One the Origin of Natural Gender in Middle English
Author(s): E. Classen
Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 97-102
Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4623439 .
Accessed: 10/06/2014 18:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Modern Language Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MiscellaneousNotes
ON THE ORIGIN OF NATURAL GENDER IN MIDDLE
97
ENGLISH.
The developmentof naturalgenderin Middle English constitutesa
phenomenonunique in the Indo-germaniclanguages,but the explanations of the cause of this extraordinary
developmentdo not,to mymind,
accountforknownfacts. There exists,however,substantial
sufficiently
agreementamongscholarsconcerningthe causes whichpromotednatural
to examine firstof all the current
gender. It may be well,therefore,
views on this subject; to see in what respect they fail adequately to
account forall the facts,and then to suggest anotherview as to the
originof naturalgender.
Currenttheoryon this point may be representedby the following
quotations:
Grammatical
wentgradually
outofuseafter
theNorman
gender
Conquest,
owing
to thefollowingcauses :-
The confusionbetween masculine and femininesuffixes.
Loss of suffixesniarkinggender.
Loss of case inflectionsin the masculine and feminine forms of demonstratives.
Morris, Hist. Outlinesof Eng. Accidence,? 81.
With the loss of inflectional distinctions during Middle English, and mainly
owing to that loss, the grammatical gender of Old English was replaced by natural
Emerson, Hist. of the English Language, ? 338.
gender.
The confusion of genders......was partly due to the working of analogy which
levelled out distinctions in declensional types, partly to the weakening of vowels in
unstressed syllables to -e which took place during the last quarter of the eleventh
and the firstquarter of the twelfthcentury,thus wiping out formaldistinctionsto
a very large extent.
Wyld, A Short Historyof English, ? 307.
(1)
(2)
(3)
The underlyingassumptionin all these statementsis that therecame
a time in the developmentof English when it was no longerpossible
to distinguishgender in the old way. At that time the inflexionsof
the noun,the adjective,the articles,and the demonstratives
had already
weakened or had been lost to such an extentthat therewere no forms
left by which to distinguishone genderfromanother. This being the
case, it was foundnecessaryto substitutea gender which was based,
since thesehad,ex hypothesi,
not on grammaticalforms,
disappeared,but
on meaning. It is admitted,therefore,tacitly,that mind had some
share in this development; but unhappilythis activityof the min is
representedas cominginto operationonlyafterit had been stimulated
by the desperate situationwhichhad arisen fromthe loss of inflexions.
Now it is just this assumptionthat the mindever can be, or ever has
been, stimulated to such an extraordinaryeffortby the merelyunconsciousoperationofa sound-lawwhichwe would wish to contest.
M.L. R.xIv.
7
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98
MiscellaneousNotes
Let us see to what conclusionsthis theorywill ultimatelylead
us. It assumes that natural gendersets in ajter the confusionarising
fromthe loss of inflexions. But it does not assume that the introduction of natural gender involved the setting up of any new linguistic
material to replace the old; it does not assume that there was any
restorationof inflexions. On the contrarythe new natural gender
must have been expressedby the available material,that is, without
the help of any inflexionsor suffixes. How, then,was it, in fact,expressed? It was expressedsolelyby means of the personalpronouns;
for all other distinctionsof gender had been lost. Is it not then a
perfectlynatural and obvious objection to this theory,that these selfsame pronouns,he,she and it, would have sufficedto preservethe old
there were no other means of
grammaticalgender? If, ex hypothesi,
the
than
pronounshe, she and it, would not these
expressinggender
as
well to expressgrammaticalgenderas to
pronounshave servedjust
? And, moreover,
express natural gender? Or whereis the difference
does not the theorythat natural gender was a sortof substitutefora
lost and muchlamentedgrammaticalgenderalso implya consciousness
of that loss and an effortto retainit ? But settingaside thisquestion,
is it not morelikelythat,with a long traditionof grammaticalgender,
English would have retained such genderby the means at its disposal
-the personalpronouns-unlesstherehad been someverystrongmotive
for adopting any other system of gender? Finally, it is said that
natural gender was the result of the confusionof old grammatical
genders. But if the onlymeans of indicatinggenderwas by means of
the personal pronouns,how can it be said that gender was confused?
The personal pronounsindicatingnaturalgenderwould have made the
distinctionof genderjust as clear as they do in the case of natural
gender in Modern English and, as a matterof fact,English might by
means of the pronounsof he,she and it retain grammaticalgenderto
this day withoutthe veryleast confusion. Natural gender is neither
more-nor less-confusingthan grammaticalgender.
The currentview then merelyamounts to saying that after inflexionsdisappearedit was no longerpossible to distinguishgenderby
means of inflexions:whichnobodywill deny. But whenit is said that
the loss of inflexionsmade it impossibleto distinguishgender at all,
then the statementis a flatcontradictionof the factthat gendermight
have been indicatedby the pronouns.
