Robert Burns as a Naive Genius:
The Choices of an Eighteenth-Century Scots Writer in a
Standard English World
BA Thesis English Language & Culture, Utrecht University, June 2011
Moragh Gordon, 3342336
Supervisor: Dr. Anita Auer
Acknowledgements
I whish to thank my supervisor dr. Anita Auer for her support and guidance, for
providing me with valuable information, for sharing her wisdom, for making me laugh at my,
sometimes very silly, mistakes and, last but not least, for her enthusiasm that has kindled my
interest in the field of Philology.
1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2
2. Theoretical Background
4
2.1. Burns’ Language and Education
4
2.2. The Rise of Prescriptive Grammars and the Decline of Scots in Burns’ Time 7
2.3. Burns’ Choice within a Historical Context
8
2.4. Grammar of Scots in the Eighteenth Century
11
2.5. Will and Shall
16
2.6. Will and Shall in Eighteenth-Century Scotland
20
3. Will and Shall in Robert Burns Writing
22
3.1. Method
22
3.2. Materials
22
3.3. Procedure
23
4. Results and Discussion
27
4.1. Burns’ Correspondence
27
4.2. Burns’ Poetry
32
5. Conclusion
35
References
37
Appendices
A: List of Will and Shall Occurrences in Robert Burns’ Letters
40
B: List of Will and Shall Occurrences in Robert Burns’ Poetry
43
C: List of Texts Comprising Letter Corpus
48
D: List of Texts Comprising Poetry Corpus
49
2
1. Introduction
This thesis focuses on the language use of the eighteenth-century Scots writer Robert
Burns. Burns was and still is much appraised for his achievements in Scots poetry. His use of
Scots is particularly interesting within the historical context of that time. On the one hand the
Scots language was often designated as a corrupted version of English that had to make way
for the prestigious Southern English form. On the other hand the rise of movements such as
Romanticism, Nationalism called for a whole new approach with respect to literature and the
Scots identity. A great deal has been said about Burns’ literary motives and his choice to write
in Scots in an era where the language was almost condemned. Burns led his readers to believe
that he had no choice, that is that his lack of education required him to use Scots, the only
language he could readily use. However, a critical glance at his language use might reveal
another story. At the least, one could say that he had some knowledge of Standard English.
David Murrison (1975) points out that Burns is eclectic in his use of Scots in his poetry, using
archaic forms, Anglicized forms and forms of different Scots dialects. Jeremy Smith (2007)
goes as far as to question the authenticity of Burns use of Scots. A short analysis of one letter
and a poem of Burns shows that Burns uses Standard English syntax disguised in Scots
vocabulary. Interestingly, it seems that little or no research has been done with respect to the
grammatical features of Burns language. Smith (2007) briefly looks at two sentences, but does
not look at Burns’ language systematically. Murrison (1975) only looks at Burns’ poetry,
leaving his correspondence out of consideration. Also, Murrison mainly focuses on the
literary effects of Burns’ language use and not on the social and political forces that might
have influenced Burns. This thesis aims at a more systematical approach regarding Burns’
language use within a social and political context to gain more insight into Burns relationship
with Standard English and Scots. To establish this relationship, the first sections of this thesis
3
will therefore deal with the social and political forces that might have played an important
role in Burns’ life and his choices regarding his language use. Then the focus will be on
Burns’ language and one grammatical feature in particular, namely Burns’ use of will and
shall in both his poetry and his letters. The difference in the usage of will and shall is a feature
that sets Scots and Standard English apart. Where Standard English has both forms, Scots
only has will. It is also a difference that is verified by eighteenth-century grammarians who
frequently comment upon this feature as being a Scotticism.
4
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Burns’ Language and Education
Robert Burns and his language are inextricably bound up with Scottish heritage. Even
today, centuries after his death, his birthday is still celebrated and his songs and poems are
immensely popular among a wide audience. It is not surprisingly so that he is still very
popular today. In terms of language and culture, Burns greatly contributed to the Scots
identity with his poems and texts that inspire a feeling of national pride. In his days the
common tendency was to strive for the development of a standard language that was not
corrupted by what scholars thought to be vulgarities belonging to the vernacular (Jones 1997:
267-268). This means that there was a standard based on metropolitan English which was
favoured because of its status in the British court and its high social status1, leaving no room
for the Scots language that was seen as a corrupted version of the English standard (Jones
1997: 267-268). In defiance of this common tendency to eradicate all things deviating from
the standard language, Burns started to write in the vernacular Scots language. Although he
was born to a poor peasant family of low social standing and although he wrote in a low status
language, he was successful. Even in his lifetime, he was appraised for his brilliant skills in
writing Scots poetry (Low 1975: 1-2).
Part of his success might be attributed to the image of Burns as a man of no education
who was a pure and a naive genius. Henry Mackenzie wrote a lyrical review about Burns’
work in the Lounger and called him a “heaven taught ploughman”, a term that seemed to
comprise all that made Burns attractive to his audience (Smith 2007: 74). Burns took an active
part in the creation of this image and indeed he presented himself to his audience as a humble
unlettered peasant to whom genius came naturally. It was also Burns who referred to himself
1
For a definition and history of Standard English, see: Baugh, Albert C., Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the
English Language .London: Routeledge, Joan Beal.2004. Cambridge History of the English Language (Vol. 3 +
4), Hogg, Richard M. & David Denison (eds.). 2006. A History of the English Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
5
as the ploughman inspired by a heavenly creature: “The poetic genius of my country found
me as the prophetic bard Elijah did Elisha—at the plough, and threw her inspiring mantle over
me (Burns 1855 [1787]: viii ).” In the preface of the Kilmarnock edition Burns emphasises his
lack of education and social standing. He starts the preface with “The following trifles are not
the production of the Poet, who, with all the advantages of learned art, and perhaps amid the
elegancies and idlenesses of upper life, looks down for a rural theme with an eye to
Theocritus and Virgil (Burns 1855 [1786]: lix).” He added to this that he did not have the
knowledge to write poetry by rule so that he could only base himself on his own sentiments
and his “rustic compeers”, with which he also implied that he could not help but to write in
his native tongue since this was the language in which he was best capable to express himself
artlessly (Burns 1855 [1786]: lix).
There is, however, evidence that Burns was not as unlettered as he presented himself
to the public and that he was far more aware of what he was doing in terms of poetic style and
language then he led his audience to believe (See for instance: Campbell 1975, Smith 2007).
Burns’ mother spoke the Ayrshire Scots dialect and it is likely that she passed the tradition of
Scottish folk songs and stories on to her son and inspired his passion for the Scots language
and folk tradition (Douglas 1976: 26). His father, on the other hand, was fluent in English and
he insisted that his son should learn to speak English and get a proper English education
(Douglas 2007: 27-37). Hence, he put considerable effort into his children’s education. At the
age of five Burns started attending school at Alloway Mill and he received reading and
writing lessons by John Murdoch, a teacher of an English school (Douglas 2007: 27). John
Murdoch introduced Burns to English grammar, some French, reciting and analysing poetry
and books such as The Life of Hannibal, but also to the works of Shakespeare and Pope
(Douglas 2007: 27-37). Although the Burns family was poor, Burns’ father always managed
to borrow books and find ways to further his son’s education (Douglas 2007: 33-37). Burns
6
did indeed appear to come from a poor family on the lower steps of the social ladder, but his
lack of education and knowledge of the English language and its poetic tradition seems to be
somewhat overstated.
As Jeremy Smith (2007: 75) points out in his article about Burns’ language, some
people noticed that Burns was not as uneducated as he liked to present himself. One of his
contemporaries, John Logan, makes a critical note about Burns who was said to have “...
owed nothing but to nature and his own genius.’’ Logan continues that “[w]hen I opened the
book I found that he was as well acquainted with the English poets as I was... (quoted in
Smith 2007: 75).” Clearly, Burns was very conscious of what he was doing and he was not at
all a naive farmer. This raises the question regarding the affectation of his use of the Scots
language. Strikingly, most of the letters Burns has written are written in English. More
interestingly, as Jeremy Smith argues in his article (2007: 77-79), the letters that are written in
the Scots vernacular turn out to be not as typically Scottish as they at first impression appear
to be. Smith compares two of Burns’ letters, one of which is written in Scots and one of which
is written in English, and both are addressed to his friend William Nicol. Although the Scots
letter seems to be consistently Scottish in terms of its lexical content, Smith notices some
morphological features that are more characteristic of English. In addition to that, Smith
analysis the poem Tam O’ Shanter in which Burns uses an English inflection for the past
participle rather than a Scots form (2007: 83).
It is important to keep in mind that in Burns’ time the Scots language was, especially
in its written form, on the decline. Consequently, the choice to write in the Scots language
was not an easy one and because the language was severely impoverished as a written form,
Burns had to be very inventive to be able to create a Scots poem that could compete with the
elevated English style (Campbell 1975: 56). Of course, Burns had access to the Ayrshire
Scots dialect, since he grew up hearing and learning it from his mother and his nurse.
7
However, as David Murrison (1975: 63) points out in his article the Language of Burns,
Burns used only a few words of his native dialect in his writings. Most of his vocabulary is
based on various Scots dialects and on the works of the Scots poets Ramsay (1686-1758) and
Ferguson (1750-1774) who were his sources of inspiration. Murrison also mentions Burns’
use of the Anglicized version of the present and past participle (1975: 62). In addition to that,
Murrison also mentions that Burns was familiar with the Scots inflections, but these Scots
inflectional features were already falling out of use in the central dialects of Scotland. In his
earlier works Burns sometimes used the Scots inflection, but they are not found in his later
texts (Murrison 1975: 62).
