Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Historical English in contact
Edited by Bettelou Los, Chris Cummins, Lisa Gotthard, Alpo Honkapohja and Benjamin Molineaux
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 359] 2022
► pp. 143–164

Chapter 8
The taking off and catching on of etymological spellings in Early Modern English

Evidence from the EEBO Corpus

ORCID logo | Keio University
ORCID logo | Kyoto University
This chapter examines the path that orthographic etymologisation, as in doubt and verdict, followed mainly in the course of the sixteenth century. Few corpus-based studies have been undertaken on etymological spellings, but the recent availability of the large-sized EEBO Corpus must be of great help in making it clear when and how etymological spellings took off and caught on in the Early Modern English period. Besides giving a close description of the process of the orthographic shift, we discuss some methodological problems in the use of the corpus, stressing at the same time that it is an excellent tool, when carefully used, for studies in the history of English.
Keywords: etymological spelling, Renaissance, the sixteenth century, EEBO Corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
  • 3.The EEBO Corpus
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1admonish
    • 4.2amethyst
    • 4.3apothecary
    • 4.4captive
    • 4.5cauldron
    • 4.6cognizance
    • 4.7falcon
    • 4.8lethargy “dullness”
    • 4.9lethargy “lead”
    • 4.10orthography
    • 4.11phantasm
    • 4.12phantom
    • 4.13pheasant
    • 4.14salmon
    • 4.15verdict
    • 4.16Co-occurrence of spelling variants
  • 5.Process of etymologising: A case of lexical diffusion?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.359.08hot
References (31)
Sources
Corpus of Historical American English. 2010. Presented by Mark Davies. (Available online at [URL])
Corpus Resource Database (CoRD), Corpus Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, University of Helsinki. (Available online at [URL])
EEBO Corpus. 2017. Presented by Mark Davies. (Available online at [URL])
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989 (2nd edn.). By John A. Simpson & Edmund S. C. Weiner, Oxford University Press, Oxford. (Available online as Oxford English Dictionary Online at [URL])
References
Aitchison, Jean. 1990. The missing link: The role of the lexicon. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical linguistics and philology, 11–28. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Language change: Progress or decay (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles. 2000 [1993]. The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew. 1972. The time dimension: Contribution toward a theory of sound change. Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and Philosophy 8. 457–498.Google Scholar
. 1976. Relative chronology: Three methods of reconstruction. Journal of Linguistics 12. 209–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew & Hsin-I. Hsieh. 1971. The time variable in phonological change. Journal of Linguistics 7. 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew & William S.-Y. Wang. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51. 255–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1999. Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: The dance of language change? In Ana Bringas López et al. (eds.), Woonderous Ænglissce: SELIM studies in medieval English language, 51–64. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo (Servizo de Publicacións).Google Scholar
. 2003. Log(ist)ic and simplistic S-curves. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon. 2013. Does spelling matter? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hotta, Ryuichi. 2012. The order and schedule of nominal plural formation transfer in three southern dialects of Early Middle English. In Irén Hagedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 22–27 August 2010, 94–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Etymological respellings on the eve of spelling standardisation. Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature 30. 41–58.Google Scholar
. 2017. The spelling and syntax of doubt in Early Modern English: Variation and Latin influence. In Mitsumi Uchida, Yoko Iyeiri & Lawrence Schourup (eds.), Language contact and variation in the history of English, 43–60. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McEnery, Anthony & Helen Baker. 2017. Corpus linguistics and 17th-century prostitution: Computational linguistics and history. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Mieko & William S-Y. Wang. 1996. Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of -s in the third person singular present indicative in English. In Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 119–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Evolution theory and lexical diffusion. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 315–343. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Vivian. 1999. Orthography and punctuation. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language 3, 13–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scragg, Donald G. 1974. A history of English spelling. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Yuki. 2018. Variation among relative markers in Early Modern English: Evidence from the EEBO Corpus. Zephyr 30. 28–45. [URL] (3 April, 2021)
Upward, Christopher & George Davidson. 2011. The history of English spelling. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45. 9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. & Chinfa Lien. 1993. Bidirectional diffusion in sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 345–400. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wełna, Jerzy. 2014. <U> or <O>: A dilemma of the Middle English scribal practice. In Simone E. Pfenninger, Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, Marianne Hundt & Daniel Schreier (eds.), Contact, variation, and change in the history of English, 305–323. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Iyeiri, Yoko & Mitsumi Uchida
2021. Etymological Spellings in William Caxton’s Translations. English Studies 102:8 ► pp. 991 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.