It is true,no doubt, that where grammaticalgender prevails inflexionsare a valuable aid to the memoryin fixinggender. A German
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Miscellaneous Notes
99
does not know his gendersbecause he has learntin an abstractwaythat
such and such a noun is masculineand such and such anothernoun
but because he is in the habit of hearinga wordin combinafeminine,
tion withan inflectedadjective or articleor demonstrative.Association
thus plays a large r6le in rememberinggender. No doubt, too, that
where all significantmeaning has departed fromthe formsof grammatical gender there might arise confusionin the case of some less
commonlyused wordsif all inflexionswere lost. But this is quite a
different
thingfromsayingthat gendercouldnotbe indicatedby means
of pronounsin the great majorityof commonwords. Nor can it be
doubted that confusionarises in languages with grammaticalgender
even though full inflexionsare preserved. Some English men and
women,forexample,say 'I is' despitethe existenceof such differences
as still exist between'is' and 'am.' Ignoranceof the usages ofa language may be foundanywhereand does not need loss of inflexionsto
excuse it.
The view we have been discussingis, however,not only theoretically unjustifiable,it is also contraryto certain ascertainedfacts. In
the firstplace it may be noted that there exists in the period before
the inflexionswere weakened or lost,indeed alreadyin Old English,a
strong tendencyto natural gender. It is already almost completely
establishedin the case of the names of livingthings,withthe exception
of wif and mcegden,
though even in the use of these two nounsa subis
sequent pronoun put in the natural,or femininegender,as: woassona
Elene, 223; me sade
gearu wif swa hireweorudahelm beboden hTefde,
thvetwif hire wordumselfa,Gen. 2648; hit sealde thaemmaedeneand
thaetmeden hit sealde hire meder,cf.Toller. In the secondplace the
of genderin Old Englishare,significantly
numerousfluctuations
enough,
found usually in the names of those lifelessthings which are either
masculineor feminine. Thus fen is masculineor neuter,frithis masculine or neuter,secgis masculineor neuter,wfestis masculine,feminine
or neuter; susl is neuter or feminine;cyrnelis masculine or neuter;
and similarlywith a large numberof other nouns the tendencyis to
make themneuter.
Moreover,
just as in Old English we observedthat wif and mcegden
were constructedwith a femininepronoun,so also in early Middle
English we can observe exactly the same process in the case of the
names of lifelessthingswhichwere originallymasculinesor feminines.
Morrisquotes the following:
eal themurhthethe me us behat,al hitscal beo god ane, MoralPoem,364.
7-2
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Miscellaneous Notes
100
A clearercase is
OldEnglish
thaecheblisse,
hitiernien......
He hauethus igarked
gifwewulleth
Homilies,1, 19,
in whichtha still pointsto an originalfeminine.
The followingexamplesare culled at randomfroma briefinvestigation of the extractsin volumeI ofMorrisand Skeat's Specimens:
and wendethetunbeterethanit oerwoes. 11,81.
the ludeus......bohtonan Christenchild......andpinedenhimalle theilce pining
ure Drihtenwaespined. 11,86.
thcet
iii deoflenleddenan meidenswitheunbesorgeliche,
georneescadeto Mihhalhwi
me heoleddeswa. Ima, 56.
and fundenan asse midfole.and leddenhittogeneshim. Iv, 20.
and thatburhfolchihtenthehegestreteand bihengenhitmidpalmes. Iv, 23.
nexstfleshene schalmonwerienno linenecloth,butegifhitbeo ofherde. Ix, 156.
Tho stod on old stoc thar bi-side,
hit was thare hule earding-stowe.xvi, 28.
vor harpe and pipe and fugelessonge
misliketh,gif hit is to longe. xvI, 344.
The followingexamplesare derivedfromthe Owl and theNightingale:
theh thu nime euere of tham lepe
hit is eure ful bi hepe. 11.359, 360.
thah ich iseo his harm bi-uore,
ne comethhit noghtof me thar-uare. 11.1235, 1236.
thu geolpestof seollichewisdome,
thu nustesthwennehit the come. 11.1299, 1300.
his gungeblod hit dragethamis. 1. 1434.
These examples might easily be multiplied,but what is of mostsignificancein thosecited is that the change is alwaysin the same direction,
towardsnatural gender,and that the change in the case of the names
of lifelessthingsis always towardsneuter. It is, however,verydifficult
to present any overwhelmingmass of evidence on this point because
sentencesin which the name of a lifelessthingis referredto again by
a personal pronoun-and no other pronoun will serve-are, in the
nature of things, not very numerous. They would be much more
numerousin the spoken language. But the evidence which is available goes to show that natural gendercame in by way of the personal
pronouns.