2.2. The Rise of Prescriptive Grammars and the Decline of Scots in Burns’ Time
Due to a series of events the Scots language had fallen into decline and it had become
mainly a spoken language which was no longer seen as a prestige form. According to Gerry
Knowles (1997: 130-132), several events caused the decline of Scots as a written language.
Firstly, Scotland was no match to the stream of London English after Caxton’s introduction of
the printing press in Westminster. Also, Scots texts were often Anglicized to facilitate the
printing process (McClure 1994: 33). Secondly, the reformation of 1560 had a great influence
on the decline of Scots as a written language (McClure 1994: 34, Knowles 1997: 130-132).
The reformation called for Bible translations in the vernacular. It was, however, an English
translation and not a Scots version that became prominent in Scotland (Knowles 1997: 131).
Knowles (1997) argues that the Bible was a “major influence in the spread of literacy (131).”
Consequently, people who learned to read the Bible became acquainted with English forms of
writing and English was introduced as the language of the church. In other words, Latin was
replaced by English and not by Scots in the Scottish churches. A third historical event was of
great importance; namely King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England
(McClure 1994: 33, Knowles 1997: 130), which meant that the Scottish court moved to
8
London and was quickly assimilated with English traditions. Consequently, after the Act of
Union in 1707, English was generally seen and preferred as the standard language of Britain
(Knowles 1994: 131).
Furthermore, the eighteenth century was characterized by a “desire for system and
regularity (Baugh and Cable 2002: 255).’’ The world was viewed within a rationalist
framework and this school of thought was also reflected in the way language was treated.
Language became something that could be forced into a regularized and fixed model. Thus,
dictionaries and grammars started to appear, which were considered to have one correct form
of usage and this pure form needed to be protected from corruption and change (Baugh and
Cable 2002: 255-256). In Scotland there was a strong tendency among the intellectual
authorities to disapprove of the Scottish tongue and to favour the English standard (McClure
2000: 5). Several authors mention grammarians such as Hume (1760), Beattie (1782) and
Sinclair (1787) who wrote lists with Scotticisms to be avoided, in order to inform the
Scotsmen how to speak proper English (McClure 1994, Jones 1997, Beal 1997, Knowles
1997). McClure (2000: 5) makes the interesting point that these intellectuals were not
necessarily against a distinctive Scots identity, neither was there a general desire to assimilate
with the English, but Scots was simply not commonly perceived as a separate language that
was worth being considered as a suitable standard language. Intellectuals such as Hume
(1760) and Beattie (1782) saw Scots as one of the many “low-class speech forms” of English
(McClure 2000: 5).
2.3. Burns’ Choice within a Historical Context
In the light of the socio-political context, it seems that Burns’ choice to write in the
Scots language was not a self-evident one. However, if one considers that Burns’ time was
also characterized by a countermovement against the current rationalism, which led to the rise
of Romanticism (Haywood 2009: 129, Abrams 1999: 178) and the prevailing notion of
9
language propriety (McClure 1994, Jones 1997), Burns’ choice to use Scots makes perfect
sense. Moreover, the Act of Union also inspired a fear that Scotland would be assimilated by
England and a new sense of Scottishness was developing to set the Scottish identity apart
from the English identity (Haywood 2009: 129, McClure 1994: 39-40).
Although the Romantic period in literature is said to have started in 1785 at its earliest
(Abrams 1999: 215), Burns poetry can be associated with Romanticism because it was a
movement not solely reflected in literature; before 1785 it had already affected the intellectual
life and all other aesthetics (Brooklyn C.). In other words, Burns can be considered a
precursor of Romanticism in literature. Haywood (2009) describes the Romantic Movement
as “a cultural rebellion against materialism and rationalism” which inspired “…a new
appreciation of wild nature (128).” Romanticism also involved a renewed interest in rustic
everyday life and everyday local language as opposed to the intellectual rationalistic way of
looking at life and language (Brooklyn C.). This explains how Burns presented himself to his
audience: as a humble rustic farmer who was inspired by nature and who wrote in the
language of his heart. In doing so, he broke with the neo-classical and rationalistic
conventions (low 1975: 7). Abrams (1999: 214), on the other hand, places Burns within the
age of sensibility which started at 1744 and lasted until approximately 1785. According to
Abrams (1999), this period was characterized by an “awakening interest in ballads and other
folk literature, a turn from neoclassic ‘correctness’” and “above all the exaltation by some
critics of ‘original genius’ and a ‘bardic’ poetry of the sublime and visionary imagination
(214).” This view is in line with how Burns presented himself as the “heaven inspired
ploughman (Smith 2007: 74).” He portrayed himself as a man of little learning who was a
natural genius. Moreover, Burns had the old Scottish traditions of his mother and the area he
grew up in as a great source of inspiration. It was also during this age, for instance, that James
McPherson (1761) published the so-called translations of the verses of the bard Ossian and
10
that many folk-songs of oral tradition were collected and written down (Kinsley 1975: 131).
In fact, Burns also collected and wrote folk songs. Together with James Johnson he made
Scots Musical Museum which contained 600 songs (Kinsley 1975: 131).
Kinsley (1975: 132) connects the rediscovery of Scottish traditions with the
antiquarian movement in England, but as McClure (1994: 39-42 , 2002:4-7), Jones (1997:
273) and Haywood (2009: 129) point out, there were also socio-political forces at play in the
revival of Scottish writing traditions. First of all, not all Scottish intellectuals agreed with
grammarians like Beattie (1782) and Sinclair (1787) who considered Scots to be a corrupted
form of English. On the contrary, some Scotsmen of authority, for instance Sylvester Douglas
(1743) and Alexander Geddes (1792) denounced the eradication of Scotticisms and argued
that “Lowland Scots had a long and respectable historical pedigree and that it had an
outstanding literary tradition (Jones 1997: 273).” Some also claimed that if the Union had
never taken place, the Scots language would have developed its own characteristics instead of
being Anglicized (Jones 1997: 273). This notion was supported by the view that the Scottish
identity was under threat after the Union (Haywood 2009: 129, McClure 1994: 39) – a fear
that kindled an enthusiasm for anything that could emphasize the Scots identity. For instance,
as McClure (1994) puts it, the Scots poet Ramsay used the Scots language as a “symbol of,
and a means of expressing, the Scottish national Identity (94).”
Burns was thus born into a time in which his mother tongue had gone out of favour as
a prestige language. However, one of his inspirers, Allan Ramsay (1686-1758), may have
paved the way for Burns to choose writing in the Scots tongue and to take pride in it.
Furthermore, the rise of antiquarianism and Romanticism led to a public acceptance of and
interest in other forms of writing and language than the classical models, allowing Burns to
use the Scots vernacular.
11
Yet, Burns was probably still limited in the way in which he could express himself in
the Scots language. He had to work with a language that was severely impoverished as a
written form and although there might have been more freedom in language choice, Burns
“found it necessary to adopt the wholly spurious pose of an untaught peasant in order to
excuse his preference to write in Scots (McClure 1994: 41).” In his time, Burns faced the
challenge of the discrepancy between a movement that condemned the use of Scots on the one
hand and on the other hand the writing within a genre which may have forced him to make
concessions with respect to his true identity.
2.4. Grammar of Scots in the Eighteenth Century
Establishing what is typical of eighteenth-century Scots grammar is an intricate matter
for several reasons: First, due to a succession of historical events, the status of the Scots
language was already in decline and the language was under strong influence of the process of
Anglicization before Burns’ time (McClure 1994: 33). Although the eighteenth century is
marked as the age of the rise of the prescriptive grammars2, reliable evidence of what is
typically Scots is scant. One of the main reasons for this is that, as Jones puts it in his article
(1997), there was a “…persistent attempt to achieve a state of national linguistic hegemony.
Regionally and socially unacceptable forms of pronunciation, and indeed grammatical forms
in general, were proscribed…(286).” To most of the presciptivists, Scots was merely a
corrupted version of the English language and therefore most information about the Scots
grammar is to be found in the lists of language use that the authors thought should be avoided
(Jones 1997: 279). The grammarians Beattie (1782) and Sinclair (1787) are particularly useful
in this respect, since they provide elaborate lists of Scotticisms in their attempt to purify the
Scots language. The difficulty with these lists, however, is that they also contain items that
were considered to be Scotticisms because they deviated from the standard while they were
2
See for instance, Baugh, Albert C., Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language .London:
Routeledge
12
actually features that occurred in other non-standard English dialects as well (Beal 1997:
337). Second, there is also written material of the Scots language as it was used by poets like
Ramsay (1724), Fergusson (1773) and Burns (1786) who seemed to counter the Anglicization
movement by reviving the Scots language instead of eradicating it (Beal 1997: 338). The
downside of using this material as evidence is that it is not necessarily representative of the
spoken language. Moreover, the authenticity of the language that is used in these poems might
be disputable in some cases (Beal 1997: 338). Lastly, another difficulty is that although
extensive research has been carried out on Older Scots grammar, there are few studies that
adequately cover the grammar of modern Scots, especially with respect to morphology and
syntax (Beal 1997: 336). Nonetheless, as Beal (1997) points out, a combination of different
sources provides at least a “useful starting point” to gain an insight into “...what was
considered to be distinctively Scots usage at the time…(337).”
