English Vowel Digraphs and Their History Steven Mahon Linguistics LIN 4970 With help from Dr.

Jules D. Gliesche 20th December 2011

With our Western, post-Renaissance emphasis on historical preservation, one of the primary battles when attempting to tackle the fickle topic of spelling reform is of that between a strict phonetic system and preserving the historical system being discussed. There are endless pros and cons for both sides, and this thesis is not meant to decide on one over the other. In fact, most people are not even aware of how the term historical system can even be applied accurately in English. How did our system come about and why? Author Vivian Cook gives a brief rundown of the nature of English orthography. He claims that Modern English spelling is actually comprised of three different systems (Cook, 69). He defines these as the original Old English or basic system, the French/Latinate or Romance system, and the foreign system kept for recent borrowings from exotic languages (Cook, 72). Cook also notes that this third system could possibly be considered more of a waste bin for words which have not yet been fully assimilated into English since there are no set orthographic rules for this set, but rather the leftover rules which cannot be accounted for by English or Romance phonology/orthography. The first system is comprised mainly of words inherited from Proto-Germanic which existed in English prior to the Norman Invasion of 1066 such as for, man, go and say. In Modern English, this system is arguably the most phonetic out of the three with many words (such as the examples) having one-toone sound-spelling correspondences. The above examples are all basic content and function words. The second system is comprised mostly of words borrowed from Norman French and Latin after the Norman Invasion of 1066 and before the modern spelling system was standardized such as gem, appeal, strange and science. This influx of words came as a result of the language of the elite in England being switched

to French. Many cultural and technical terms in Modern English came as a result of this mass borrowing since people at that time were also educated in French. This system often tries to follow the original Latin spellings. Since English in the Middle Ages was not a highly-regarded language, the idea was that by retaining the original French and Latin spellings one could Latinize English and thus make it more attractive and educated to the Romance-speaking elite (Barber, 51-3). The third and final system is a grab-bag of assorted borrowings from various non-French and non-Latin languages such as cello, Iraq, dhobi and khaki. These words were often borrowed after the standardization of English spelling and as aforementioned are on the borderline between the original language and being totally assimilated into English. They tend to retain at least some of the characteristics of the spelling system from which they were borrowed and usually have an exotic look to them, marking them clearly as loanwords. Now the question must be posed: which systems are necessary to keep and which ones can be done away with? Often times a spelling convention is used for different reasons across different systems. An example of this would be consonant doubling. In the Germanic system (call by Carney the Basic system), consonant doubling is mostly used as a method to show a) that the syllable containing the double consonants is stressed and b) that the preceding vowel is short (ie. puzzle, button and glassy) (Carney, 113-4). However, in the Romance system, consonant doubling is often used to show where a prefix from Latin was assimilated to the following consonant (ie. obclude from Latin ob + clude and assent from Latin ad +sent) (Carney, 119). Most of these Latin affixes have long lost their use in Modern English. Their only purpose is to serve as a reminder that in Latin they did in fact have a purpose. In the

opinion of the author, in order to accurately appropriate the term historical to specific spelling conventions in English, only spellings that ever had a distinctive use in English will be considered historical. Spelling conventions that represent defunct practices from other languages that have never had a practical use in English at any point in its lengthy history will not be considered historical. This decision will help provide a basis for distinguishing actual phonological changes that occurred during the development of English orthography and what was implemented by scholars during the Renaissance as a way to Latinize English (Barber, 51-3). A thorough and in-depth discussion of some of the traditional dialects of Modern English can shed some light onto the current salience of some of these spellings. Examining certain phonological distinctions maintained in these dialects that have long since been lost in the standard language will allow one to take a glimpse into past spoken Englishes so as to provide proof and a historical basis for why Modern English orthography developed in the manner that it did. This thesis will focus solely on the orthography of English vowels, specifically that of digraphs. The author deems that this topic is the one of most importance due to the vast possibilities available for a single sound. Describing Standard Modern English phonology is a topic that has been beaten to death by linguists. However, even though English has had a rigid, standardized orthography for almost half a millennium, due to the wide variation in the spelling system (particularly for vowels) it is rather difficult to pinpoint what the standard phonological representations for each grapheme are. In fact, defining what the native graphemes for Modern English are also quite the task. Here I will use Edward Carneys A Survey of English Spelling as my source for determining the basic vowel representations (whether single letters, digraphs or even

trigraphs) for Standard Modern English. These graphemes are not isolated to specific lexical items (such as <wo> in two, <eau> in beauty, or <oul> in would, could, and should) and can often be found in new word coinings or in loan words entering English. The following vowel graphemes will be considered individually in this thesis: <ae, ai, au, aw, ay, ea, ee, ei, eu, ew, ey, ie, oa, oe, oi, oo, ou, ow, oy, ue, ui>. These were chosen based on the Rules section in Carneys book if they were given a regular representative sound as opposed to being considered and exception (Carney, 280-381). Certain consonant pairs can sometimes also function as a single unit in this category, such as <st> in chaste and <ng> in range. However, these will hardly affect our graphemic analysis and are often a result of phonological shifts unrelated to the general vowel lengthening in open syllables. Next, a brief history of English orthography will be outlined to provide the reader with some historical background for this thesis. This will make the correlation between sound and spelling much clearer when the graphemic analysis begins. The first known written records of English are from the Old English, or Anglo-Saxon period. This period lasted from about the fifth century AD till the Norman invasion of 1066 (Cook, 153-4). Old English had a simple, rather stereotypical Germanic vowel system consisting of seven short and long monophthongs and two short and long diphthongs (Horobin & Smith,). The monophthongs are as follows: /a(:)/, /(:)/, /e(:)/, /i(:)/, /o(:)/, /u(:)/, and /y(:)/. The diphthongs are also as follows: /(:)/ and /e(:)/. The monophthongs were each spelled with their respective IPA symbols in Old English (no orthographic indication of vowel length was yet developed) and the diphthongs were spelled <ea> and <eo> respectively. The slight asymmetry of the system is likely to due to the

umlaut, or i-fronting of back, rounded vowels in stressed syllables before front vowels (Pyles, 115). This would undoubtedly be the cause of //, /y/ and the diphthongs entering the system. The Middle English vowel system of around year 1400 has a slightly rearranged seven-monophthong system while increasing the number of diphthongs to five (Horobin & Smith, 48). The short vowels are likely to have been as follows: //, //, /a/, //, and //. The long vowels were probably: /i:/, /e:/, /:/, /a:/, /:/, /o:/, and /u:/. Unlike Old English, Middle English appears to have had a qualitative as well as a quantitative difference between long and short vowels. The short vowels were mostly spelled <i/y, e, a, o, u> respectively and the long vowels were mostly spelled <i/y/ij, e/ee, e/ee, a/aa, o/oo, o/oo, ou/ow>. Middle English developed a system of digraphs and vowel doubling to show long vowels. It should also be noted that there was not a distinction in spelling between the two sets of long, mid vowels in Middle English: /:/ vs. /e:/ and /:/ vs /o:/. These were not differentiated until the Early Modern English period where the second letter of each digraph in the orthography was replaced with an <a>, thus providing boat vs. boot when both were spelled as boot in Middle English and meat vs meet when both were spelled as meet in Middle English (Pyles, 148). The Middle English of Chaucer also had about five diphthongs, namely: /a/, //, /a/, //, and // (Horobin & Smith, 49). These were appropriately spelled <ai/ay/ei/ey, oi/oy, au/aw, ou/ow and ew> respectively (Barber, 112). A possible sixth diphthong, //, was spelled exactly like // and could often be interchangeable (as they were for Chaucer) with the latter and thus will not be considered separately (Horobin & Smith, 67). The diphthongs of Old English had merged with other monopthongs (// often became /a/ or /e/ and /:/ often became

/:/ in most dialects) while the new diphthongs were created from vocalizations of following consonants (such as /j/, /w/ and fricative allophones of /g/) and borrowings from French (Horobin & Smith, 49). Lastly, there is also a vowel, described as /y:/, which is not mentioned by Horobin and Smith. In the Oxford English Dictionary, it is spelled as a single <u> in open syllables and is derived from French and Latin loanwords commonly borrowed from French (ie. vertu virtue, rule rule and rude rude) (OED, 1 of <U>). In Barber it is listed as having the diphthong // (Barber, 112). The French tradition of spelling /u:/ as <ou/ow> and /y:/ as <u> was retained in Middle English and adopted as the norm. Although it is not 100% certain what phonological value this sound had (if it was even distinct at all in Middle English), it can be easily identified by the spellings in Modern English <u/uCe/ue> as in crucifix, tune and due where they represent /ju:/ or /u:/. As previously mentioned, Old English and Middle English had relatively regular sound to spelling correspondences. Modern English, on the other hand, is a completely different story. In order to accurately describe Modern English phonology and its relation to modern spelling conventions, a thorough description of each grapheme will be done including the evolution of each of the sounds represented by the graphemes and the status of these phonological representations in the Modern English dialects of today. In nearly every elementary school classroom, children are taught about short vowels, long vowels and the silent <e> rule. It has become a tradition to regard vowels which can only be found in closed syllables as short and vowels which can be found in open syllables as long (Cook himself calls these vowels checked and free,

respectively) (Cook, 65). An orthographic convention which has developed in English to distinguish long vowels from short vowels in closed syllables is the silent <e> rule. Simply put, by adding a silent <e> to the end of a word ending in a consonant, the long variant of the vowel will be pronounced instead of the short one. Some examples of this phenomenon for each written vowel can be seen here in this chart roughly based off of Rule Box 6 in Cook (p. 65): Short/Checked <a> <e> // fat // pet Long/Free /e/ fate /i:/ Pete /a/ ripe // cone /(j)u:/ plume

<i/y> // rip <o> <u> // con // plum

Note the possible variation in the last long/free vowel above. After certain consonants it always appears as /u:/ and after others as /ju:/. After consonants such as /t/, /d/ and /l/ it varies between British and American English, British English Received Pronunciation retaining the historical /ju:/ pronunciation while American English uses the newer /u:/ (Wells, 247). Some dialects, however, use a more archaic //-type vowel after all possible English consonants for long <u> and this will be discussed in further detail in the <eu/ew> section below. In most other languages in the world, the concept of short and long vowels relates to the literal meanings of the words: some vowels are phonologically short, while others are long. As one can see from the table above, only two of the long vowels are actually phonologically long. The other three (or sometimes two, since long <u> after

certain consonants is /u:/) are actually diphthongs. In languages like German, Finnish and Persian, the long and short vowels are related, whether by a physical length distinction or by a tense/lax distinction. The English long/short pairings are not phonologically related at all. How then, did Modern English develop such a peculiar vowel system? The answer lies within the Great Vowel Shift. The Great Vowel Shift was a phonological chain shift of Middle English long vowels whereby the Middle English long high vowels became diphthongs and the other long vowels followed them to fill in the gaps in the sound system (Barber, 105-9). This is ultimately the reason why the Modern English vowel system is quite unlike that of any other language in the world, including its close relatives. The following chart in Figure 1, taken from user Kjoonlee of Wikipedia, shows a visual map of the phonological changes of the Great Vowel Shift and places them on a timeline from the year 1400: Figure 1

As one can see, the short vowels have remained relatively unchanged whereas the long vowel and diphthong system has undergone a complete transformation. A further look at the digraph system of Modern English as well the phonological variations in some of its dialects will help better explain the effects of the Great Vowel Shift on the Englishes of today. <ae> The first digraph up is one that is actually relatively rare in Modern English. Carney has its regular sound correspondence as /i:/ in Greek and other Classical loanwords (Carney, 283). Some examples of this are aeon, archaeology and encyclopaedia. It should be noted that many of these examples reflect the British spelling tendencies and have often been simplified to a single <e> in American English (ie. eon and encyclopedia). Carney considers word-final stressed <ae> for /e/ as in brae and sundae to fall under the <aCe> category. It is confined to only a few lexical items and thus a historical analysis isnt possible. <ai/ay> Because <i> and <y> are interchangeable from the Middle English period on, descriptions of digraphs and other graphemes with one of them will always include the other as a rule since they always will represent the same sounds in writing (Horobin & Smith, 63). That being said, the most common phoneme represented by <ai/ay> in Modern English is, by far, /e/ (ie. day, say, paid, maiden) (Carney, 283-5). As said previously, <ai/ay> in Middle English represented /a/. This /a/, however (not to be confused with Modern English /a/), became /:/ in Early Modern English, merging with /:/ coming from Middle English /a:/ as a result of the Great Vowel Shift. This /:/ then

shifted to /e:/ in later Early Modern English before arriving at the Modern English /e/ of today (Barber, 108 & 114). Although Horobin and Smith describe this vowel as /a/ in Middle English, the actual phoneme varies in between authors. Another common representation is // or /i/ which seems to have been more likely around the year 1500 or so (Barber, 114). The reason for this is that <ai/ay> was often interchangeable with <ei/ey> in the Middle English period. Although it is possible these two groups of digraphs represented different Middle English phonemes, the author of this thesis could not find any information in the literature indicating this. All sources used state that these digraphs had the same phoneme. As stated earlier, in most dialects of Modern English <ai/ay> represent /e/ along with long <a/aCe>. However, this is not universal. In some dialects of East Anglia, particularly around Norfolk and Suffolk, <ai/ay/ei/ey> and long <a/aCe> remain distinct in every day speech (Wells, 337). Wells describes this phenomenon as an absence of the Long Mid Mergers, the process by which the long mid diphthongs merged with the long mid vowels in Early Modern English (Wells, 192-3). In these dialects, the words with long <a/aCe> (such as in face, name and paper) have [e: ~ e]-type vowels whereas the words with <ai/ay/ei/ey> (such as nail, way and eight) have []. This distinction is mostly maintained in the older, rural populations of Norfolk and Suffolk. Interestingly enough, in younger people in these areas who do not maintain this distinction, the merged vowel is not the [e: ~ e]-type vowel, but rather the []-type vowel (Wells, 337). Wells does not give an explanation for why this may be. This preservation of <ai/ay> vs. long <a/aCe> is also found in a few dialects of southern Wales. In these dialects, long <a/aCe> words have a long monophthong [e:] (as in

10

[pe:n] for pane) and <ai/ay/ei/ey> words have a diphthong [] (as in [pn] for pain) (Wells, 384). In contrast to the East Anglian dialects, however, in the Welsh English dialects where these sounds have merged, they are both pronounced as the monophthong [e:], not the diphthong []. Wells notes that this distinction may very well not necessarily be that of a historical preservation, but rather that of a spelling pronunciation from when that area of Wales spoke English as a second language. However, he does add that this is not certain. Either way, it is definitely apparent that <ai/ay> has a historical and valid reason for being in English. <au/aw> As stated previously for <i> and <y>, the same seems to hold true for <u> and <w> when they appear as the second character in a digraph (ie. <au/aw>, <eu/ew> and <ou/ow>). Modern English shows the proclivity for using <u> word internally and <w> word finally, although there are many exceptions to this rule (ie. dawn, thou). The digraphs <au/aw> appropriately represented the Middle English diphthong /a / (Horobin & Smith, 49). This sound developed into /:/ in the Early Modern English period, replacing the gap left by the shift of Middle English /:/ to /o:/ as a result of the Great Vowel Shift (Barber, 106-7). In Received Pronunciation, the standard British English accent, the sound is still /:/ (Wells, 144-5). In Australian English, this sound is approaching /o:/ (Wells, 595-8). In American English, however, this sound is currently undergoing a merger throughout the country with short <o>, or // (Wells, 473-4). The result of this makes words like cot and caught homophones. More likely than not this merged vowel is // rather than /:/. This merger, however, is far from universal even in

11

America and since most countries outside of the United States do in fact keep the sounds distinct, the <au/aw> digraphs most definitely have a useful function in English. <ea> The <ea> digraph has had a rather interesting history in English. It was first found in Old English representing the aforementioned short and long diphthongs // and /:/ (Horobin & Smith, 57). These diphthongs soon became monophthongs in the late Old English period, // merging with // and /:/ merging with /:/. Both of these phonemes were lost by the Middle English period. Short //, along with short // became a short /a/ in most Middle English dialects (but rather becoming probably a short // in the West Midlands of England) (Horobin & Smith, 56). The result of long /:/ is a bit more complicated. Outside of coming from the diphthong /:/, Old English /:/ had two sources: Proto-Germanic /:/ and the i-mutation of pre-Old English /:/ (which itself came from Proto-Germanic /ai/). The results of this sound in the various Middle English dialects depend upon the sound value each of these source vowels in the various Old English dialects, which can be summed up by the following table, taken from Figure 4.7 on page 56 of the Horobin and Smith: West Saxon : (from Proto-Germanic :) : (from pre-Old English :) : : Old Anglian e: : Old Kentish e: e:

Thus, the resulting Middle English sound values can be summed up by the following table, taken from Figure 4.8 on page 56 of the Horobin & Smith: Southwest England : /:/ Midlands/North England /e:/ Southeast England /e:/

12

/:/

/:/

/e:/

As one can see, the results of /:/ in Middle English perfectly line up with their respective dialectal values from Old English. Modern English in fact takes its lexicon from multiple Middle English dialects so it can be impossible to tell which Modern English word had which vowel in Middle English. It thus becomes apparent (as mentioned in the description of Middle English phonology above) that there were two contrasting long <e>-type vowels in Middle English: /:/ and /e:/. These, however, were not contrasted in writing, both being spelled as a plain <e> or as <ee> (Pyles, 147-8). The initial effects of the Great Vowel Shift caused these vowels to become /e:/ and /i:/ respectively (Barber, 106-7). These phonemes were not actually distinguished in writing until the Early Modern English period when the <ea> digraph was reintroduced into the English orthography where it represented the sound value of /e:/ (newly moved from /:/) (Pyles, 148). The <ee> spelling was retained for the long /i:/ sound. In most Modern English dialects this sound has merged with the aforementioned /e:/ into /i:/ (Barber, 107). In a small group of words, however, this merger did not occur (these words retaining the original /e:/ which later became /e/, ie. break, steak, great) and in yet others the vowel was shortened early on to // but the spelling wasnt changed (ie dead, deaf, thread, etc.) (Barber, 108 & 123). The <ea> spelling is a vestige of the original vowel sound. However, the story does not end here. Some dialects of British English still maintain this distinction in spoken colloquial speech. In Northern England, for example, this distinction is traditionally preserved in the dialect of the area with varying realizations for the two phonemes. In the middle North [mi:t] for meet and [mt] for meat is found (Wells, 357). In parts of North

13

Yorkshire, residents have [mt] for meet and [mt] for meat. In Staffordshire, one can find [mt] for meet and [mi:t] for meat. This distinction can also be found in parts of Ireland. Here, in older and rural, working-class speech words spelled <ea> have /e:/ as opposed to the standard /i:/ (Wells, 425 & 441). In much of Ireland, the natives use a monophthong /e:/ for when Standard English has /e/. Thus, steal rhymes with stale (both having [ste:l]) and meat rhymes with mate as opposed to meet ([me:t] vs. [mi:t]). Wells also includes some words on his list of the more common words retaining this distinction that are not spelled with <ea>. These words include quay, either and Jesus (Wells, 425). Quay seems most likely to be an incidental lexical item. It is not known if other words spelled with <ei> like in either are also found to be preserving this distinction. Barber also lists scene, conceit, complete and conceive in this group and lists <ei> and <eCe> as modern spelling variants for Modern English <ea> (Barber, 105 & 107). The same goes with words that have a single <e> in open syllables such as in the example Jesus given by Wells. More research needs to be done on this matter before this distinction is lost entirely in everyday speech to see if other /i:/ words besides those spelled with <ea> (such as <ei> or <eCe>) have maintained this phenomenon in these dialects and to what extent. <ee> One of the more common vowel combinations in Modern English, except in recent loanwords <ee> almost universally represents the phoneme /i:/ (Carney, 313). Tracing back to Old English, this sound was originally a long /e:/-type vowel, retaining much of its same quality and length through the Middle English period, then through the effects of the Great Vowel Shift becoming the /i:/ in the Modern English of today

14

(Barber, 106). As discussed in the section on <ea> this double vowel used to represent both long mid vowels in Middle English: /e:/ as well as /:/. However, by the Early Modern English period the digraph <ea> was resurrected in English orthography to represent the more open version of the two vowels, /:/ (Pyles, 148). Even though in most dialects of Modern English both of these sounds have merged into /i:/, some dialects still retain this distinction even though they are few and far between. Thus, it is obvious <ee> is a necessary component of the English spelling system. <ei> Deciphering the history of the digraph <ei> in English is a tough matter. There seems to be no set or standard phoneme associated with this grapheme. With varying consistency it mostly seems to represent the phonemes /i:/ and /e /. Carney has the main rule as /a/ because of the standard pronunciations of either and neither in British English but also states that /e/ would make an equally good standard pronunciation (Carney, 314). One does not seem to take precedence over the other. A further look into the history of the usage of this digraph for these phonemes may shed some light on its importance. <ei> can be found for /i:/ in a few common words: either, neither, weird and more consistently in words ending in cei- such as receive, conceive, deceive and also their respective nouns in words like deceit and receipt. This last group exemplifies the saying in English: I before E except after C, although the previously mentioned words would seem to break this. Carney lists this on page 313-4 as the main exception rule to the above standard of /a/ for <ei>. According to him, 100% of common words with the cei- spelling have /i:/ in them. How did this rule come about? For one, all of the words which follow the pattern cei- are derived from

15

Norman French. In Norman and Anglo-French dialects, these words contained a diphthong which is typically reconstructed as /ei/. This same diphthong developed into an /oi/ sound in Standard French and later became the diphthong /wa/ in Modern French (von Jagemann, 71-2). This can be seen in the cognate pair receive-reois (first person singular of the verb recevoir) and deceive-dois (first person singular of the verb decevoir). However, there was no /ei/-type vowel in Middle English. It appears that, based on alternate spellings from the time period after their borrowing into English, at least some of these words were assimilated to the Middle English long /:/ sound. Barber lists <ei> as being a variant spelling of <ea> in late Middle English (Barber, 105). As discussed in the section on <ea>, certain dialects of Irish English put the word either also into the category of words which had long /:/ in Middle English. For now, it would appear that the <ei> for /i:/ in English could be regarded as just a variant of <ea>. The <ei> digraph also can represent the diphthong /e/. Words included in this group are rein, veil, vein, and heinous. These words, like the cei- group above, also came mostly from French (von Jagemann, 71-2). However, this group of words almost undoubtedly contained the /a/ diphthong in Middle English due to the resulting vowel in these words today. <ai, ay, ei, ey> all could represent the phoneme /a/ in Middle English. As discussed above, because of the use of <ei/ey> for this sound some sources claim this sound was actually closer to // in quality by about the year 1500 (Barber, 114). One can wonder whether there is a possibility that /e/ was indeed a phoneme separate from /a/ in Middle English. However, there are many words which one would have expected to have fallen into this category but do not (ie array from Norman French arreie and laid from Old English legde, note the spelling change in the

16

first vowel between the source languages and Modern English) (von Jagemann, 72 and Pyles, 110). This would explain the overlap of use between <a> and <e> as the first character in the diphthong since // was lost as a phoneme in Middle English. Nevertheless, the use of <ei> for Modern English /e/ seems just to be a typographical variant of <ai>. The fact that two of the most common words in this group, vein and rein have homophones of the type vain and rain respectively, could support this. Without the differentiation of the first vowel character rain/rein and vain/vein would be indistinguishable in sound and spelling. Thus, it has become apparent the <ei> in fact has no salient use or purpose in Modern English, being a leftover category for homophones and long dead French vowel sounds. <eu/ew> As done for <au/aw>, since <eu/ew> have nearly identical histories, they will be considered here together. This pair of digraphs was first used in Middle English, representing the diphthong // (Horobin & Smith, 49). There is also some evidence that there was also a distinct // in the Middle English of Chaucer, but it was isolated to a few lexical items, such as fewe few and lewed lewed. However, later on in the Middle English periods the two diphthongs had completely merged into //, thus the rest of their history is shared between them (Horobin & Smith, 67). Today, this diphthong has developed into a /ju:/ vowel (Barber, 112-3). For the most part, after //, /t/, and /d/, this vowel has become a simple /u:/. Thus, words like choose/chews and through/through are homophones, both being /tu:z/ and /u:/, respectively. In American English, this smoothing also occurs after /s/, /t/, /d/ and /l/. Some examples of this are dew and do both being pronounced /du:/ and lute and loot both being

17

pronounced as /lu:t/. However, this diphthongal smoothing is not found in all dialects. In fact, a rather common phenomenon in Welsh English is to retain the /ju:/ vs. /u:/ distinction after all consonants, including //, /t/ and /d/ (Wells, 385-6). In these dialects, speakers use the original /u/-type vowel in these words with the stress on the first part of the diphthong as opposed to the off glide-like quality of the /ju:/ diphthong. Wells notes that the quality of this peculiar diphthong likely came from Welsh; it is a regularly-encountered diphthong in the language. It is normally spelled <iw> and words borrowed from English into Welsh regularly spell these words with an <iw> (Wells, 386). The distribution of words into this category is quite regular: Modern English words with /ju:/ or /u:/ and spelled with a single <u>, <ue>, <eu> or <ew> will contain this / u/ diphthong whilst any word containing /u:/ in Standard English and spelled with an <o>, <oo> or <ou> will retain the pure /u:/ monophthong (The <ue> digraph will be discussed in more detail in its own section below). The above distinction can also be found in a few dialects of the English in Northern England with the same /u/-type vowel, although Wells notes it is extremely rare today (Wells, 359). <ey> Due to the possible non-overlap between <ei> and <ey> in the English spelling system, unlike most of the digraph pairs ending in <i> and <y> these two are considered separately. As opposed to <ei> trading off between representing /e/ and /i:/, when stressed, <ey> is mostly pronounced as the diphthong /e/ (Carney, 317). Some examples of words like this include prey, grey and the exclamation hey. This digraph rarely occurs word-initially and word-medially and when it does it is mostly found in

18

exotic words and sporadic lexical items such as eye and geyser (where they are both pronounced as /a/). As discussed in the above section on <ei>, in Middle English <ey> was one of the four ways to write the diphthong /a/ or // (depending upon the source) (Horobin & Smith, 49). It has already been noted that there does not seem to have been a phonetic distinction between the <ai/ay> spelling and the <ei/ey> spelling in Middle English. Whether or not there ever was a distinction at all in the Middle English period will be left for further research. There is, however, no evidence of a distinction left in any Modern English that has been discovered thus far. Words which contained an <e>-type vowel in Old English or Norman French (such as legde laid and fei faith) can, in Modern English, be spelled with <ai/ay>. <ie> <ie> is a digraph which is very common in todays English. When stressed and word-finally, it almost always represents the diphthong /a/, as in die, tie and lie (Carney, 330). When unstressed and word-finally, it occurs mostly as an alternative to word final <y> and is variously described as having the value of an unstressed vowel, whether it be written // or /i/ (ie cookie, preppie and brownie). When stressed and word-medially, however, <ie> appears most often to represent the long monophthong /i:/, as in brief, thief and pier (Carney, 331). When representing /a/, <ie> is a result of the natural evolution through the Great Vowel Shift of the Middle English long monophthong /i:/ (Barber, 105-6). Often times in Middle English a double vowel was used to indicate the long counterpart of a vowel. However, due to the similarity in writing of minims (small strokes like those in lowercase

