No abstract

No abstract

This paper aims to ascertain as precisely as possible what direct influence the early monolingual word lists and dictionaries may have had on the standardisation of English spelling. It is based upon research in which a quantitative analysis of the spellings of lemmas from the nine earliest published such lists and dictionaries was made and followed by a comparison of these lemmas and their spellings with the spellings from a manuscript and printed text of appropriate date. These word lists and dictionaries range from Mulcaster 1582 to Cockeram 1626, and the manuscript and printed copies of the same text are by William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle and dated c. 1659 and 1667 respectively. A qualitative investigation into the nature of the words and spellings occurring in the data was then undertaken. The results show a high degree of consistency within and between the word lists and dictionaries and printed Newcastle text but no significant correspondence between these spellings and those found in the manuscript. The research indicates that the spellings of the printed lists and text may be taken as the standard spellings of those words in that period (and this includes both variable spellings and those which later changed into our present standard forms) but that the manuscript writing, at least this case, remains largely unaffected by the standard. Whereas the lack of correspondence between these two bodies of data may be due to the sample of lay writing chosen, the lexical and grammatical restrictions of lemmas in word lists and dictionaries of this period set precise and important limits to the extent to which they can have directly influenced the course of spelling standardisation.Brought to you by | Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Authenticated Download Date | 7/2/15 12:45 PM Cable 1978 are notably cautious), 2 as playing important roles in the process and stages of English spelling standardisation. 3 Most, like Scragg (1974, 63, 75, 78) and Freeborn (1992, 117), see them as central to the codification and acceptance, or diffusion stages of the process. 4 Not one reveals exactly how or to what extent this influence occurred since, as Baugh and Cable rightly state for the case of Mulcaster, such precision is impossible to ascertain. 5 Furthermore, the evidence involved in assessing the role of early dictionaries and word lists in spelling standardisation is contradictory.One factor raised by scholars of the history of the language concerns the contents of early dictionaries and word lists. It is an acknowledged fact (Görlach 1991, 150-151; Schäfer 1989, 172; Lancashire 1998, 3) that none of the early monolingual lists and dictionaries, with the exceptions of Mulcaster (1582) and a fragmentary unprinted lexicon (see Osselton 1987 discussed in Schäfer 1989 is much more than a list of hard words, 6 even though they may claim "a high educational purpose" (Warren 1997, 1). margaret sönmez 208Brought to you by | Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Authenticated Download Date | 7/2/15 12:45 PM

No abstract

No abstract