McClure (1994: 69) gives a concise account of the Modern Scots morphology and
syntax. He mentions some Older Scots features that were still current in the eighteenthcentury Scots language (1994: 69). Whereas the regular plural inflection of –is was changed
for a feature no longer distinctive from standard English (Beal 1997: 341), some of the weak
irregular plural inflections were and still are retained in some areas (Beal 1997: 343, McClure
1994: 69). For instance, the -en ending is found in the plural nouns such as een, in standard
English eyes, treen as opposed to the standard English trees and shuin for shoes (Beal 1997:
343, McClure 1994: 69). In addition to these forms, Beal (1997: 342) mentions the occurrence
of “double plurals” resulting in shins for shoes, and, although very rare, a plural form with –
er, as in childer. Furthermore, Beal (1997: 342) also refers to the eighteenth-century
grammarians Beattie (1782), Sinclair (1787) and Mitchell (1799) who mark the use of
uninflected plural nouns as a Scotticism. These uninflected forms occurred in certain noun
categories of measurement. As examples Beal gives A Bunch of Candle, a coach six horse,
13
three sheet of paper. Remarkably, Burns used these forms as well, but not very consistently
(Beal 1997: 342).
With respect to the pronoun system both McClure and Beal (1994: 69,1997: 343)
mention the retained form of the second person singular form tu and thou. However, this form
does not seem to be considered a stigmatized form in the eighteenth century. McClure and
Beal also mention mines as a possessive form of a personal pronoun, but this form is not listed
as a Scotticism by eighteenth-century grammarians and Burns does not use it in his poems
either (1994: 69,1997: 347). Another feature that was not exclusively Scottish, but that was
disapproved of and marked as a Scotticism by Beattie (1782), was the use of He and me as
opposed to the preferred He and I (Beal 1997: 339).
Beal (1997: 350) also includes some information about the use of demonstratives in
Scots. She points out that both Beattie (1782) and Hume (1760) considered the Scots use of
the demonstrative forms these and those incorrect. Beattie states that most Scots speakers use
these where those was supposed to be used and in the north of Scotland they did not even use
the plural form at all, but simply used this things and that things. Beattie (1782) was more
positive about the southern Scots speakers who, according to him, used the forms thir and
thay that were at least equivalent to these and those respectively (Beal 1997: 350). Beattie
(1782) and his contemporary Mitchell (1799) also mention the use of them as a demonstrative
in their lists of vulgar language use.
As for the Scots verb inflections, Beal (1997: 354) mentions some features of the
Older Scots verb inflections, the –it ending for preterites, of which remnants are still to be
found in the works of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832), although he varies between the English
and the Scots forms. It is not clear whether Burns used these features too. Moreover, this
feature is not mentioned as a Scotticism by eighteenth-century grammarians. However, Beal
(1997: 354) points out that the eighteenth-century prescriptivists Hume (1760), Beattie
14
(1782), Sinclair (1787) and Mitchell (1799) all comment on the Scots use of a distinctive form
for strong preterites and past participles. Some of the examples they give are proven for
proved and drunk, run as a past participle instead of the Standard English drank, ran (Beal
1997: 354). Sinclair (1787) also mentions forms such as keept, sweept, and catched and some
(originally) strong verbs that had weak endings attached to them; the grammarians mention
forms such as hurted, pleaded, but only the forms proven, improven and approven were
considered Scotticisms (Beal 1997: 354). Murrison (1975: 62), Smith (2007: 78) and Beal
(1997: 356) also point out that there was an –and/-an ending for the present participle.
Although Burns sometimes used this form in his texts (Murrison 1975: 62), according to Beal
(1997: 356), this feature must have been obsolete in Burns’ time.
McClure (1994: 74) draws attention to the Modern Scots use of relative pronouns. The
use of the wh- form relatives appears to be fairly complex in Burns’ time. Although these
forms seem to have already appeared in Older Scots written texts, they never seemed to have
fully replaced that/at as a relative in spoken language and (McClure 1994: 74, Beal 1997:
358) . McClure (1994) suggests that the famous lines by Robert Burns
“’Scots! Wha hae wi Wallace bled!
Scots! Wham Bruce has aften led!’
…are not authentic Scots but a quasi-Scotticisation of a standard English usage, the genuine
Scots idiom being Scots at haes…(74).” However, both McClure and Beal concede that there
is uncertainty about whether Burns’ use of the wh- form actually was that uncommon, since
the wh- form did occur in written texts long before Burns was born. Beal (1997: 358) also
points out that Beattie (1782) refers to the use of wh- forms in Scots, albeit because he
thought most Scots used the forms incorrectly. On the other hand, the eighteenth-century
grammarian Mitchell (1799) condemns the Scots use them that as opposed to those who (Beal
1997: 358).
15
Another interesting feature that struck eighteenth-century grammarians as a Scotticism
was the use of the definitive article where it was not used in standard English, as, for example,
in go to the school, the morrow’s morning, he has got the fever (Beal 1997: 361). Beattie
(1782) and Mitchell (1799) make the same observation regarding the use of the possessive
pronouns which were also used in places where Standard English required none (Beal 1997:
363). In contrast to this, another feature that occurred in Standard English did not occur in
Scots. Where the word of was used in noun phrases of measure, the Scots left it out. Beattie
(1782) gives as an example piece cheese (Beal 1997: 363).
One Scottish feature that was considered a serious mistake by Beattie (1782), Sinclair
(1787) and Mitchell (1799) was the use of modal verbs. These grammarians were particularly
concerned about the incorrect Scots use of will where shall was the proper verb. For instance,
Beattie (1782) comments on the sentence will I help you to a bit of beef?, giving the correct
phrase shall I help you? (Beal 1997: 366) The use of will in this context and many other
situations was considered to be incorrect because will implied ‘am I willing to help you?’
(Beal 1997: 366). Beal (1997: 366) also makes an interesting case for the avoidance of may.
Presently it is an established feature of Scots to use can where may is expected (Beal 1997:
366-369). Although this feature is not commented on by eighteenth-century grammarians,
Beal thinks it possible that this feature was present in the eighteenth century, since the
phenomenon is similar to the will and shall dichotomy. However, further work might be
required to establish this with more certainty.
A feature that is not listed in the eighteenth-century lists, but that is very likely to have
been present in eighteenth-century Scots, is the use of double modal constructions. In Middle
English the use of double modal constructions was a common practice. In the Modern period
this construction had disappeared and a modal could only be followed by an infinitive verb in
Standard English (Beal 1997: 368). However, the occurrence of double modals in present-day
16
Scots seem to imply that this feature never became obsolete in the language. The problem is
that there is no evidence found in Scots texts earlier than 1816, whereas the last attestation of
the English double modal use dates back to 1489 (Beal 1997: 368). Yet, as Beal (1997) points
out, “[i]t is highly unlikely that a feature which died out of Standard English by the sixteenth
century should suddenly appear in Scots more than 200 years later …(368).”
Other features that were noted by Beattie (1782) Sinclair (1787), and Mitchell (1799),
are the use of no where not was used in English (Beal 1997: 370). An example that is given
by both Beattie (1782) and Mitchell (1799) is the sentence I have walked forty miles, and yet
am no worried (Beal 1997: 370). Another feature that received attention by Mitchell (1799) is
the use of multiple negations. However, this feature was not unique to the Scots language
(Beal 1997: 371). Moreover, Mitchell (1799) also mentions something that is more unique to
Scottish. This was the progressive form I’m thinking which was often used instead of the
standard English suppose, I think, or I conjecture (Beal 1997: 372).
The Scots use of prepositions also received a considerable amount of attention from
eighteenth-century grammarians. For instance, the word as was often used instead of than;
Beattie condemns the use of as in constructions such as more as that and I would rather go as
stay (Beal 1997: 373). The use of at where Standard English required with was perceived as a
Scotticism, although this use was in fact not uniquely Scottish. A preposition that appears to
have been a true Scotticism, however, was the use of married on as opposed to married to
(Beal 1997: 374). Another similar construction that was noted by Beattie (1782) was wait of
as opposed to wait for (Beal 1997: 374).
2.5. Will and Shall
As discussed above, the use of modal verbs in Scots attracted the attention of both
English and Scottish eighteenth-century grammarians. For the purpose of this thesis the focus
will be on the use of the auxiliaries will and shall. The use of will and shall was frequently
17
commented upon by many of the prescriptivist grammarians. They attached great importance
to making a distinction of meaning between the two verbs, especially with respect to a proper
inflection in the first person. Rissanen (1999: 211) argues that this rule was more a fiction
imposed by the grammarians and it was never established in colloquial language. It did,
however, appear to be a conventional rule in formal written language and in the course of the
seventeenth and eighteenth century the distinction had become a feature of the standard form
of English (Rissanen 1999: 211-212). This distinction seemed to be characteristic of the
Southern English standard, since many grammarians complained about the mistakes the
Northern Brits, Scots and Irish were apt to make with respect to the usage of these verbs.
