The Cambridge History of the English Language, 1476-1776 (review)

In an era of increasing specialization, a broad-based work of synthesis is especially welcome. Emphasizing this point, Lass concludes his introduction with the observation: ‘The story told in this volume will be a distillation from an immensely complicated picture of ongoing change and variation—more a treatment of “landmarks” than a “full history” (as if that could even be written). But it is still, as far as I can see, the fullest treatment of the language of the period available in one place to date’ (12). What is lacking here in modesty is fully compensated by the accuracy of this statement. Several single-authored works are now made obsolete by this splendid collection of essays by six contributors who stretch their specialist interests in the direction of a comprehensive treatment of Early Modern English.

As a reader of the volumes of this History (and a reviewer of two prior ones; see Bailey 1998, 2000), I can attest to the distinctive excellence of L’s work as editor. This volume is far more disciplined than the others I have examined with care; nearly all the authors have been read (and revised) in light of the topics treated by their colleagues. Inconsistencies and inaccuracies have been nearly eliminated. Richard M. Hogg, the general editor of the six-volume History (hereafter CHEL), should take particular pride in L’s efforts to present a coherent and consistent portrait of the language of the era.

Quibbling about periodization is not, perhaps, worthwhile, and the choice of 1476, the introduction of movable-type printing in London, is both conventional and sensible. London printers made linguistic choices that eventually influenced the ways in which the language was written throughout the Anglophone world. The choice of 1776 as an ending date, the year a few colonists in Philadelphia declared independence, is more dubious. American English became an ‘extraterritorial’ variety from the first years of exploration, and Hiberno-English had become a distinct and widely recognized variety before that. Scotland lost its political independence in the first decade of the eighteenth century, and Barbados became recognizably ‘bajian’ when large numbers of rebellious Scots and Irish were transplanted there. So there were ‘extraterritorial’ varieties of English well before the eighteenth century. In 1776, few North Americans thought they spoke differently from Britons, though some were pleased when British visitors thought they spoke the language better. But there were no immediate linguistic consequences when the Congress declared independence.

In omitting Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the western hemisphere from consideration, however, the authors are authorized to narrow the focus to the prestige dialect of London and the ideology fostered within the triangle formed by London, Oxford, and Cambridge. Thus Manfred Görlach, assigned to describe ‘Regional and social variation’, writes that ‘since the standard came early and was quickly implemented, the discrediting of dialect use was quick and dramatic’ (484). (L himself declares that ‘the modern standard has a heterogeneous dialect base’ [91], and the heterogeneity he discusses comes early in the period covered by the volume. Matti Rissanen differs from Görlach in stating that ‘the regularizing trend is typical of written language only’ and not of ‘informal spoken English’ [188].)

While it is certainly true, as Görlach points out, that ‘dialect texts’ are rarely written in the triangle, his narrowing of perspective to this small region defines out of consideration the texts written (and the voices speaking) elsewhere. ‘Anglicization’ of Scotland only began midway in the period and is not yet complete today. Evidence that migrants to London changed their speech to conform to this ‘standard’ comes late too, and Samuel Johnson and James Boswell (to pick two such migrants) were not confused with Londoners or even seen as speaking ‘southern’, though Boswell, a generation younger than Johnson, worried about the matter. There did emerge an idea of purity, of course, and sometimes purity was conflated with the notion of a standard. [End Page 565...