Fish 1
Natasha Fish
ENGL 260 Survey of British Literature I
Dr. Lee
8 April 2011
The Significance of Change in the English Language
From a young age, certain perceptions of the English language are ingrained into
the minds of students. Kindergartners learn to say, ―I made the bed,‖ instead of ―I
makeded the bed,‖ and Spanish speakers learn that an adjective precedes a noun in a
sentence instead of following it. Many times, those who do not grow weary of grammar
and punctuation in grade school choose to pursue English in college, and in their studies,
they maintain certain assumptions about language, such as ―the actual definition‖ of a
word and the ―correct way‖ to use a gerund. Language is many times perceived not as a
fluid, amorphous system of living communication, but often as a formed, rigid structure
that is and always will be consistently navigable through the same means of utilization
and comprehension. Despite this popular, careful categorization of the English language,
Samuel Johnson, prominent English scholar of his day and author of the original
dictionary, casts a veil of fallibility over such conceptualizations. His observations are
echoed by the anthropological study of linguistics, and reflected in the prevalent opinion
among university students about British literature. In short, Samuel Johnson’s Preface
and dictionary—as well as other examples of British literature—in contextual evaluation
with modern spoken English, exemplify the incessant transformation of language, which
Fish 2
simultaneously explains the difficulty of students’ comprehension of literature outside of
their generation, and provides evidence for the arbitrariness of language in general.
Comparing Johnson’s dictionary and the popular current Merriam-Webster’s
dictionary is a first step in grasping the difference between English spoken in the 18th
century and English spoken today. The definitions of such words as ―anthology,‖
―network,‖ and ―Whig‖ have changed since Johnson’s first publication. Johnson
described ―anthology‖ as ―a collection of flowers,‖ (Johnson 2753) as opposed to
Merriam-Webster’s definition of ―anthology‖ as ―a collection of selected literary pieces
or passages or works,‖ or simply an ―assortment‖ (Merriam-Webster Online). ―Network,‖
another word found in Johnson’s dictionary, was defined as ―anything reticulated or
decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections‖ (Johnson 2754).
Having to use a dictionary to understand a dictionary definition is perhaps not the most
optimal situation in which to be. Therefore, thank goodness for the same explanation of
―network‖ defined by Webster, which is stated more simply as ―a fabric or structure of
cords or wires that cross at regular intervals and are knotted or secured at the crossings‖
(Merriam-Webster Online). The editors of Webster would not even think of using such
words as ―reticulated,‖ ―decussated,‖ or ―interstices‖ in a definition for today’s
population, because although those words do have their own entries in Merriam-Webster,
they have become obscure outside of the knowledge of esoteric vocabulary aficionados.
Lastly in these three examples, Webster’s first definition of a ―Whig‖ is ―a
member or supporter of a major British political group of the late 17th through early 19th
centuries seeking to limit the royal authority and increase parliamentary power‖
(Merriam-Webster Online). Webster’s classification deviates from Johnson’s more
Fish 3
political description of a Whig as ―the name of a faction‖ (Johnson 2755). This definition
is characteristic of Johnson, however, who was famous for inserting his own political
opinions into his entries, elucidating the obvious differences between his definitions and
the more sterile, neutral descriptions of the same words in today’s dictionaries. More
importantly significant than the lack of political commentary in the modern MerriamWebster dictionary, however, is the almost exponential growth of the dictionary since
Johnson’s day, budding from 40,000 entries in his dictionary to anywhere from 100,000
to 400,000 entries, depending on the dictionary (Quinion). While Johnson’s dictionary
may seem even elementary to the colossuses that are today’s dictionaries, Johnson
undoubtedly performed a monumental task in creating his book of words, and in fact, his
definitions were invaluably used for centuries. Consequently, the purpose of this essay is
not to downgrade his feat or the value of obtaining a collection of English words,
recorded and organized in one place, but to display the astounding development of
language over the centuries.