Johnson (1755), for instance, states that along with foreigners, `The Scots and Irish, even of
the first rank...` made mistakes in the inflections of will and shall (Tieken-Boon van Ostade
1985: 129). The grammarian Fogg (1796) also comments on the Irish and Scots usage and
even Webster (1789) alludes to it by saying that errors with respect to the use of will and shall
never occur in Southern English, or in the speech of the people of New England (TiekenBoon van Ostade 1985: 130). Furthermore, As Beal (1997) points out, also Hume (1760),
Beattie (1782), Sinclair (1787) and Mitchell(1799) comment on the, in their eyes, incorrect
use of shall and will.
The rule the grammarians provided for its proper usage often seemed to be based on
the rule stated by Wallis in 1653 (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 126). There are many
variations and elaborations in the way in which the rule is stated by the grammarians, but they
basically follow the same line. The rule at the time was generally perceived as follows; as
stated by the grammarian Lowth (1775):
Will, in the first person singular and plural, promises or threatens; in the second and
third persons, only foretells; shall on the contrary, in the first person only foretells; in
the second and third person, promises, commands, or threatens (1762: 59).
18
In Pickbourn’s edition of the English grammar (1789: 74), however, it appears that Lowth
must have commented on interrogatives as well, since in this edition the exact same passage
from above is quoted and followed by this text:
But this must be understood of explicative sentences; for when the sentence is
interrogative, just the reverse for the most part takes place. Thus, ‘I shall go’, ‘you will
go’ express event only: But ‘will you go?’ imports intention; and ‘shall I go?’ refers to
the will of another. But again, ‘he shall go’ and ‘shall he go?’ Both imply will,
expressing or referring to a command (quoted from Lowth inPickbourn 1789: 74).
The rule as stated by Lowth was also stated by other contemporary and later eighteenthcentury grammarians, albeit with slight variation (cf. Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 125126). The rule as stated above might be somewhat oversimplified with respect to the modal
function of the verbs. However, the grammarians often formulated those rules for teaching
and learning purposes which required a short and concise rule that was easy to convey and
memorize (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 127). Johnson (1755) seems to have taken a more
balanced approach and he was one of the few who gave a more elaborate account of the use of
will and shall. For instance, he notes that the use of shall as a futurity marker in the second
and third persons was a common feature in poetry (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 127-130).
Johnson describes this use as ‘solemn’ and provides examples such as ‘thou shallt’ and ‘shall
he.’ Lowth (1762: 59) explains in a footnote that shall was formerly used to state “the
[e]vent” in second and third persons and refers to the vulgar translation of the Bible for this
usage. Indeed, in Burns poetry there are several occurrences of these forms. It is possible that
this form was rather archaic and a remnant of the use of shall as it was common in older
English, where it functioned as future marker in all persons, whereas will mainly had a modal
function (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 130-131). A complexity in understanding the
meaning of the modal verbs is found in interrogatives. The grammarian Fogg (1796)
comments on Lowth’s definition and states that Lowth is incorrect regarding the part of the
questions, since reversing the first person I shall do that would lead to the, in this context,
incorrect construction will I do that? (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 132). However, as
19
Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1985) points out, Lowth probably meant that the meaning of shall
became reversed, changing from “expressing future to asking permission (135),” and not the
inflection for the first and other persons.
Presently, will and shall are described as verbs that can both express modality and
futurity. However, whereas eighteenth-century grammarians recognize the existence of a
future tense that is expressed with the modals will and shall, Huddleston and Pullum (2002:
209) deny the existence of a future tense in English and classify will and shall as “auxiliaries
of mood” only. Will and in the first person shall can be used as a future referent, but these
verbs will always carry a certain degree of modal meaning, namely a sense of prediction
(2002: 190). The modal meanings of will and shall are described as deontic which implies that
they can express permission, intention, prohibition and obligation (2002: 178). They can also
be epistemic which implies that they can express certainty, possibility, or improbability which
is associated with necessity or inference on the part of the speaker (Huddleston and Pullum
2002: 178). Also, they can be dynamic and this implies, in the case of will, volition. In other
words, it expresses willingness or unwillingness of a person to undertake a certain action
(Lachlan Mackenzie 2002:73).
In some respects Lowth’s rule is still found in present-day grammar books. However,
will is now described as a verb that can be a futurity marker in all persons. It can however also
have a modal function and three different modal meanings. The replacement of will by shall
in the first persons only takes place in some varieties of English, mainly British English,
where it has an epistemic function (Huddleston and Pullum 2005: 57). In questions, shall has
a deontic function which in turn is similar to what Johnson (1755) associated with the mode
of permission. Moreover, the traditional rule as stated by eighteenth-century prescriptivists is
now often considered invalid and incomplete. The traditional notion is that shall expresses
volition or determination and that will is merely used as a futurity marker in the second and
20
third persons, whereas this is the opposite in the first persons (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:
195). Furthermore, the distinction between the first person and the other persons is not as
clear-cut as suggested by the traditional rule (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 195). For
instance, when expressing volition, all persons use will and first person shall does not
necessarily express futurity, but could also have the mood of volition (Huddleston and Pullum
2002: 196).
2.6. Will and Shall in Eighteenth-Century Scotland
McClure (1994: 51, 71) mentions that there was a form of shall and should in the
Older Scots period as well, namely sal and suld which was used with personal pronouns. The
last literary occurrences were lost at the beginning of the twentieth century, but a reduced
form still occurs in some older dialects today. In contemporary Scots sal is obsolete and
presently only will is used in both the deontic and epistemic function (McClure 1994: 71).
Interestingly, as discussed above, several eighteenth-century grammarians already commented
on the use of will or would in Scots where the standard form of English required shall or
should (Beal 1997: 366). Hume (1760), for instance starts his list of Scotticisms with the
standard rule for the use of the modals, whereas Beattie (1782), Sinclair (1787) and Mitchell
(1799) provide the same example in their lists of Scotticisms which was I will be drowned for
I shall be drowned (Beal 1997: 366). Strikingly, Sinclair (1782) accompanies his example
with a story that, according to Beal (1997), became “a common joke on the expense of both
the Scots and Irish in eighteenth and nineteenth century grammars of English (365).’’ In this
story a Scotsman falls into a river in England and he shouts I will be drowned. Because he
says will instead of shall, the English people are apt to think he is determined to drown
himself and therefore they hesitate to venture their lives to safe him. Sinclair (1782) also
mentions the occurrence of will I do this or that? as opposed to Shall I do that? (Beal 1997:
21
365). In conclusion, Beal provides plenty of evidence that shows that the avoidance of shall
was common in eighteenth-century Scots.
22
3. Will and Shall in Robert Burns Writing
3.1. Method
In order to establish to what extent Burns’ language has Anglicised and contains Scots
elements, I have looked at his use of will and shall in their grammatical context. I have left the
preterite forms would and should out of consideration because these forms have very different
additional functions of their own, which would make the analysis too complex for the space
available in this thesis. Moreover, none of the eighteenth-century grammarians gives detailed
information about the preterite forms. Because it concerns texts that are written during a time
in which standardization of spelling was not yet fully accomplished and because it concerns
dialectal language in an artistic context3, some variation in the phonological and the
orthographical representation of these forms can be expected. The following list consists of
forms that were used in Burns’ time as listed by the Scottish National Dictionary, the Oxford
English Dictionary, the Cambridge History of the English language and the Robert Burns
concordance.
1.
Possible representations of shall: sall, sal, (s)e(Scottish/north), and in addition to that
the negative forms, sanna, sinna, sinno, sunna, salna, sha(n)na, shauna, shanno' shinna,
shallt
2.
Possible representations of will: wull, negatives willny, wullnae, winna
3.2. Materials
To gain an insight into Burns’ use of will and shall a selection of both his letters and
his poetry was made. The corpus consists of eighteen letters and fifty poems. The amount of
texts for the poetry corpus needed to be greater, because will and shall sometimes occurred
only once in one poem. The letters cover a variety of dates. The earliest letter dates from 1781
3
See for instance:,Knowles, Gerry (1998) A Cultural History of the English Language, Van Gelderen, Elly.
(2006) A history of the English Language.
23
and the latest was written in 1789. The poems also cover various dates, ranging from 1771 to
1796.
As for the selection of the poems, an online concordance of Burns’ poetry was very
useful to find material that was relevant for this empirical study. However, this concordance
does not list all the forms as given in the Scottish National Dictionary and the Oxford English
Dictionary, while there are occurrences of those forms in Burns’ poetry. For instance, the
concordance does not list the English forms of shall, while these forms are used in the poems.
As for the selection of the letters a distinction has been made between letters addressed
to close relatives and friends and letters addressed to persons of higher standing, or persons
less familiar to the author. The distinction is made with the assumption that the informal
letters might contain more informal language and therefore possibly more Scottish elements
than the formal letters, since the formal letters were most likely written in Standard English.
Another criterion used in selecting the letters is to what extent a letter, at a first glance,
contains noticeable dialectal or Scots elements. Surprisingly, there are only two letters that
noticeably deviate from Standard English and only one of them seems to have been written in
Scots. Both deviating letters are addressed to the same person, namely Sir William Nicol. The
first letter concerns a text that is marked as a letter written in ‘broad Scots’, as noted by the
editor, and the second appears to be written in archaic, almost Shakespearian, English.
