11. The Early Modern English Verbal Constructions and 18th Century Prescriptivism

2. Discuss the reasons, aims and methods of the 18c prescriptivism.

focus on usage and grammar, rather than spelling and vocabulary as in Renaissance

social, linguistic, and philosophical reasons

• social:

industrial revolution brought the rise of the middle class and an increase in social mobility

• in cities the upper classes felt their position is crumbling
• the early grammars were written to help the social elite to maintain the distance
• later written for lower and middle class who wished to rise socially
• both assumed that language mattered and people should be given guidance

• linguistic: period of linguistic conservatism o

• concern about refining and fixing the language
• belief that the language has decayed from an earlier, better stage and change is bad

• philosophical: philosophy of reason, Age of Reason

• language ought to be logical, orderly and symmetrical

important grammarians:

	Johnson, Defoe, Swift, Sheridan and Addison, Noah Webster, Lowth, Priestley 

aims:
• ascertainment: seen English as uncodified, unsystematised and uncertain in places

• change endangers the integrity of the language
• language has been corrupted from the earlier golden age → wish to reverse the harmful changes by refining, purifying and perfecting
• prevent further changes
• process of ascertainment → ridding of doubts and uncertainties
• standardize the language, codify the rules and establish a standard of correct usage
• refine the language, remove supposed defects and common errors
• fix the language permanently in the desired form and prevent further changes

• academy: thought the best way to achieve ascertainment

• academy to regulate the language as in Italy and France
• never came to fruition
• came to realize it is in vain, language will change

methods:
no academy, so they have to rely on their own devices – their own authority, authority of the best writers, the model of classical languages, etymology, and reason

• authority: prescription often embodied individual´s preconceptions, prejudices and preferences

• take authority of the best writers and men of letters, but also pointing out faults
  

• model of Latin: they valued synthetic languages

• analogical use of grammar to Latin
• Latin serves as a model for most 18th C prescriptions concerning case usage

• etymology: etymological meaning of a word possesses a certain authority over the current one

• reason: the application of logic resulted in prescriptions and proscriptions:

• do not use a double negative
• do not use a double comparative or superlative form
• do not compare incomparables
• use the comparative for two things, superlative for more than two
• place only before the word it modifies
• do not split an infinitive
• do not end a sentence with a preposition

Zdroj: Laurel J. Brinton, Leslie K. Arnovick. The English Language: A Linguistic History

Composite predicates

Composite predicates are combinations of verbs and nouns. They are not, however, necessarily copular verbs. Example: give a call, make a call, have/take (Br/US) a shower, etc.

Composite predicates are probably result of historical development “involving idiomatization of the Old English pattern N+V.” (Brinton, Akimoto, Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History, 23).

Simple verbs could be replaced by so-called composite predicates, which consist of a quasi-auxiliary—that is, a verb of general meaning such as do, have, make, draw, give, and take— in combination with a noun that has been formed from a verb.

2 basic views:

Purists:

claim that composite predicates are needlessly wordy and feel are less ‘active’ because the action is expressed by a noun rather than a verb. However, these constructions have legitimate uses such as allowing modification (e.g. one can say take a long bath but not *bathe longly). (Brinton, Arnovick 2011, p.408)

versus

Descriptive views & Present Day English grammar

claim that composite predicates are needlessly wordy and feel are less ‘active’ because the action is expressed by a noun rather than a verb. However, these constructions have legitimate uses such as allowing modification (e.g. one can say take a long bath but not *bathe longly). (Brinton, Arnovick 2011, p.408)

Descriptive approach (most of present-day linguistics) observes the language, respect it as it is, as it changes accept the changes (as long as they make sense).

Examples taken from Brinton & Arnovick:

Call give a call, make a call

Look have a look, take a look

Try have a try

approve give approval

care take care

attend pay attention

dive do a dive

wash do the wash

refer make reference to

conclude draw a conclusion from

assume make an assumption

USE IN PDE:

Periphrasis: One good example is the use of adverbials and eventive objects: give a kiss, give a hit, etc. These are mostly used in novels and newspaper style, but not only there.

Mostly difference in styles. Purists may be right in saying that sometimes composite predicates may cause a bit of redundancy, but on the other hand, some activities are represented only by composite predicates, e.g. have dinner, have breakfast, have/take a shower/bath… shower and bath and some more have required composite predicates: He showers everyday., but compare with ??? He’s showering himself ???, or ???they’re breakfasting. ??? With present simple, it is OK, but progressive form usually requires composite predicates: He is having/taking a shower.

Conclusion: to claim that composite predicates have legitimate uses is definitely correct. Such claim was probably made on the basis of descriptive approach and with reference to PDE where some composite predicates were grammaticalised.

Reference: Laurel J. Brinton, Leslie K. Arnovick. The English Language: A Linguistic History; Brinton, L.J.; Akimoto. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English.