The aforementioned notable differences between past and modern dictionaries
certainly explain a great deal about how language shifts. While Johnson agreed to
undertake a task that would produce a book that would quickly require additions and
revisions, he certainly understood that ―alterations which time and chance have hitherto
been suffered to make in [the English language] without opposition‖ (Johnson 2750)
would continue to occur. He even blatantly criticized those who thought otherwise,
particularly the French Academy, which was ―founded to purify the French language‖
(Greenblatt 2750). Johnson wrote that such institutions were established ―to guard the
avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance
Fish 4
and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtle for legal restraints;
to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride‖ (Johnson
2750).
This description of language epitomizes the lengthy journey that English has
taken since its earliest surviving inscriptions on vellum, wood, and stone. Unfortunately,
beyond the idyllic perception of language change as a rich, thriving system of
communication, the indisputable fact of habitual language modification also causes more
concrete problems. These issues arise in students’ efforts to grasp the meaning of
literature they read. As students progress from more contemporary authors to earlier,
more difficult works, the paragraphs of footnotes at the bottom of the pages increase and
the necessity for supplementary translations and analyses also augments. By the time a
modern English student may read ―Beowulf,‖ the author’s original words are not even
recognizable in 21st century eyes, though what was written on vellum 1200 years ago
(Greenblatt 29) is still considered ―English.‖ Due to the extreme difference between old
English and modern English, students face the quandary of understanding these texts,
which then translates to their lack of satisfaction in studying British literature. For
instance, in Chaucer’s ―The General Prologue,‖ lines 30 – 34 read as follows:
And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste,
So hadde I spoken with hem everichoon
That I was of hir felaweshipe anoon,
And made forward erly for to rise,
To take oure way there as I you devise. (Chaucer 219)
Fish 5
For the average English student, not to mention the average person, deciphering
the meaning of these measly four lines (out of the total 930 lines in ―The Canterbury
Tales‖) takes slow consideration, a sharp mind to process the meaning of each word, and
time and energy to succeed at the former method. A whole semester could be taught on
how to read Chaucer’s works to the fullest of their significance. Students are found in the
same predicament when studying Shakespeare’s works, even though his plays were
written a full 300 years after ―The Canterbury Tales.‖ Shakespeare’s works are infamous
among modern generations for being dull and difficult to read, although his greatness is
not argued in the classroom. In his tragedy ―King Lear,‖ a typical example of
Shakespeare’s writing is illustrated:
Now to you:
If on my credit you dare build so far
To make your speed to Dover, you shall find
Some that will thank you, making just report
Of how unnatural and bemadding sorrow
The king hath cause to plain. (Shakespeare 1224)
A person reading the actual text would not know that ―If on my credit you dare
build‖ means ―if you trust me,‖ and that ―plain‖ is an abbreviation for ―complain.‖
(Greenblatt 1224) So much meaning is lost without proper examination of the text, an
assessment that cannot take place without the comprehension of the language that
Shakespeare spoke in his day, so different from modern English.
Obviously, a gap exists between the currently used English language and the type
of language used in British literature. Unfortunately, this gap often causes modern
Fish 6
students to become more quickly frustrated and jaded with older literature. Such constant
searching for meaning can be tedious, time-consuming, and emotionally and
intellectually exhausting, which equates to a less than desirable educational experience.
Though few, if any, articles discuss why students have difficulty appreciating or
understanding English literature written earlier than the 20th century, this stigmatism of
dislike does exist in the current generation of scholars, even amongst those young adults
who profess English as their emphasis in collegiate studies. Thus, while I have found no
formal published ―proof,‖ first-hand experience and knowledge on this topic provide
evidence for this assumption. Through classroom discussion, personal conversations, and
my own frustrations in completing assignments, I have discovered a barrier between my
own thought process—and that of my peers’—in comprehending the complex meanings
of ―archaic‖ literature, specifically British literature. Explaining the correlation of
modern students’ disinterest in this type of prose lies in the examination of how language
has changed since any given work of British literature was written compared with how
the scholars’ utilize the ―same‖ English language. In other words, 21st century students
find little intrigue in Hobbes and Milton because of the increasingly widening difference
in language that such authors used in contrast to today’s speaking and writing styles.