3.3. Procedure
Since all of the material used for this survey is also available in digital files that are
transferable to a word processing programme, it was possible to search for all the forms of
will and shall by means of a word search device. Once all the forms of will and shall were
located and marked, the occurrences were analysed with respect to their grammatical function
in the sentence. The main objective was to determine whether will was used in a context
where Southern Standard English required the use of shall.
24
The following criteria were used to determine whether Burns tended to adhere to the
rules of the use of will and shall as stated by eighteenth-century grammarians. The first table
presents the use of will and shall as a future marker as prescribed by the grammarians. The
second table shows the Scottish paradigm, as can be inferred from the comments by
eighteenth-century grammarians, of the use of will as a future marker. As can be seen in the
Scots paradigm, will is used in all persons. The same tendency can be found in the way in
which the forms are used in interrogatives, suggestions and offers.
1. Southern English Standard
Simple futurity
1st person
singular
plural
shall *
shall*
2nd person will
will
3rd person will
will
* same in interrogatives, offers and suggestions
2. Scots usage
Simple futurity
1st person
singular
plural
will*
will*
2nd person will
will
3rd person will
will
*also in interrogatives, suggestions and offers
25
In addition to this, the modals can also be used to express a promise, command or
determination. Again, the standard requires a distinction between the first person and the other
persons, whereas in Scots shall is not used. Instead, will is used in all persons.
3. Southern Standard
Promise, command, determination.
1st person
singular
plural
will
will
2nd person shall
shall
3rd person shall
shall
4. Scots usage
Promise, command, determination.
singular
plural
will
will
2nd person will
will
3rd person will
will
1st person
In the analysis I have tried to determine whether an occurrence of the modals will or shall was
used purely as a futurity marker or whether its function was predominantly a modal one. Once
the function was determined I tried to establish whether this usage was according to the rules
as stated above, or according to the Scots paradigm, or differently. Both Johnson (1755) and
Lowth (1762) refer to the use of shall as a futurity marker, which is considered to be oldfashioned by Lowth (1762: 59) and which is referred to as solemn or poetic language by
26
Johnson (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985: 129). Since the analysed material also contained
poetic language, this usage was also taken into consideration.
27
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Burns’ Correspondence
As for the letters of Burns that were analysed, some general observations can be made.
The author’s use of will and shall seems to be in accordance with the prescriptive rules of the
grammarians in most of the cases. Moreover, there are no occurrences of the Scots
orthographic representations of will and shall. The analysed material contained only three
abbreviated forms ‘ll, all the other forms are written in full. Two of the abbreviated forms
occur in the only letter that is marked by the editor as being written in broad Scots. In this
letter no other forms of will and shall occur. The other occurrence of the abbreviated form is
found in a letter addressed to the author’s youngest brother William. Since the abbreviated
forms can either be shall or will, these are ambiguous in my analysis and therefore excluded
from the results. Nine cases of the use of will and shall are also excluded, because their
grammatical function is ambiguous and therefore difficult to label. Those cases all could
either be labelled as future markers, for which there was no clear indication, or as mainly
having a strong modal function. The appearance of ambiguous forms is in line with what
modern grammarians like Huddleston and Pullum state; modals always carry a modal
meaning (2002: 195). Thus, when there is no clear future time referent in the context in which
the modal is used, it becomes obscure whether the modal is used purely as a futurity marker
or as carrying a modal meaning (2002: 195).
In both his formal and less formal letters Burns seems to be an eighteenth-century
textbook example in his use and the distinction between will and shall. This was especially
noticeable in the valedictions of the letters in which he makes a clear distinction between the
first person and the other persons with respect to the Southern Standard paradigm. In example
(1), for instance, he refers to a future state and he uses shall according to the Standard
paradigm in the first person, and will for the other persons:
28
(1) I shall show you the first number when I see you in Glasgow, which will be in a
fortnight or less (Burns 18 June, 1787 [1855: 347]).
In total there are twenty cases of shall that are used as a futurity marker and all are used in the
first person. Clear examples of first person future shall are found in examples (2) to (4):
(2) I shall be in Edinburgh middle of next week (Burns 3 March, 1788 [1855: 373]).
(3) I shall be in Edinburgh some time next month (Burns 20 January, 1789 [1855:
399]).
(4) I shall be in Edinburgh about the latter end of July (Burns 18, 1787[1855: 348]).
Moreover, there are fifteen occurrences of will that are mostly used as futurity markers in the
other persons, as can be seen in the following examples:
(5) Do be so kind as to send me the song in a day or two; you cannot imagine how
much it will oblige me (Burns 18 June, 1787 [1855: 348]).
(6) ...but further particulars I delay till I see you, which will be in two or three weeks
(Burns 17 September, 1787 [1855: 359]).
(7) …in this respect, I hope, my conduct will not disgrace the education I have
gotten…(Burns 15 January [1855: 313]).
(8). …but that is what I am afraid will not be the case (Burns 15 January [1855: 313]).
There is, however one instance of will that is used with the first person as a futurity marker:
(9) I will see you on Sunday (Burns, date unknown [1855: 500]).
29
One could argue that Burns wanted to emphasize the modal meaning in which case this would
be the form according to the Standard English paradigm. In other words, this case would then
not be a neutral expression of a future event, but a strong determination or promise from the
author’s perspective. However, in the context of the letter there is no indication that this
should be the case:
Brow, Thursday.
MY DEAREST LOVE,
I delayed writing until I could tell you what effect sea-bathing was likely to produce. It
would be injustice to deny that it has eased my pains, and I think has strengthened me; but
my appetite is still extremely bad. No flesh nor fish can I swallow: porridge and milk are
the only things I can taste. I am very happy to hear, by Miss Jess Lewars, that you are all
well. My very best and kindest compliments to her, and to all the children. I will see you
on Sunday.
Your affectionate husband,
R.B. (Burns, date unknown [ 1855: 500])
It merely seems to be a short valediction in which Burns reminds his wife when they will be
seeing each other. Moreover, since he also refers to a certain point in the future, Sunday, a
simple future marker would be a natural choice. If Burns indeed simply wanted to indicate a
future event, this form is in accordance with the Scots paradigm and not with the Southern
English standard in which case he should have used shall. Interestingly, this letter is
addressed to his wife. Assuming that the setting of this letter is quite informal, it might be the
case that Burns was more prone to use a form that was less prestigious. However, a small
sample like this is not enough to give a conclusive answer about this matter, but it could be
interesting for further research.
As for the modal use of will and shall, only one case of first person will is
clearly used with a modal meaning:
30
(10) I have not forgotten, nor ever will forget, the many obligations…(Burns 1783, 15
January [1855: 313])
In sentence number ten the author seems to provide a strong sense of determination through
the use of will. Again, this form agrees with the Southern standard paradigm which requires
will in the first person when he or she wants to express a promise, strong determination, or a
command, whereas the other persons require shall in this mode. Furthermore, in three cases
shall is used to express a modal meaning as opposed to expressing futurity:
(11) ...and to assure you, Sir, that it shall not be my fault if my father’s
correspondence in the north die with him (Burns 1783, 21 June [1855: 315])
(12) …but I do not intend it shall be my last essay of the kind, I propose it shall be the
work of my utmost exertions, ripened by years; (Burns 1789, 20 January [1855: 398])
(13) …but you shall hear farther from me before I leave Edinburgh ( Burns 1787, 17
September [1855: 359])
In some of these sentences the meaning of the modals might still seem somewhat ambiguous.
However, the modal meaning of shall does seem to be the most likely option because, as can
be seen in sentences eleven and twelve, the modal meaning is enforced by the verbs to assure
and intend. In example number thirteen, it is very likely that the author makes a promise to the
addressee. If the author wanted to express mere futurity it would be unlikely that he chose to
use shall, since that would not correspond to either the Southern Standard paradigm or the
Scottish paradigm.
Another interesting feature in one of Burns’ letters is what seems to be a double modal
construction:
31
(14) Would I could write you a letter of comfort, I would sit down to it with as much
pleasure, as I would to write an epic poem of my own composition that should equal
the Iliad (Burns 1789, 6 September [1855: 410]).
This construction is very similar to a particular example listed in Beal’s account on the use of
double modals in Scots:
I’d could have done it (I would could have done it)
According to Beal (1997: 369), this kind of expression is common in present-day Scots. If this
instance from Burns’ letter is a typical double modal construction, it would support Beal’s
claim that this feature has never been absent from the language since the Middle English
period, whereas it disappeared in Standard English. The difficulty with the construction as
used in Burns’ correspondence, however, is that it is not entirely the same as the example that
is given in Beal’s article, since there is no pronoun preceding the first verb which would lead
to an empty NP in syntactic terms. In other words, this sentence could be ungrammatical. Yet,
it is very interesting that can and could are mostly the verbs that appear as a second modal in
double modal constructions in present-day Scots (Beal 1997: 369). It is difficult to discern
what Burns wanted to say in this particular sentence. It seems to concern a conditional
construction which could be replaced by:
Would I be able to write you a letter of comfort, I would..
This would be in line with the different way in which some Scots speakers use the auxiliary
verb can (Beal 1997: 369). Can is often used in places where speakers of Standard English
would use the phrase ‘able to’. Examples of this use are sentences as he’ll no can do that
instead of He’ll not be able to do that (Beal 1997: 369). This construction is also found in an
32
earlier example from 1873: Thay haena cuid geat eane ‘they had not been able to get one’
(quoted in Beal 1997: 369). In the latter example could is used as a past participle. This could
imply that can is not treated as an auxiliary or modal verb at all in Scots, but as a regular verb
(Beal 1997: 369). However, this is mere speculation, since Beal provides little more
information and evidence to support this claim. Moreover, there was only one example of a
similar construction found in the corpus used for this thesis. A larger corpus is needed to gain
more insight into whether this construction is an accident or a construction that was to the
author a natural way of expressing ‘able to.’
4.2. Burns’ Poetry
Analysing the grammatical context of will and shall in poetic language is considerably
more complex than analysing their usage in letters. Firstly, the contexts in which the modals
appeared are not as clear as they tend to be in the letters. For instance, in the letters there is
often a clear reference to a future event in the case of the use of a modal as a futurity marker,
or a clear indication of determination in the case of the purely modal use of the verbs. In
Burns’ poetry the context and the function is often ambiguous and therefore difficult to label.
Twenty-three occurrences of will and shall are left out of consideration, since they are highly
ambiguous. Secondly, the verb shall also appears to be used according to the older system that
makes the language sound more solemn and allows shall to be a futurity marker in all persons.
Moreover, when looking at Burns’ use of language in his poetry in general, it is striking to see
how his poems seem to be on a sliding scale, with on the one end poems that appear to be
written in standard English, containing only a few lexical dialect features and on the other end
poems that appear to be written purely in Scots. Yet, even in the poems that seem to be
written purely in Scots, the modal and futurity use of the verb shall is not avoided.
Interestingly, in one of the poems he uses both a Scots form sal for shall and the English
33
form. Burns also shows variation with respect to abbreviated forms. Within a single poem he
sometimes uses both the abbreviated form and he writes it in full. This is probably to make a
distinction in emphasis, but it also seems to be used to enhance the rhythm of a poem. Thus
the variation appears to be a conscious decision and it functions as a stylistic device.
In the material studied there are sixteen occurrences of shall that seem to be used as
futurity markers in the first person, which is in accordance with the Standard English
paradigm. Eight of these occurrences were the Scots forms sall and its abbreviated equivalent
‘se, and the other eight of them were Standard English forms. There are sixty-three
occurrences of will used as futurity marker. Only five occurrences are used in the first person,
and all five of them occur in one single poem. The rest is used in accordance with the
Standard English paradigm. All forms are written according to Standard English spelling,
except the negative forms. The negative forms are all Scottish, consistently spelled as winna.
The negative forms of shall are represented less consistently. They occurred as either sha’na,
shanna or shall na. All of these forms are listed as Anglicized forms of the Scots forms sanna
and salna by the Dictionary of the Scots Language.
With respect to the modal use of will and shall, Burns seems to adhere to the Standard
English paradigm. There are twelve cases of modal will and twelve cases of modal shall, all
of which are used according to the Standard English paradigm. In the following example from
one of Burns’ poems, a clear distinction is made between the third person and first person:
(1) Thou shalt dance and I will sing,..(Burns 1789, From:Carle, An the King
Come[1999])
Assuming that this sentence expresses a command directed at another person and a strong
determination on behalf of the speaker, these are the forms as required by the Standard
English paradigm. Moreover, it seems that Burns was also aware of the reversed meaning, as
34
was proposed by Lowth (1789), of will and shall in questions. As Lowth (1789) states in
Pickbourn’s edition of the English grammar“‘will you go?’ imports intention; and ‘shall I
go?’ refers to the will of another (74).” This seems to be the case in the following examples
taken from Burns’ poetry.
(2) Wha will buy my troggin , fine election ware, Broken trade o' Broughton, a' in high
repair (Burns 1795, from: Ballads on Mr.Heron’s Election [1999])?
(3) "Will ye go wi' me, graunie (Burns 1785, from: Halloween 1 [1999])?
(4) But where shall I go rin a ride, That I may splatter nane beside ( Burns 1790, from:
Election Ballad 1790 [1999])?
An interesting feature of Burns’ poetry is his use of shall as a futurity marker in all
persons. There are thirty-two instances of this use in the poetry corpus. It seems to be a
feature that was by no means stigmatized in the eighteenth century, although it was
considered to be archaic and a feature reserved for poetic language. Both Johnson and Lowth
mention this feature, but neither of them condemn its use (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1985:
129). Since this feature does not occur in Burns’ letters, one might assume that he employed it
for artistic and stylistic purposes only.
35
5. Conclusion
Overall, it can be said that Burns was very well aware of the distinction between will
and shall. He was fairly consistent in making the distinction in both his poetry and his letters.
Even in the poems that seem typically Scottish he used Standard English shall, albeit he
sometimes used Scottish representations of it. Interestingly, in his poetry he used the archaic
form of shall, a feature which was not condemned by eighteenth-century grammarians. The
question arises, as Smith (2007) suggests in his article, whether Burns’ Scots really was
authentically Scots, or a creative mingle of Scots vocabulary extracted from several dialects
and English grammar. In that case it is hard to believe that such language could be produced
by a humble uneducated man who was only capable to write in his native tongue. On the
contrary, the data of this thesis suggest that Burns was well aware of what was expected in
Standard English. However, it would go too far to state that he was so Anglicized that he was
more familiar with the Standard English grammar than with Scots. Scots was severely
impoverished as a written language and it is therefore possible that Burns was just very
resourceful in using English to enrich the Scots language. Moreover, the exceptions as found
in examples (9) and (14) above, might suggest that Burns was possibly also comfortable with
the use Scottish modal forms. Nonetheless, circumspection is called for since there were only
a few exceptions in this analysis and the size of the studied corpus may be too small.
Having access to both English and Scots gave Burns the opportunity to be creative
with both varieties and possibly also to put on different roles. On the one hand he was the
uneducated rustic naive Scots bard and on the other hand he was a man who knew that he had
to use a prestige language if he wanted to be taken seriously. It can be no coincidence that the
only Scots letter is addressed to a person with whom Burns had an exchange of mostly light
and ironical letters. In other words, Scots seemed to be a language reserved solely for
entertaining and very informal purposes. Because the role of Scots in the eighteenth-century
36
society was limited, Burns’ choice to put on the act of a rustic naive farmer is not surprising.
He could be seen as a man who cleverly knew how to bring Scots to attention, well within the
boundaries of what was acceptable to his audience.
37
References
Abrams, M. H. (1999). Periods of English Literature. In A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th
ed., pp. 210-217). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
Baugh, A. C., & Cable, T. (2002). The Appeal to Authority, 1650-1800. In A History of the
English Language (5th ed., pp. 253-298). London: Routledge.
Beal, J. (1997). Syntax and Morphology. In C. Jones (Ed.), The Edinburgh History of the Scot
Language (pp. 335-377). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brooklyn C. English Department, B. C. (n.d.). Introduction to Romanticism. A guide to the
study of Literature: A Companion Text for Core studies 6, Landmarks of Literature.
Retrieved Januari 2, 2011, from
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/rom.html
Burns, Robert. (1999). The Online Works of Robert Burns: Concordance. The Robert Burns
club of Milwaukee. Retrieved from http://www.milwburnsclub.org/works/cncrd_a.htm
Burns, R., & Cunningham, A. (1855). The Complete Works of Robert Burns: Containing his
Poems, Songs, and Correspondence. with a New Life of the Poet, and Notices, Critical
and Biographical by Allan Cunningham. Boston: Phillips, Sampson, and Company.
Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18500/18500-h/18500-h.htm
Campbell, I. (1975). Burn's Poems and their Audience. In D. A. Low (Ed.), Critical Essays on
Robert Burns (pp. 39-53). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Douglas, H. (1976). Robert Burns: A Life. London: Robert Hale.
Haywood, J. (2009). Part 3: The Modern Celts. In The Historical Atlas of the Celtic World
(pp. 126-139). London: Thames & Hudson.
Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
38
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005). A Student's Introduction to English Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C. (1997). Phonology. In C. Jones (Ed.), The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language
(pp. 267-334). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kinsley, J. (1975). The Music of the Heart. In D. A. Low (Ed.), Critical Essays on Robert
Burns (pp. 124-136). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Knowles, G. (1997). The Language of Great Britain. In A Cultural History of the English
Language (pp. 122-136). London: Arnold.
Low, D. A. (1975). Introduction. In D. A. Low (Ed.), Critical Essays on Robert Burns (pp. 112). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lowth, R. (1762). A Short introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London: J.
Hughes. Retrieved from http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO
Mackenzie Lachlan, J. (2002). Mood and Modality. In Principles and Pitfalls of English
Grammar (2nd ed., pp. 70-87). Bussum: Coutinho.
McClure, D. J. (1994). English in Scotland. In R. Burchfield (Ed.), The Cambridge History of
the English Language Volume 5: English in Britain and Overseas Origins and
Development (pp. 23-93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McClure, D. J. (2000). Scots and Scotland. In Language, Poetry and Nationhood, Scots as a
Poetic Language from 1878 to the Present (pp. 1-13). East Linton: Tuckwell Press.
Murison, D. (1975). The Language of Burns. In D. A. Low (Ed.), Critical Essays on Robert
Burns (pp. 54-69). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pickbourn, J. (1789). A Dissertation on the English Verb. London: printed by J. Davis, for G.