But the chiefquestion at issue still remainsuntouched. We may
say that natural gender came in in such and such a manner,but this
does not help us to an explanationwhyit came in at all. If, then,the
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MiscellaneousNotes
101
reason was not the decay of inflexions,
if,as we have attemptedto show,
this was no compellingreason,what was the cause ?
From the evidence it is conceivable that the change came about
fromone or otherof the followingcauses, or it may have sprungfroma
combinationof any or all of them. In the firstplace, it is clear from
the evidence of Old English that there existed a strongsense of sex.
This is shownfromthe factthat the names of living thingsare already
masculine or feminine. Such a sense of sex might readily develop a
sense of sexlessness,or a sense of the distinctionbetween living and
lifelessthings. How farthis sense may have been strengthenedby the
possibilitythat the personal pronounsare most commonlyused in the
masculine and feminineto referto man and woman,we do not know.
But it is a possibilitywhich ought not to be lost sight of. However
this may be, it seems more reasonable to attributesuch an important
change as that fromgrammaticalto natural gender to some psychological cause than to attributeit to a blind and purposelessloss of a
few inflexions,especially when such a loss need not lead to any such
resultat all.
There is another possible cause of the change, which closely reand that is that the discardingof grammatical
sembles the foregoing,
visible
of the tendencyeverywhere
genderis just one moremanifestation
in the historyof the English language to simplifyits grammaticalcategoriesand to dispensewithmechanicaldistinctions. This tendencyhas
gone so far that in Modern English the only syntacticrelationsstill
shownby an inflexionare in the possessivesand pluralsofnouns,in the
thirdpersonsingularindicativeof the verb,and in the number,gender
and case of pronouns. In ModernEnglish one can say that forordinary
purposesgenderdoes not exist. There is a pronounforman or boyand
a pronounforwomanor girl and nothingmore. It is possible that this
lossofa sense ofgenderwas alreadyoperatingin theearlyMiddleEnglish
period. The cause is again purelypsychological. It can be tracedto
that generaltendencytowardseconomyof expressionwhichis sufficient
to account foralmost all the changesin accidenceand syntaxsince the
Old English period. It is mostmarkedin the tendencyto allow context
to replace formalgrammaticalcategories. Neither adjective norarticle
need express number,because it is expressed in the noun; the verb
need have no inflexionof numberforthe same reason. Case is superor
fluoussince it is indicatedeitherby prepositions,by the word-order
to
is
there
the
same tendency express a
by the context: everywhere
grammaticalrelation once only. Why, then,not express gender also
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102
MiscellaneousNotes
once only,that is,by the pronoun? Where the noun itselfis used there
is no occasionforthe expressionofgender,it expressesitself. The loss
of inflexions,whetherof number,gender or case, may well have been
due to the operationof the broad psychology
ofnationalthought,maniin
of
itself
the
formation
cases, in generaleconomyof
festing
analytic
of grammaticalcategories. That caseexpressionand the simplification
reason
of
the developmentof the analytical
endings disappeared by
and
fromthe factthat these latter
seems
evident
not
vice
cases,
versa,
were in commonuse long beforethe case-endingsdisappeared. Why
shouldnotthe distinctionbetweensingularand pluralhave been levelled
?
down to a single inflexionfroma similar motive of simplification
When the inflexionsof numberand case had thus been lost the inflexionsof gender became superfluous,
eitherbecause of the developed
of
sense the distinctionbetweenlifelessand livingthings,by whichthe
latter all became neuter,or because the personal pronounshe and she
became restrictedin applicationto male and femaleand everythingelse
was referredto by it.
E. CLASSEN.
LONDON.
'MEALY-MOUTHED.'
of course) has misrepresented
ProfessorWeekley (unintentionally,
my firstargument; but a re-statement(unless at enormouslength)
would hardlybe intelligibleto readers forwhom it is not superfluous.
All I need say in rejoinderis that the existenceof meleddawno more
proves that the simplex has survived into O. E. than the present
currencyof mildewprovesthe survivalofmil in ModernEnglish.
of 'mealy-mouthed'is
My attemptto justifythe ordinaryetymology
met by ProfessorWeekleywiththe rathercuriousremarkthat ' perhaps
one day we shall find' that the Germanphrase to which I appeal is a
perversionof some older saying containingthe Germaniccognate of
mel. .However, he candidly adimitsthat the notion expressed in the
German phrase agrees closely with the now currentsense of 'mealymouthed'; but he attempts to show that the word had a different
meaning in Tudor times. I do not think the attempt is successful.
and renderingswhichhe quotes fromearlydictionaries
The definitions
seem to me to agree at least as well withthe presentsense of the word
as with that which he would assign to it. They show,however,some
trace of the notion expressedby Minsheu, that meal-mouthliterally
means one whosewordsare bland and softlike meal. Lexicographers
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.112 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:22:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions