Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:18:49.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When rhymes go bad: Recontextualizing Chaucer's rhymes with the mid front long vowels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Willard J. Rusch
Willard J. Rusch
Affiliation:
University of Southern MainePortland, ME 04103
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern scholars generally agree that in Geoffrey Chaucer's sound system, [e:] and [ε] were both full phonemes, a situation paralleled with the back vowels [o:] and [ɔ:]. Unfortunately, Chaucer's verse fairly frequently rhymes words that should have /e:/ (according to diachronic criteria) with words in which one expects /ε:/. The prevailing explanation for their occurrence insists that Chaucer created the faulty rhymes neither through ignorance nor poetic license; instead, he liberally employed common variant pronunciations from fourteenth-century London English. This paper argues that the study of rhymes has been heavily determined by a belief that this literary artifice, studied in a context informed by the knowledge of historical phonology, may permit us to recover facts of Chaucer's pronunciation that otherwise would be irretrievable. The connections between this presupposition and Derrida's critique of the spoken versus the written are revealed, suggesting that rhymes possess their own unique written properties. In a three-stage analysis, scholarly attention is redirected toward rhymes as a graphological phenomenon.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 1 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Baum, Paul F. 1961. Chaucer's verse. Durham NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, Betsy. 1987. Chaucer aloud: The varieties of textual interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, Betsy. 1988. Listeners' guide to Medieval English: A discography. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Brewer, Derek. 1963. Chaucer in his time. London: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
Burnley, David. 1984. A guide to Chaucer's language. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Coles, Elisha. 1676. An English dictionary explaining the difficult terms that are used in divinity, husbandry, physick, phylosaphy, law, navigation, mathematicks, and other arts and sciences. London: Samuel Crouch.Google Scholar
de Francis, John. 1989. Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of grammatology. Tr. Spivak, Gayatri. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1973. “The voice that keeps silence.” “Speech and phenomena” and other essays on Husserl's theory of signs. Tr. Allison, David B.. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press. Pp. 68–91.Google Scholar
Dobson, E. J. 1968. English pronunciation, 1500–1700. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Ellis, Alexander J. 1968. On Early English pronunciation. Vol. 1: On the pronunciation of the XIVth, XVth, XVIth, XVIIth, and XVIIIth centuries. New York: Greenwood Press. (Rpt. of Asher & Co., 1869.)Google Scholar
Fischer, Erna. 1929. “Ae. ēa im Südostmittelenglischen und die Heimat des südlichen ‘Octovian’.” Englische Studien 64: 1–10.Google Scholar
Fries, Udo. 1985. Einführung in die Sprache Chaucers: Phonologie, Metrik und Morphologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luick, Karl. 1964. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Alida, Mackenzie Barbara. 1927. “A special dialectal development of OE EA in Middle English.’ Englische Studien 61: 388–390.Google Scholar
Manly, John M., and Richert, Edith. 1940. The text of The Canterbury Tales studied on the basis of all known manuscripts. Vol. 1: Descriptions of the manuscripts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Millward, C. M. 1989. A biography of the English language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Robinson, Ian. 1971. Chaucer's prosody: A study of the Middle English verse tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, F. N., ed. 1957. The works of Geoffrey Chaucer. 2nd ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ruggiers, Paul C., ed. 1979. The Canterbury Tales:A facsimilie and transcription of the Hengwrt manuscript, with variants from the Ellesmere manuscript. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Sandved, Arthur O. 1989. Introduction to Chaucerian English. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter W., ed. 1963. The works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Vol. 1: The Canterbury Tales: Text; Vol. 6: Introduction, glossary, indexes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert. 1961. “The Middle English ‘long close’ and ‘long open’ mid vowels”. Texas studies in literature and language 2: 529–38.Google Scholar
Wallis, John. 1674. Grammatica lingua Anglicanae. Oxford: L. Lichfield.Google Scholar
Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1936. A history of modern colloquial English. 3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar