazy."

      Isaac Asimov: "This particular usage grates on me."

      Sheridan Baker: "Jargon."

      Hal Borland: "I have fought this for some years, will fight it till I die. It is barbaric, illiterate, offensive, damnable, and inexcusable."

      John Brooks: "No. Although to my shame I once wrote it before I learned to hate it. And there may be a lesson in that."

      Heywood Hale Broun: "No. It has a feel of sprawl."

      Ben Lucien Burman: "I can't see any reason why not."

      Robert Crichton: "Yes. It depersonalizes the expression and that is good. No one cares if I hope the war is over and we has to be defined--the adverb makes a kind of general unspecific yearning that suits many occasions."

      Thomas Fleming: "Mea culpa--I can see myself writing it--but it's wrong."

      A. B. Guthrie, Jr.: "I have sworn eternal war on this bastard adverb."

      Richard Edies Harrison: "Strike me dead if you ever hear me using it in this way."

      Paul Horgan: "This 'suspended' adverb must be done away with."

      John K. Hutchens: "Yes, but chiefly because there's really nothing to be done about it."

      Elizabeth Haneway: "Sloppy but useful."

      Walt Kelly: "Again, we should know better. It is a sloppy elgantism."

      Alexander Kendrick: "No, if only because it is so overused."

      Walter Kerr: "We're losing."

      Stanley Kunitz: "'hopefully,' we can scotch this vulgarism."

      Charles Kuralt: "Chalk squeaking on a blackboard is to be preferred to this usage. I don't accept it, but I fear we are all stuck with it."

      Laurence Lafore: "No, no, no, no."

      Phyllis McGinley: "'Hopefully' so used and its adherents should be lynched."

      Peter S. Prescott: "It is ungrammatical, and therefore not in my writing (though I once wrote it, to my shame)."

      Leo Rosten: "This is simply barbarism. What does 'hopefully' modify? Does a war 'hope.'"

      T. Harry Williams: "The most horrible usage of our time."

      Herman Wouk: "I don't like chalk squeaking on blackboards either."

    [I leave off some of the panelists' comments, but none which would alter the overall texture of the responses] (return)

Return to HEL Syllabus