BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Misreading and language change: a foray into cognitive historical
linguistics? - Sylvia Adamson (University of Sheffield\, University of Cam
bridge)
DTSTART:20161201T163000Z
DTEND:20161201T183000Z
UID:TALK68748@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Valentina Colasanti
DESCRIPTION:One of the consequences of the sociolinguistic turn in histori
cal linguistics has been a revisiting and revaluation of the status of pre
scriptive grammar. The Milroys' argument that 'when we view language as fu
ndamentally a social phenomenon\, we cannot then ignore prescription and i
ts consequences' (Milroy & Milroy\, 1985:11) has been developed and amplif
ied since 2000 by studies that actively challenge traditional binarisms of
'descriptive vs prescriptive' rules of grammar and 'natural vs unnatural'
kinds of language-change. More ambitiously\, Curzan has proposed the goal
of 'integrating' prescriptivism 'into the study of ‘language change’
in the history of English' (Curzan 2014:9)\n Methodologically\, much of th
is revisionist work has concentrated on examining the relation between pre
cept and practice to find out whether prescriptivism does actually impact
on usage (as usage is reflected in individual or socially representative c
orpora). But there is ample evidence to suggest that speakers' usage is by
no means an accurate guide to their internalised grammar. How then do we
create a window into cognition? Where can we look for empirical evidence t
hat a change of usage reflects an internalised change of grammar? \n This
paper explores the possible usefulness of data drawn from acts of misreadi
ng. I will distinguish between two types of misreading recognised as analy
tic tools in other disciplines\, the first as a tool of Freudian psychoana
lysis (and literary theory)\, the second as a tool of textual criticism/re
construction. It is the second that seems to me of potential interest to h
istorical linguists.\n In textual criticism\, the term banalisation<
/i> refers to the hypothesis that any copyist (whether scribe\, printe
r or quoter) when faced with the linguistically deviant/unexpected will si
mplify the text\, usually by defaulting to some more conventional norm of
expression. So given the choice between two variant readings\, the textual
critic is advised to prefer the one that is prima facie more problematic
(lectio difficilior potior). If we transfer the notion of banalisat
ion to historical linguistics\, it amounts to a hypothesis along the follo
wing lines: at any given historical moment\, speakers are overwhelmingly h
abituated to the form of the language which they themselves have internali
sed\, so that when encountering texts from earlier and different varieties
of the language\, they are liable to default to construals compatible wit
h their own. If this is the case\, then the value of misreadings is that t
hey can give us insight into the grammatical presuppositions and expectati
ons of historical readers\, including the degree to which they have intern
alised new rules of grammar (whether 'natural' or 'artificial' in origin).
\n The case-study I have selected to illustrate this approach – the reg
ulation of relative and personal pronouns in the 18th century - has its o
wn independent interest as a chapter in the history of what Poussa christe
ned the Great Gender Shift in English (often summarised as the evolution '
from grammatical to natural gender'). The formal stages of this developmen
t are well-known but our understanding of 18th century developments has be
en bogged down by the prescriptivist vs descriptivist controversy. If the
evidence of banalisation can help us to bypass this controversy\, it might
open the way for more interesting questions about the nature of 'the pron
oun' as a part of speech and about the way certain pronouns changed their
meaning/function between Early Modern and Late Modern periods. \n
LOCATION:GR04\, English Faculty\, 9 West Road (Sidgwick Site)
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR