If the first syllable happened to be a verbal prefix,it remained unstressed;a nominal prefix would receive the stress.For example;ho′nour “honour”,co′rage “courage”,nature “nature”,pre′sent(v),present(n).
In the course of time the borrowed forms from French changed their stress from a final stress (which later developed into an equal stress for all syllables in Modern French) to the more common initial stress typical of all Germanic words in English. Thus words like punish, manner which had original stress on the second syllable came to be stressed on the first syllable and retained this into Modern English. Note that initial stress in English refers to the first syllable of a word stem. This has meant that words like conversion, depletion which are French loans with original final stress came to be pronounced with stress on the second syllable as this was regarded as the stem syllable. With disyllabic words the stress may thus remain on the final syllable for the reason just outlined, cf. revert, review, conduct,precede. Later on an independent development in English is to be noted whereby verbs and nouns of French origin are distinguished when they are segmentally similar by virtue of different stress. Here initial stress is characteristic of nouns while final stress is used for verbs, cf. convert, convert; conduct, conduct. The principle outlined here are not watertight, however, that is one finds initial stress on apparent prefixes in words like precedence and no difference in stress between disyllabic nouns and verbs in pairs like review, review; address, address.
3.2.The French Influence on Middle English Spelling.
English spelling was,to say the least,quite imperfect before the Normans arrived.Their spelling,however,plus the real French spelling,which was sometimes different, helped greatly to increase this imperfection.If pressed, I could understand the reasoning behind new English words borrowed from the French being spelled like the French would spell them.I can even accept new words created by the French in England being spelled the French way.
We must say a few words on the question how far the rapid simplification of the declension and conjugation in the twelfth and succeeding centuries was an effect of the Norman conquest. The view once universally held, and still entertained by many persons, that the establishment of Norman rule was the main cause by which this change was brought about, is now abandoned by all scholars. We have seen that, in the north of England, the movement towards a simpler grammatical system had made no small progress a hundred years before duke William landed; and the causes to which this movement was due were such as could not fail to be increasingly effective. The intimate mixture of Danish and native populations in the north and over a great part of the midlands must, no doubt, have had a powerful influence in reinforcing the tendencies to change that already existed. So far as these districts are concerned, it is not too much to say that the history of English grammar would have been very nearly what it actually was if the Conquest had never taken place. It is peculiarly worthy of note that the southern dialect, which we would expect to be most affected by the French influence, and which, with regard to vocabulary, certainly was so, was, of all dialects of Middle English, the most conservative in its grammar.And there is good reason to believe that, even in the south, the spoken language had travelled a considerable distance towards the Middle English stage before the fateful date A.D. 1066.Only twenty years after the Conquest, the Norman scribes of Domesday Book, writing phonetically and without influence from English tradition, spell local and personal names in a way which shows that the oral language had undergone certain changes that do not regularly manifest themselves in native writings until much later. And some of the charters of the time of Edward the Confessor, which exhibit modernisms that are commonly attributed to the scribes of the late MSS. in which they are preserved, are, probably, less altered from their original form than is generally imagined.
This presentation takes off from the point of view that very little has been attempted to localise the origin or provenance of medieval French texts ascertained to have been produced in England, on account of the fact that such linguistic material has been essentially characterised as 'insular', or as 'having distinctive features of Western continental dialects'.It would seem,however, that the situatedness of the French of England could beenvisioned with slightly more precision.The manuscript context has long revealed that a substantial portion of such material occurs in close association with texts in English.With a lot of necessary caution, the need for a correlated approach to French and English is therefore argued, on the inspiring basis of the conditions under which Middle English dialectology has been developing recently. The results of Middle English dialectal studies encourage the emergence of a 'correlated dialectology' of insular languages,and we shall attempt to make out and discuss some of the main operative categories of 'profiling' for insular French texts, in terms of scribal features and what they reveal about the 'forme of speche' (as Chaucer has it) of the French language. My view is essentially that of a young scholar working principally on aspects of book production and manuscript circulation in England between the later 13th and later 15th centuries; however, in line with the proposed focus on language issues for this workshop, a linguistic approach will be privileged, in connection with French and English manuscript data observable in some multilingual 14th-century manuscripts. Anglo-Norman had on Standard English spelling - not a subject that linguists usually find terribly interesting (spelling, that is, not Anglo-Norman!). Not only has much Anglo-Norman and Medieval Latin wordstock ended up as Standard English, but a multiplicity of spellings-per-phoneme have become codified.The mixed-language business text-type was a source of many of the spelling variants that entered the late Middle English pool, due its dependence on mixing Anglo-Norman, Medieval Latin and English writing conventions, as well as its non-ephemeral function. This may sound uncontroversial enough, but detailing the mechanism by which it happened is a challenge.
