Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T00:11:36.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Speech, writing and boxsets: a messy linguistic change in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2022

KEN LODGE*
Affiliation:
School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies University of East Anglia Norwich Research Park Norwich NR4 7TJ UK k.lodge111@btinternet.com

Abstract

This article is an attempt to explain an observable change in present-day English in terms of quite disparate influences. Since the change is not yet complete, it is a messy conspiracy of these influences. By studying life-time changes of this sort we may gain insights into how well-understood historical changes work. The change under discussion is most noticeable in the written form, but its trigger has been the phonetic realizations of the forms to be considered. The forms are exemplified by alternations in noun phrases such as box(ed)sets, skim(med) milk, arch(ed) corbel table. The relationship between the very different structures used in speech on the one hand and writing on the other is also relevant in this case. The NPs with -ed have a structure Adjpp N, whereas the forms without it are compound nouns. Some of the Adjpp forms found in such noun phrases are actually pseudo-past participles; that is, they are not formed from a verb, but take the -ed ending, e.g. four-wheeled, gate-legged. Whether native speakers learn such forms from the spoken or written language to some extent determines how they are perceived. This is relevant because the phonetic realization of members of both sets may be the same, so the phonetic form [bɒks set] may be perceived as boxed set or box set. I also consider the stress patterns of the new compounds, the orthography as a reflection of the structural change, and the ‘Germanic’ tendency towards compounding. The resultant picture is a messy one and the change has certainly not yet been completed, but we can see a conspiracy of disparate areas of the linguistic system putting pressure on certain lexical combinations. It should also be noted that ‘English’ is not a consistent linguistic system: we have to be clear about which variety is being discussed. English ‘belongs’ to many different groups of people, including non-native speakers as a lingua franca, so it is subject to many more influences today than the parochial versions of even just a hundred years ago.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

This article is a revised version of a poster presented to the Fourth Symposium on Historical Phonology at the University of Edinburgh, 9–10 December 2019. I am grateful to Andy Spencer, Heinz Giegerich, Peter Trudgill, Jean Boase-Beier and several of those who attended the Symposium for discussion of my ideas and for providing a number of suitable examples. I am further indebted to two anonymous ELL reviewers, whose comments and criticisms have helped me produce what I hope is an improved version for publication. I am, of course, fully responsible for this version.

References

References

Boase-Beier, Jean. 1987. Poetic compounds. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On defining the word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2017. How language began. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz. 2009. The English compound stress myth. Word Structure 2(1), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Huber, Rudolf & Rieth, Renate. 1988. Glossarium artis 6: Gewölbe : Voûtes : Vaults. Munich: Saur.Google Scholar
Hughes, Geoffrey. 2000. A history of English words. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics, 5th edition. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 1981. Dependency phonology and English consonants, Lingua 54, 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 1984/2015. Studies in the phonology of colloquial English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 2010. Th'interpretation of t'definite article in t'North of England. English Language and Linguistics 14(1), 111–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2011. A critical introduction to syntax. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘Lexically related’ and ‘Head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 234–74.Google Scholar