19

is, ms and ns) a double <ii> wouldve been confusing to readers in the Middle Ages, thus either a single <i> was written and context would explain itself or a <y> was used instead, (/y(:)/ being recently unrounded to /i:/) (Pyles, 44). The use of <ie> for this vowel seems to be an Early Modern English convention, because in Middle English <ie> was most often used as a variant for the long mid monopthong /e:/ (Barber, 105). This would explain its occurrence as /i:/ in words like brief, thief and pier in Modern English spelling. Although there is no evidence for this, <ie> may have been an early way of maintaining the /:/ vs /e:/ vowel distinction in writing before <ea> came to be used for the more open of the two long vowels. Most of these words it seems were borrowed from French where they contained a /ie/-type diphthong in what was to become Standard French while remaining a simple vowel in Anglo-Norman (von Jagemann, 75-6). Peculiarly, Modern English retained the Anglo-Norman simple vowel sound while still using the Standard French spelling. Needless to say it just seems to be used as a variant of double <ee> in the Middle English period. In regards to using <ie> in an unstressed word final position, sometime in Early Modern English writers developed an aversion for writing <i> word-finally (Pyles, 33). When an unstressed short // sound was found in these positions, a final silent <e> was sometimes added to make a word seem more aesthetically pleasing. This was and still is used as an alternate to the more standard <y> for <i> word-finally. As a result, native English words ending in an <i> are extremely rare and words which do (ie. khaki, pi, sandhi) have a certain exotic feel to them and would almost always be classified in the exotic spelling category discussed above in greater detail. Thus, <ie> seems to have a use for /a/ but not for its other sounds.

20

<oa> This digraph, for the most part, has the value of the diphthong /o/, such as in Modern English boat, coat and foal (Carney, 341-2). Much of the history of the <oa> digraph runs parallel to that of the digraph <ea>. In Middle English, there were two long mid rounded back vowels: /:/ and /o:/ (Horobin & Smith, 48). For most of the Middle English period both of these long vowels were written either as a single <o> in open syllables or as a double <oo> (ie. Both boat and boot could be written as boot) (Pyles, 146-7). The more open of the two monophthongs, /:/, had descended from the Old English low back vowel /:/ while the higher of the two descended from Old English long /o:/. As with <ea>, it was not until the Early Modern English period that these two vowels were distinguished in writing so that <oa> came to represent the more open of the two o-vowels, /o:/ (later /o/, the result of /:/ after the Great Vowel Shift) and <oo> was left to represent the more close of the two (this time /u:/, which had been /o:/ before the Great Vowel Shift). Today, the <oa> digraph has much the same value as the combination <oCe> (the capital C being any consonant). As with all of the <VCe> combinations, however, these long vowels developed from short vowels lengthened in open syllables in the Middle English period (Pyles, 150-1). Thus, we have two main sources of Modern English /o/: Middle English long /:/ (from Old English /:/) and Middle English short // in open syllables. In most Modern English dialects these sounds are identical. However, in some of the traditional dialects of the Northern Midlands of England, this is not the case. The modern reflex of Middle English long /:/ in these dialects is // while the reflex of short // subjected to lengthening is // (Trudgill, 74). Words like

21

bone, loaf and road belong in this first group while words such as coal, coat an d foal belong to this second group. Wells also mentions that certain Standard English /o/-words might have a []-type vowel in these regions (again, including coat and coal so this likely correlates with Trudgills // group) but he does not give an historical explanation for why this is so (Wells, 358). This distinction, unlike many of the others mentioned previously, is actually not distinguished in the written orthography of today. Words like bone, which had a /:/-type long vowel in Old English, are spelled <oCe> in modern English even though one would think the modern reflex would be boan. The reverse is true as well, where words which had a short vowel in Old and Middle English are today spelled with <oa>, such as coat, coal and foal, where one would expect cote, cole, and fole. Thus, it would seem that <oa> and <oCe> could be interchangeable as a result since this distinction is not preserved in the orthography. <oe> The digraph <oe> is peculiar in that it doesnt seem to regularly appear until Early Modern English. Barber lists it in parentheses as a rare spelling in late Middle English (Barber, 105). Like <oa> above, it almost always represents the diphthong /o/ (// in Received Pronunciation British English) (Carney, 352-3). However, it is almost always found word-finally in words which presumably did not have the diphthong // <ou, ow> in Middle English (toe, foe, doe, etc.). In this position, the digraph <oa> is rarely found, except in instances like whoa where the final digraph actually represents a triphthong /o/. The question can thus be raised as to whether <oe> developed as the word-final variant of <oa> in the Early Modern English period. Carney lists it as a variant of <oCe> but with a null consonant (Carney, 352). This is reminiscent to the

22

example of word-final <ie> for /a/ above. No evidence can be found as to why this digraph was chosen as the word-final grapheme instead of just staying with <oa>, especially since <ea> is found in many words word-finally: plea, flea, sea, yea, etc. Perhaps because <ee> was already used for another vowel quality is why the <a> in this digraph couldnt be replaced with another <e> whereas <oe> is a totally new digraph in English orthography. Since as the Modern English era progressed the orthography became more and more inclined to use <e> word-finally in a variety of ways, it seems likely that the birth of <oe> in English spelling could be a result of this proclivity. <oi/oy> As with a few other examples above, <oi> and <oy>, due to their almost indistinguishable history, will be considered here together. <oi> is obviously more common word-initially and internally and <oy> is more common word-finally. This pair of digraphs in Modern English usually represents the diphthong // except in recent French loanwords where it has /w:/ (as in patois, coiffure and boudoir) (Carney, 342 & 349-50). It is one of the few vowel sounds in Modern English which has changed little from the Middle English period. Its sound then was most likely // as well (Horobin & Smith, 49). As mentioned above, there was probably another diphthong in Middle English which <oi> and <oy> represented, namely //. This sound, however, was restricted to a few lexical items such as poynt point and perhaps boil boil (Horobin & Smith, 67). By the time of Chaucer the two had already merged in many dialects of English. There is still debate as to which words contained which sound, but many words seem to have used the two diphthongs interchangeably. Regardless, the two

23

sounds have long been merged in the English of today. There is no evidence whatsoever of any Modern English dialects retaining a distinction between these two sounds. Since they have always been spelled exactly the same, a phonological distinction would not matter much in a discussion about orthography anyway. <ou> One of the most common digraphs in Modern English, <ou> has a multi-faceted history representing many different vowel phonemes throughout the history of English. It was not found in Old English, but was quite common in Middle English orthography. In Middle English in particular, <ou> represented two different vowel phonemes, which are still often confused by readers of today. The first of which was the long monophthong /u:/ (Horobin & Smith, 48). A seemingly peculiar way to spell a long monophthong, the <ou> spelling for this phoneme was derived from French usage at the time (Pyles, 43). This vowel was originally a diphthong /ou/ in older varieties of French and it was smoothed into an /u/ vowel in the Norman dialect (von Jagemann, 834). As in <ie> above, the Standard French spelling <ou> was retained for this sound even though it was phonetically /u:/. The orthography of the long vowel system of Middle English seems a bit asymmetric with the use of <ou> for /u:/ since most of the other long vowels save /i:/ are spelled by doubling the vowel letter (Horobin & Smith, 48). However, a written double <uu> would have undoubtedly caused problems for the average Middle English reader. Horobin & Smith share that oftentimes an <o> was substituted for the short <u> sound when that vowel was surrounded by a series of minims (Horobin & Smith, 47). That is, written <i, m, n, u> all appeared very similar in the writing of that period so it was very common for other vowels to be substituted to

24

make the writing more legible. A digraph such as <uu> would have only made matters worse in this case. It could be perceived as any possible combination of above minims. There is also the possibility of confusion with the labiovelar approximate <w>, which was also introduced into Middle English from French (Horobin & Smith, 62). The literal name of <w>, double-u, is a prime enough example of this since the letter itself was originally a ligature of <uu>. Thus, it can be seen why <ou> was adopted as the standard spelling for Middle English long /u:/ to avoid confusion with other similarlywritten sounds. As a result of the Great Vowel Shift, this /u:/ sound developed into the Modern English /a/ diphthong which can be found in thou, foul and pouch (Barber, 105-6). The <ou> digraph also commonly represents the /o/ diphthong in Modern English (this sound is usually transcribed as // in British English). Some example words are soul, though and poultry. This spelling is directly descended from the Middle English diphthong // (Horobin & Smith, 49). Although it merged with the result of the Middle English long vowel /:/ in the Early Modern English period (typically spelled <oa, oCe>), some dialects still retain this distinction between the two vowel qualities. A more in depth discussion of the phonology of these dialects is discussed above under <oa>. Because of the divide between representing /a/ and /o/, a further examination of <ou> is necessary. When trying to determine the standard sound associated with it, it is impossible to tell by historical precedence: both usages appeared in the Middle English period. In Modern English, the /a/ sound is much more common. In fact, the /o/ usage tends to be restricted to before certain consonants, most notable of which is

25

/l/. Save for possibly a few recent loanwords, <ou> for /o/ seemingly never occurs before any other consonant except for // or /l/, unless there is a syllable boundary (Carney, 348). <ou> for /a/ can occur almost anywhere, even before consonant clusters like /nd/ and /st/ is in found, ground and joust. Thus, Carney lists /a/ as the main pronunciation of <ou> (Carney, 347-8). It cannot be ascertained why <ou> for /o/ is only found in these few specific environments. More research would need to be done in this area for more definite reasons. It should also be noted too that <ou> also stands for /u:/ in many recent loanwords from French such as douche, boutique and soup but they were adapted long after English spelling was standardized and thus had no effect on the development of orthography therein. <ow> The digraph <ow> shares much of the same history has the <ou> digraph above, including the confusion between representing both /a/ and /o/. This spelling in particular is found most frequently word-finally and before <n>, keeping in line with the English tendency not to allow <u> to appear at the end of words (thou being a notable exception to this). However, unlike <ou> above, the divide between /a/ and /o/ has more of an even distribution with <ow>. Even a single word can have multiple pronunciations with different meanings, as evidenced by row (which is pronounced both /o/ and /a/) and bow (which is pronounced both /bo/ and /ba/). Some more examples are know, stow, blow and grow with /o/ and now, how, brow and cow with /a/. Carney lists the /o/ pronunciation as the standard but curiously makes exceptions after <c, h, n, r, v> (ie. cow, how, now, brow and vow) (Carney, 349). This is not set in stone either (exceptions to the exception being show, know and