G. J. and J. Robinson, Paternoster Row; and G. Kearsley. Retrieved from
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO
39
Rissanen, M. (1999). Syntax. In R. Lass (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English
Language Volume III 1476-1776 (pp. 187-326). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J. J. (2007). Copia Verborum: The Linguistic Choices of Robert Burns. Review of
English Studies, 58(233), 73-88.
Shall.(n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com
Sall. (n.d.). In Scottish National Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.dsl.ac.uk/
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1985). 'I Will be Drowned and no Man Shall Save me' the
Conventional Rules for Shall and Will in Eighteenth-century English Grammars. English
Studies, (66), 123-142.
Will. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com
Will. (n.d.). In Scottish National Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.dsl.ac.uk/
40
Appendix A: List of Will and Shall Occurrences in Robert Burns’ Letters
Case of shall that seem to be predominantly futurity markers (Lowth’s foretelling)
(1) I do not choose to be absent on that account, as well as for some other little reasons
which I shall tell you at meeting
(2) perhaps very soon, I shall bid an eternal adieu to all the pains
(3) I shall never again be capable of entering into such scenes.
(4) and with wishing you a merry New-Year’s day, I shall conclude.
(5) so I shall conclude with begging you to give Mrs. Murdoch
(6) I shall only trouble you with a few particulars
(7) I shall conclude this long letter with assuring you
(8) I shall be very happy to hear from you, or any of our friends in your country, when
opportunity serves
(9) when I intend we shall have a gill between us, in a mutchkin-stoup;
(10) I received your letter; of which I shall say no more but what a lass of my acquaintance
said of her bastard wean
(11) whom I shall ever gratefully remember
(12) I shall be in Edinburgh about the latter end of July
(13) . I shall show you the first number when I see you in Glasgow
(14) I shall be in Edinburgh middle of next week
(15) My farming ideas I shall keep private till I see
(16) I shall be ever ambitious of being known
(17) I shall ever revere.
(18) I shall be in Edinburgh some time next month
(19) I have the two plans before me: I shall endeavour to balance them to the best of my
judgement
(20) I shall in all probability turn farmer
Cases of will that seem to be predominantly futurity markers (Lowth’s foretelling)
(1) and what will become of us then, particularly the very poorest sort, Heaven only
knows.
(2) and consequently stretch us much beyond what in the event we will be found able to
pay
(3) which will be a great comfort and consolation
(4) which will be in a fortnight or less.
(5) Do be so kind as to send me the song in a day or two; you cannot imagine how much it
will oblige me.
(6) further particulars I delay till I see you, which will be in two or three weeks
41
(7) If you can in your mind form an idea of indolence, dissipation, hurry, cares, change of
country, entering on untried scenes of life, all combined, you will save me the trouble
of a blushing apology.
(8) but I have the comfortable assurance, that come whatever ill fate will,
(9) I beg you will never let any worldly concern interfere with the more serious matter,
the safety of your life and limbs
(10) I have mentioned in my last my appointment to the Excise, and the birth of little
Frank; who, by the bye, I trust will be no discredit to the honourable name of Wallace
(11) I will see you on Sunday.
(12) in this respect, I hope, my conduct will not disgrace the education I have gotten
(13) but that is what I am afraid will not be the case .
(14) as you will see by the “Poet’s Progress.”
(15) This, you will easily guess, is an undertaking exactly to my taste.
Cases of will that predominantly seem to express a modal meaning
(1) I have not forgotten, nor ever will forget, the many obligations
Cases of shall that predominantly seem to express a modal meaning
(1) and to assure you, Sir, that it shall not be my fault if my father’s correspondence in the
north die with him (1783)
(2) but I do not intend it shall be my last essay of the kind, I propose it shall be the work
of my utmost exertions, ripened by years;
(3) but you shall hear farther from me before I leave Edinburgh
Cases of shall that are ambiguous
(1) I shall expect to hear from you soon
(2) I did know him; and this caveat entered, I shall plead guilty to any other indictment
with which you shall please to charge me.
(3) My house shall be your welcome home; I shall however digest my thoughts on the
subject as well as I can.
(4) which, if it appear at all, shall be placed in a variety of lights
Cases of will that are ambiguous
(5) I will close my letter with this tribute my heart bids me pay you
(6) do not doubt, Sir, but you will wish to know what has been the result of all the pains
(1783)
42
(7) If you should not succeed in your tramps, don’t be dejected, or take any rash step—
return to us in that case, and we will court fortune’s better humour.
(8) I will only repeat my favourite quotation:
43
Appendix B: List of Will and Shall Occurrences in Robert Burns’ Poetry
Case of shall that seem to be predominantly futurity markers ( Lowth’s foretelling)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
We'se gie ae night's discharge to care, If we forgather ;
The four-gill chap , we'se gar him clatter ,
An' faith, we'se be acquainted better Before we part.
Faith, we'se hae fine remarkin!"
At kirns an' weddins we'se be there,
And mair we'se ne'er be parted."
Then, Lord be thankit, I can beg; Sae I shall say -- an' that's nae flatt'rin -- It's just sic
Poet an' sic Patron.
And I, wi' pleasure, Shall let the busy, grumbling hive Bum owre their treasure.
To witness what I after shall narrate;
As for your Priesthood, I shall say but little, Corbies and Clergy are a shot right kittle :
O let me think we yet shall meet;
Forget him shall I never:
But I shall scribble down some blether Just clean aff-loof .
If ye'll but stand to what ye've said, I'se gang wi' thee, my shepherd lad, And ye may
row me in your plaid, And I sall be your dearie. Ca' the yowes , &c.
That I shall swear!
O let me think we yet shall meet; That only ray of solace sweet, Can on thy Chloris
shine, Love! O wert thou, &c.
Cases of will that seem to be predominantly futurity markers (Lowth’s foretelling)
(1) An' whare will ye get Howes and Clintons
(2) The Laird o' the Ford will straught on a board,
If he canna get her at a' , man.
(3) An' if ye winna mak it clink , By Jove, I'll prose it!"
(4) Thy hopes will soon deceive thee:
(5) The pleasures that will ne'er return
(6) Fear not clouds will always lour.
(7) The Powers aboon will tent thee,
(8) But secret love will break my heart, If I conceal it langer.
(9) 'Twill please me mair to see thee heir it,
(10) But shortly they will cowe the louns !
(11) Guid observation they will gie them; An' when the auld moon's gaun to lea'e them,
The hindmaist shaird , they'll fetch it wi' them
(12) We will get famous laughin At them this day."
(13) Whom will you send to London town, To Parliament and a' that?
(14) For there will be bickerin' there;
(15) And O how the heroes will swear!
44
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
And there will be Murray, Commander, And Gordon, the battle to win ;
And there will be black-nebbit Johnie,
And there will be Kempleton's birkie ,
And there will be Wigton's new Sheriff;
And there will be Cardoness, Esquire
A wight that will weather damnation,
The Devil the prey will despise.
And there will be Douglasses doughty,
And there will be folk frae Saint Mary's
The deil ane will gie them his vote!
And there will be Kenmure sae gen'rous,
And there will be lads o' the gospel,
And there will be Buittle's Apostle,
And there will be Logan M'Dowall
Sculdudd'ry an' he will be there,
And there, frae the Niddisdale borders, The Maxwells will gather in droves,
And there will be Heron, the Major, Wha'll ne'er be forgot in the Greys;
And there will be maiden Kilkerran,
And there will be roarin Birtwhistle
And there will be gay Cassencarry,
And there will be rich brother nabobs,
And there will be Collieston's whiskers,
And hey! for the blessin's 'twill bring;
So twa blind beggars, on a string, The faithfu' tyke will trust.
If she winna ease the thraws In my bosom swelling, Underneath the grass-green sod,
Soon maun be my dwelling
Thy gloom will soothe my cheerless soul, When nature all is sad like me!
So may they, like their great forbears , For mony a year come thro the shears: So
wives will gie them bits o' bread, An' bairns greet for them when they're dead .
On ev'ry hand it will allow'd be,
An' less, will gang aboot it Than did ae day.1
And wha winna wish gude luck to our cause, May never gude luck be their fa'
Yet that winna save you, auld Satan must have you,
Ye've the figure, 'tis true, ev'n your foes will allow,
Ammunition you never can need; Your hearts are the stuff will be powder enough,
O luve will venture in where it daur na weel be seen,
And this will be a Posie to my ain dear May.
And aiblins when they winna stand the test,
An' when wi' usquabae we've wat it It winna break.
Wha now will keep you frae the fox,
Or wha will tent the waifs an' crocks
Ye'll see how New-Light herds will whistle , An' think it fine!
As yet ye little ken about the matter, But twa-three winters will inform ye better.
45
(57) But I will doun yon river rove, amang the wood sae green, And a' to pu' a Posie to my
ain dear May.
(58) The primrose I will pu' , the firstling o' the year, And I will pu' the pink, the emblem o'
my dear;
(59) The hawthorn I will pu' , wi' its locks o' siller gray,
(60) But the songster's nest within the bush I winna tak away And a' to be a Posie to my ain
dear May.
(61) But hawks will rob the tender joys
(62) And frost will blight the fairest flowers,
(63) And love will break the soundest rest.
Cases of will that predominantly seem to express a modal meaning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
"Will ye go wi' me, graunie?
Will ye gang down the water-side,
But facts are chiels that winna ding ,
While nobles strive to please ye, Will ye accept a compliment, A simple poet gies ye?