Let’s briefly outline the text-type of medieval mixed-language business writing in London, and to look at spellings for some common words. The process of elimination of variants preceded that of selection of a single variant (be it orthographical, lexical or morphological) into the Standard - this sounds obvious, but again, the mechanism is not particularly well understood. In fact, what often happened for a given spelling is that variants were discarded in the late fifteenth century, but the single remaining variant was not the one that subsequently became incorporated into Standard written English. Thus,the two processes, elimination and selection, were separate.
Anglo-Norman hugely influenced the development of Standard English in lexis and in orthography.Bridges are and were complex constructions, not least because by definition they were either in or adjacent to water, and because structural failure had spectacular and disastrous consequences. The proximity of water virtually guaranteed a constant maintenance problem.At the same time, bridges were political, military, commercial and economic assets, since they could be used for defensive purposes as well as for the collection of tolls and rents. They are thus relatively well documented.On the one hand are various "high level" documents where(for example) the burgesses of towns or local magnates solicit royal assistance or royal permission to levy tolls and so forth.These, typically, are monolingual. But those documents regarding more immediate, practical matters like construction and repairs are routinely multilingual,both in England and elsewhere in those numerous regions of medieval Europe where more than one language was in use.Precise technical instructions needed to be given to local, probably monolingual workmen, but often on the authority of their social superiors who were themselves doubtless either polyglot, or monolingual but in a different and more prestigious language.
During several centuries after the Norman Conquest the business of writing was in hands of French scribes.They introduced into English some peculiarities of French graphic habits.Traces of French traditions in writing have stayed on in English to the present day.First of all we must note some changes in the alphabet.
Several letters typical of OE gradually came out of use,and some new ones were introduced.The alphabet of the 14th century is basically the same that is in use in our days.
The letter ʒ,which was used in OE to denote several distinct consonant phonemes
is gradually replaced by the letters “g” and “y”.Thus,OE ʒōd now appears as gōd,and the OE ʒēar as yēr.
The ligature “æ” also comes into disuse in ME. This change accompanies the phonetic change of short “æ” into “a“(and in some dialects into e) and that of long æ into ē.The new letters introduced during the ME period are all consonantal.The letter “g” (as hinted above) is introduced to denote the sound [g] as in “god” also the sound [dʒ] as in “singe”.
The sound [dʒ] is also denoted (in words of French origin) by the letter “j”,as in joy,judge,June.The letter “v” is introduced to denote the consonant [v],which in ME became a separate phoneme.However,this letter soon came to be treated as an allograph of the letter”u”,which had been in use since the earliest OE times.The allograph“u” and “v” became interchangeable.Thus,we can find the following spel-
lings in ME MSS;over;ouer;use;vse;love;loue,etc.
The letter “q”, always accompanied by “u”, is introduced to denote either the consonant [k],as in quay,or the cluster [kw],as in quarter or queen.In the latter case it replaces OE cw.
The letter “z” is introduced to denote the consonant [z],which in ME became a separate phoneme.However,the letter “z” is not used systematically.It does appear in such words as zēl “zeal”,Zephyrus,”Zephir”,but the sound [z] is still spelt “s”in
chēsen,”choose”, “lōsen” “lose” and in many others.
Next we come to changes in spelling habits.
In the sphere of vowels French influence made itself felt in the following point:
1.The sound [u:],which was represented by the letter “u”in Old English,came to be spelt “ou”,the way it was spelt in French.This French spelling was due to the fact that in Old French the diphthong [ou] had changed into [u:] but the spelling had remained the same.From borrowed French words such as “trouble,couch”;this spelling was transferred to native English words:hous(OE hūs);out(OE ūt);loud(OE hlūd),etc.In final position,and occasionally in medial position as wll,instead of “ou” the spelling “ow” was introduced:cow (OE cū); how (OE hū);
down(OE dūn),etc.
2.The vowel [u] is often represented by the letter “o”.In many modern grammars this “o” is accompanied by a tack:ŏ.This spelling is probably partly due to graphic considerations.The letter “o” denoting [u] is found mainly in the neighbourhood of such letters as “u”(v),n,m,that is,letters consisting of vertical strokes.A long series of vertical strokes might be confusing: thus,it might be hard to distinguish between cume,cmue,cimie,etc.Replacing “u”by “o” would avoid this difficulty.
Another factor favouring the introduction of the letter “o” to denote [u] might be the narrow quality of Anglo-Norman [o], which was close to [u]. Examples: come
[′kumə](OE cuman),som [sum](OE sum),sone [′sunə] (OE sunu),love [′luvə] (OE lufu),bigonne [bi′gunə] (OE onʒunnen-second participle of the verb onʒinnan).
3.The vowel [e:] is sometimes denoted by the diagraph “ie”.In Old French this diagraph had originally denoted the diphthong [ie],which in Anlo-Norman changed into [e] in the 12th century,the spelling remaining the same.
From French loan words like chief [tʃe:f],relief [re′le:f] this spelling penetrated into native English words like “field [fe:ld] (OE feld),thief [Өe:f], relief [re′le:f]
This spelling penetrated into native English words like “field [fe:ld](OE feld),thief [Өe:f] (OE þeof),life [le:f](lēaf).
4.To denote the vowel [ü] in the dialects where it was preserved the letter “u” was used ,as in fur “fire”(OE fўr).
In the sphere of consonants French spelling also had some influence.
1.The spellings þ and ð for the sounds [Ө] and [ð] were gradually superseded by the diagraph “th”:this for OE þis,three for OE þrēo.
2.For the consonant [v],which had been a mere positional variant of the [f] phoneme in OE and which in ME became a separate phoneme,the letter “v” was introduced.As “v” was considered to be merely an allograph of “u”,both allographs could be used indiscriminately: over,ouer (OE ofer), love,loue (OE lufu): in French words:very,avengen.
3. The affricate [tʃ] was denoted by the diagraph “ch”: from such French loan -
words as “chair,chambre” it penetrated into native English words: techen “teach”, “child”,etc.The corresponding voiced affricate [dʒ] was spelt in the French way either j,g or dg:joy,courage,bridge.
4.The consonant [ʃ] was spelt “sh” and sometimes “sch”:ship,schip,shal,schal.
5.The consonant [χ] was first spelt ʒ,and later “gh”:liʒt,light, niʒt,night, riʒt,right,
brouʒte,broughte.
6.The letter “c” when denoting the consonant [k] was replaced by the letter “k” before e,i and also before n:drinken (OE drincan),king (OE cyninʒ),knōwen (OE cnāwan).This was due to the fact that the letter “c” before “e” or “I” would suggest the pronunciation [s].It should be noted that the letter was widely used in OE,for example in pronoun “ki” “who” (Modern French spelling qui).
7.The cluster [kw] was spelt “qu” instead of Old English “cw”,as in quellen “kill (OE cwellan),quethen “say” (OE cweþan).
8.The consonant [j],which in Old English was spelt ʒ,now came to be spelt ‘y’:yēr,
year(OE ʒēar),yet (OE ʒiet),ye “you”(OE ʒē).
Besides these features,due to French influence,ME spelling has some more peculiarities,which have partly been preserved down to the present day.
It became a habit in ME to replace final –I by –y.The motive was purely graphic, “y” being more ornamental than “i”,and eventually this became one of the most characteristic features of English spelling.In MnE there are only a few words ending in –i :rabbi,taxi,and a few plural forms of Latin words,such as bacilli and genii.The letter “y” was also often used instead of “i” in medium position:ryden (OE rīdan),wryten (OE wrītan).This habit did not survive.
Similarly,the letter “u” when final was replaced by “w”,which was more ornamental.Again words ending in –u in MnE are very few:you,thou,gnu,emu.
The use of “ou” and “ow” to denote long [u:] resulted in ambiguity,which is still felt in English spelling. The diagraph “ow” could also denote the diagraph [ou].When it came to be used for [u:],the result was two series of words:one with [ou],slow,snow,crow,low,the other with [u:]:cow,now,down.
On the whole ME spelling is far from uniform.Purely phonetic spellings mix with French spelling habits and also with traditions inherited from OE. Besides,
There are differences between dialects in this respect, too French scribal practice is behind the spelling -ough which in Middle English indicated the pronunciation
/-u:x/ or /-oux/. Because of later phonetic developments this spelling came to be one of the most notorious cases of incongruence between pronunciation and orthography in Modern English as it can represent at least seven different sound sequences as seen from the following random set: plough /-au/, cough /-ɒf/, although /-əʊ/, hiccough /-ʌp/,thorough /-ə/ (unstressed), through /-u:/, rough /-ʌf/.
Another feature of French spelling which affected Old English words was the use of final -e. This was added to English words to show that the vowel of the previous syllable was long, as in ice (from OE is).This ‘discontinuous sequence’ is used very much in Modern English to keep original short and long vowels apart graphically, e.g. pan and pane, ban and bane.