26

crow). Again, it is futile at this point to determine which sound has historical precedence with this spelling especially since both can be distinctive in various dialects of the British Isles. Either way, <ow> has a definite use in English. <ue> The <ue> digraph appears to be a rather new addition to the English orthography. It is not found in either Old English or Middle English. Horobin & Smith make no reference to it. Thus, one can tentatively assume it only began appearing in written sources in the late Middle English/Early Modern English period when spelling was beginning to be standardized. Barber lists it as being a variant spelling of // in late Middle English (Barber, 112-3). Today it has the sound of /ju:/ or plain /u:/ after consonants where the glide cannot occur, such as the palatal consonants //, /j/, /t/, /d/ and the liquids // and consonant + /l/ (with the addition of the alveolar consonants in American English) (Wells, 206-7). Some examples of this are due, hue, blue and cue. Even though the spelling <ue> has a short history, the sound it represents has a bit of a longer story to share. As mentioned above on pages 6-7, this /ju:/ sound was almost wholly borrowed from French and spelled with a single <u> in words like vertu virtue. The Oxford English Dictionary lists this sound as being pronounced /y:/ but Horobin & Smith make no mention of the phoneme at all, not even referencing it in their diddle on <eu> and <ew> and Figure 1 above does not know of its existence (OED, Page 1 of <u>). Von Jagemann mentions that the Norman French sound was probably a u umlaut but does not say how this was adopted into Middle English (von Jagemann, 86). Barber also lists the <ue> and <uCe> spellings under the phoneme / / (Barber,

27

112). Regardless, by Modern English it had merged with both the /e/ and // phonemes of <eu/ew> to become /ju:/. This /ju:/ glide was simplified after the palatal consonants and liquids, along with the alveolar consonants in American English, thus making do and due homophonous (Wells, 206-7). To learn about dialects in which the /ju:/ diphthong is still maintained in all positions, see the <eu/ew> section above. There is no evidence found by this author dictating that any living dialect of English maintains a phonological distinction between the <u/uCe/ue> spelling and the <eu/ew> spelling for /(j)u:/. Due to the debatable origins of the former sound anyway, this is not at all surprising. There has been no dialect documented that distinguishes due and dew. There is a possible distinction in the Welsh English dialect mentioned above under <eu/ew>, where there is a potential distinction between blue [blu:] and blew [blu], but this is rather as a result of a slow lexical diffusion as opposed to an actual historical distinction (Wells, 386). <ui> The last digraph that will be examined in this thesis is that of <ui>. This is a relatively rare digraph and it is confined to a small set of lexical items that includes fruit, juice, suit, recruit, cruise and bruise where all of them have /u:/ or /ju:/, depending upon the dialect (except before /d/ and /n/ where they are always pronounced as separate vowels ie. fluid and ruin) (Carney, 371). Notice that all of these end with either a /t/ sound or an /s/ or /z/ sound. There are also anomalies like build, guide and guild, but the first example is rather a freak exception (much like that of friend) and the <u> in the latter two is actually a marker to indicate that the <g> is hard before front vowels as opposed to it being a part of a <ui> digraph (Pyles, 40-1).

28

A closer look at the etymological entries of the above words in the Oxford English Dictionary does not shed any light as to the origins of this peculiar spelling. They mostly came from French but did not all have the same vowel phoneme in that language (see OED dictionary entries). An interesting case is presented in bruise, however. It contained a long, front, rounded /y:/ vowel in Old English: brsan. The natural descendant of this sound in Modern English is the /a/ diphthong as a result of /y:/ unrounded into /i:/ in Middle English and then undergoing the Great Vowel Shift. However, /y:/ was not unrounded in all Middle English dialects. In southwestern England the vowel continued to be rounded and was often spelled <u/uCe> after French usage (see <ue> above). For some strange reason that is not entirely understood, the southwestern variants of these words were adopted into the standard language and thus remain as such today (OED entry for bruise). The <ui> spelling appears to have been adopted as sort of a compromise between the southwestern variant and the original in the standard language. There does appear to be any dialects today which distinguish this <ui> sound from its sisters <eu/ew> and <ue> thus it does not seem <ui> has a useful place in English orthography today. Conclusion What hasnt already been said about English orthography? Many attempts, such as NuSpel or Cut Spelling attempt to rectify the irregularities and inconsistencies of English spelling. However, none of these systems make any attempt to distinguish between dialectal differences within English itself. One does not normally think of English as being multi-dialectal like one would German or Italian but within the British Isles, the homeland of the English language, one can find a multitude of different

29

traditional dialects that many people still use as their daily communicative varieties with family members, relatives and close friends. These traditional dialects provide a useful glimpse into the history of the English language and the development of English orthography and phonology. As it can be seen from the preceding analyses, English orthography has had quite an interesting and varied history for it to get to its current state today. A lot of the seemingly idiosyncratic spelling conventions in Modern English often derive from actual phonological distinctions present in earlier periods of English history. However, even taking this into account, a few of the regular digraphs found in Modern English do not have a particular historical purpose in English as it specifically relates to English itself. These, as deemed by the author, would be <ei>, <ey>, <ue> and <ui>. <ie> and <oe> are debatable as well. Obviously this is extraordinarily subjective, but it is certainly a start that hopefully other linguists can take into account when attempting to create a new spelling system for English or even just for coming up with an accurate historical account of the phonology and orthography of it. Yes, the vast majority of dialects of Modern English do not retain the majority of the phonological distinctions discussed. However, the important point being made is that having sorted out the historical English spellings versus the non-historical English spellings, much can be understood about the evolution of our language and what we can expect of it in the future.

30

Bibliography
Barber, Charles. Early Modern English. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Print. Carney, Edward. A Survey of English Spelling. London: Routledge, 1994. Print. Cook, Vivian. The English Writing System. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004. Print. Horobin, Simon & Jeremy Smith. An Introduction to Middle English. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Kjoonlee. Great Vowel Shift. Chart. Wikipedia. 16 Dec. 2007. Web. 22 July 2011. Pyles, Thomas. The Origins and Development of the English Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964. Print. Trudgill, Peter. Language in the British Isles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print. U. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 1971. Print. von Jagemann, Hans C. G. On the Relation of the Anglo-Norman Vowel System to the Norman words in English. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896) Vol. 15 (1884): 66-87. Web. 18 Dec. 2011. Wells, J.C. Accents of English. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Print.

31