But what he said -- it was nae play, I winna venture't in my rhymes.
I winna let ye in, jo .
I hae been in for't ance or twice, And winna say o'er far for thrice;
Your friendship, Sir, I winna quat it,
But comes frae 'mang that cursed set , I winna name;
But what will ye hae of a fool?
Wha will buy my troggin , fine election ware ,Broken trade o' Broughton, a' in high
repair?
(12) Thou shalt dance and I will sing,
Cases of shall that predominantly seem to express a modal meaning
(1) I lang to meet you, An' in my house at hame to greet you; Wi' common lords ye
shanna mingle,
(2) That to my latest draught o' life the band shall ne'er remove
(3) I'll laugh, that's poz -- nay more, the world shall know it; And so, your servant!
gloomy Master Poet!"
(4) And swears that there they sall stan' O.
(5) Thou shalt dance and I will sing,
(6) But where shall I go rin a ride, That I may splatter nane beside?
(7) "At barn or byre thou shalt na drudge, Or naething else to trouble thee;
(8) I swear and vow that only thou Shall ever be my Dearie!
(9) Sleep, whence thou shalt ne'er awake
46
(10) Ye freely shall partake it;
(11) And your petitioner shall ever –
(12) O'er Pegasus I'll fling my leg, And ye shall see me try him.
Cases of shall in the archaic, solemn or poetic use.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
Wha first shall rise to gang awa , A cuckold, coward loun is he!
Wha first beside his chair shall fa' , He is the King amang us three.
Night, where dawn shall never break,
Ye sall get gowns and ribbons meet,
And in my arms ye'se lie and sleep,
An' ye sall be my dearie.
There's nane sall ken , there's nane can guess
And stownlins we sall meet again.
Excell'd by nane , And a' the glory shall be thine, Amen, Amen!
The wars are o'er, and I'm come hame , And find thee still true-hearted; Tho' poor in
gear , we're rich in love, And mair we'se ne'er be parted."
Thou, Pitt, shalt rue this overthrow,
Now Fox and Sheridan rejoice, And Burke shall sing, "O Prince, arise!
When the drums do beat, and the cannons rattle, Thou shalt sit in state, and see thy
love in battle:
If thou refuse to pity me, If thou shalt love another,
If thou shalt meet a lassie,
If thoughts o' thee, or yet thy mamie, Shall ever daunton me or awe me,
Or if I blush when thou shalt ca' me Tyta or daddie .
For if thou be what I wad hae thee,And tak the counsel I shall gie thee,
While the life beats in my bosom, Thou shalt mix in ilka throe:
She soon shall see her tender brood,
So thou, dear bird, young Jeany fair , On trembling string or vocal air , Shall sweetly
pay the tender care
So thou, sweet Rose-bud, young and gay, Shalt beauteous blaze upon the day,
The independent commoner Shall be the man for a' that.
When ebbing life nae mair shall flow,
The soaring lark, the perching red-breast shrill, Or deep-ton'd plovers grey, wildwhistling o'er the hill; Shall he -- nurst in the peasant's lowly shed, To hardy
independence bravely bred, By early poverty to hardship steel'd.
Whae'er shall say I wanted grace
Then muse-inspirin' aqua-vitae Shall make us baith sae blythe and witty, Till ye forget
ye're auld an' gatty
Misfortune sha'na steer thee;
Ghaist nor bogle shalt thou fear,
Till clay-cauld death sall blin' my e'e , Ye sall be my dearie.
47
(31) And every man shall hae his ain ,
(32) Whae'er shall say I wanted grace
Cases of shall that are ambiguous
(1) "Shall bauld Lapraik, the king o' hearts, Tho' mankind were a pack o' cartes , Roose
you sae weel for your deserts, In terms sae friendly;Yet ye'll neglect to shaw your arts
An' thank him kindly?
(2) An' O sae nicely's we will fare! At kirns an' weddins we'se be there,
(3) The woodbine I will pu' , when the e'ening star is near, And the diamond draps o' dew
shall be her een sae clear;
Cases of will that are ambiguous
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
But we winna mention Redcastle
An' warn him -- what I winna name –
I will not wind a lang conclusion, With complimentary effusion
Ev'n there I winna flatter; For neither pension, post, nor place, Am I your humble
debtor
I winna blaw about mysel , As ill I like my fauts to tell;
She winna come hame to her Willy.
Or , if thou wilt na be my ain , O say na thou'lt refuse me!
Ye winna bear it?
I winna lie, come what will o' me),
What's no his ain , he winna tak it;
What ance he says, he winna break it;
Chiels wha their chanters winna hain
She winna come hame to her ain Jock Rab .
An' gin she winna tak a man,
That gin the lassie winna do't,
If it winna , canna be,,
An' it winna let a body be.
there nae poet, burning keen for fame, Will try to gie us sangs and plays at hame
Is there no daring Bard will rise and tell How glorious Wallace stood, how hapless
fell?
Ye'll soon hae Poets o' the Scottish nation Will gar Fame blaw until her trumpet crack
48
Appendix C: List of Texts Comprising Letter Corpus
1. To William Burness (27 December, 1781 [1855: 312])
2. To Mr. John Murdoch (15 January, 1783 [1855: 313])
3. To Mr. James Burness (21 June, 1783 [1855: 315])
4. To Mr. Robert Muir (20 March, 1786 [1855: 324])
5. To Mr. David Brice (17 July, 1786 [1855: 328])
6. To Mr. Robert Muir (20 December, 1786 [1855: 334])
7. To William Nicol (1 June, 1787 [1855:346])
8. To William Nicol (18 June , 1787 [1855: 348])
9. To Mr. James Candlish (1787 [1855: 348])
10. To Mr. Gilbert Burns (17 September, 1787 [1855: 359])
11. To Robert Ainslie (3 March, 1788 [1855: 373])
12. To Professor Dugald Stewart (20 January, 1789 [1855: 399])
13. To Mr. James Burness (9 February. 1789 [1855: 400])
14. To Mr. William Burns (25 March, 1789 [1855: 403])
15. To Mr. William Burns (15 April, 1789 [1855: 404])
16. To Mrs. Dunlop 6 September, (1789 [1855: 410])
17. To Mrs. Burns (date unknown [1855: 500])
18. To Mr. W. Nicol (20 February, 1792 [1855: 442])
49
Appendix D: List of Texts Comprising Poetry Corpus
1. O Tibbie, I Hae Seen The Day (1779 [1999)
2. The Ronalds Of The Bennals (1780 [1999])
3. The Death And Dying Words Of Poor Mailie , The Author's Only Pet Yowe. (1783
[1999])
4. Reply To An Announcement By J. Rankine (1784 [1999])
5. The Twa Herds ; Or , The Holy Tulyie (1784 [1999])
6. Epistle To J. Lapraik, An Old Scottish Bard (1785 [1999])
7. Epistle To William Simson (1785 [1999])
8. Halloween (1785 [1999])
9. Holy Willie’s Prayer (1785 [1999])
10. Second Epistle To J. Lapraik (1785 [1999])
11. The Holy Fair (1785 [1999])
12. Third Epistle To J. Lapraik (1785 [1999])
13. The Jolly Beggars: A Cantata (1785 [1999])
14. Address Of Beelzebub (1786 [1999])
15. A Dedication To Gavin Hamilton, Esq. (1786 [1999])
16. A dream (1786 [1999])
17. Composed In Spring (1786 [1999])
18. Epistle To A Young Friend (1786 [1999])
19. The Author's Earnest Cry And Prayer (1786 [1999])
20. The Brigs of Ayer (1786 [1999])
21. Epigram Addressed To An Artist (1787 [1999])
22. Impromptu On Carron Iron Works (1787 [1999])
23. The Lad They Ca'Jumpin John (1788 [1999])
24. Written In Friars Carse Hermitage (Second Version) (1788 [1999])
25. Carle, An the King Come (1789 [1999])
26. The Captain's Lady (1789 [1999])
27. The Kirk Of Scotland's Alarm (1789 [1999])
28. Willie Brew'd A Peck O' Maut (1789 [1999])
29. Election Ballad (1790 [1999])
30. Scots' Prologue For Mr. Sutherland (1790 [1999])
31. My Eppie Macnab (1791 [1999])
32. The Posie (1791 [1999])
33. Here's A Health To Them That's Awa (1792 [1999])
34. Saw Ye Bonie Lesley (1792 [1999])
35. Sic A Wife As Willie Had (1792 [1999])
36. Address Spoken by Miss Fontenelle (1793 [1999])
37. Blythe Hae I been On Yon Hill (1793 [1999])
38. Deluded Swain, The Pleasure (1793 [1999])
39. The Soldier's Return: A Ballad (1793 [1999])
40. To its ain tune (1793 [1999])
41. A Vision (1794 [1999])
42. The Minstrel At Lincluden (1794 [1999])
43. Willt Thou be my Dearie? (1794 [1999])
44. Ballads on Mr. Heron's Election, (1795 [1999])
45. Forlorn, My Love, No Comfort Near (1795 [1999])
46. Had I The Wyte ? She Bade Me (1795 [1999])
47. 'll Aye Ca' In By Yon Town (1795 [1999])
50
48. O Let Me In Thes Ae Night (1795 [1999])
49. O Steer Her Up An' Haud Her Gaun (1795 [1999])
50. The Cooper O' Cuddy (1795 [1999])