This void seems to swell and deepen with every generation. Theoretically, future
scholars will need to use translations of Toni Morrison novels in order to comprehend
their meaning, just as scribes and editors have transposed Beowulf and Shakespeare for
their contemporary audiences. If perhaps a language can change so dramatically over
time, perhaps the validity of a language’s meaning as a whole should be begged into
question.
Fish 7
As frightening as the possibility may seem to the average language arts enthusiast,
the theory that all language is completely arbitrary must be examined. The most basic
concept of what is perceived as the intangible ―language‖ is really only an assortment of
connotative and denotative symbols that communicate any variety of meanings. Beloved
and sacred alphabets quickly become mere ―chicken scratches‖ to untrained eyes. For
instance, Barbara Miller, author of several anthropological textbooks, states that,
―Languages differ widely in which sounds are important, what words are important in the
vocabulary, and how people put words together to form meaningful sentences‖ (Miller
191). That is to say, words are only as important as the significance attached to them.
She goes on to define language as simply, ―A form of communication that is based on a
systematic set of learned symbols and signs shared among a group and passed on from
generation to generation‖ (Miller 190). Furthermore, what is known as language today
only has significance because of what those symbols meant in the past, and while the
meanings of those symbols certainly change as they are passed from generation to
generation, the increasingly lost meanings of archaic words are as important a foundation
for understanding modern words as a new twig needs the support of the tree’s roots, even
though they are out of sight, a hundred feet below the ground.
Miller also explains that the reason languages change so continually is because,
―Human creativity and contact lead to linguistic innovation and linguistic borrowing‖
(Miller 200). The idea that the human act of being creative draws future generations
further from the artistic expression of the past is both a frighteningly steady loss of
understanding and an excitingly innovative adventure—similar to an astronaut leaping
from the safe confines of his space shuttle into the terrifying wonder of space. Since
Fish 8
focusing on the negative implications of such a concept of finding and maintaining a
standard, static form of English is ultimately ineffectual, perhaps the positive—and
undeniably unstoppable—process of language change should be studied, explored, and
even celebrated. Present-day lexicographer Erin McKean eloquently phrases a similar
proposition, stating that being a lexicographer is not about policing the English language,
but about discovering it, in all its complexities and innovations (McKean).
English, like every other language, is a combination of symbols and sounds that
convey meaning within a cultural and intellectualized context. The implications of these
symbols and sounds alter rapidly within each generation, until the first recorded
utterances of a single language appear completely unique from the same tongue spoken
thousands of years later. This gap often prevents modern audiences from appreciating the
long journey that any given language has taken since its birth. In understanding the
fallibilities and beauties of language transformation, however, student appreciation for
British literature has the potential to increase dramatically. Accordingly, Johnson ends
his Preface with the honest concession that, ―In this [dictionary], when it shall be found
that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed‖ (Johnson
2753). While ―containing‖ the English language and ―molding‖ it to fit every generation
is inevitably impossible, the sweetly futile process of trying to do so holds in itself the
greatest significance.
Fish 9
Works Cited
―Anthology.‖ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Web. 7 Dec 2010.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. ―The Canterbury Tales.‖ Norton Anthology of English Literature,
Volume A: The Middle Ages. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2006. Print.
―Erin McKean Redefines the Dictionary.‖ TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. Web. 7 Dec
2010.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume A: The Middle
Ages. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Johnson, Samuel. ―The Dictionary.‖ Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume C:
The Restoration and the Eighteenth Century. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
―Melancholy.‖ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Web. 7 Dec 2010.
Miller, Barbara. Cultural Anthropology in a Globalizing World. 2nd ed. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 2010. 189-207. Print.
―Network.‖ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. Web.
7 Dec 2010.
Quinion, Michael. "How Many in the Language and How Many Does Any One Person
Know?." World Wide Words. World Wide Words, 01 Apr 2000. Web. 7 Dec
2010.
Shakespeare, William. ―King Lear.‖ Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume B:
The Sixteenth Century/The Early Seventeenth Century. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Fish 10
―Whig.‖ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Web. 7 Dec 2010.