The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English: A sociohistorical-linguistic approach [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9783111404820, 9783111041353

Citation preview

The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-century English

Geschiedenis van de Taalkunde De serie heeft tot doel publicaties op het gebied van de geschiedenis van de taalkunde, die t h a n s veelal verspreid worden gepubliceerd, in één reeks bijeen te brengen. De serie Staat in beginsel open voor publicaties op het gebied van de geschiedenis van de taalkunde in de ruimste zin van het woord, zoals monografieèn, lexica, artikelenbundels, tekstedities en facsimileuitgaven.

Redactie Harm Klifman Jan Noordegraaf Els Ruijsendaal

Reeds versehenen in deze serie: 1. H. Klifman Studies op het gebied van de vroegnieuwnederlandse

triviumtraditie

2. J.A. le Loux-Schuringa Samenhangrelaties in de 19e-eeuwse zinsgrammatica 3. J. Noordegraaf Norm, geest en geschiedenis. 4. R. Salverda Leading conceptions

Nederlandse

in linguistic

in

Nederland

taalkunde in de negentiende

theory

5. Jelle Kaldewaij Structuralisme en Transformationeel

Generatieve

1550/1650

Grammatica

eeuw

The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-century English A Sociohistorical-linguistic Approach Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

1987 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht-Holland/Providence-U.S.A.

Published

by:

Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 A M Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor

for the U.S.A.

and

Canada:

Foris Publications USA, Inc. P.O. Box 5 9 0 4 Providence Rl 0 2 9 0 3 U.S.A.

CIP-DATA Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid The Auxiliary Do In Eighteenth-century English: a Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach/ Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. - Dordrecht [etc.]: Foris. - (Geschiedenis van de Taalkunde; 6) With ref. ISBN 90-6765-339-X SISO enge 836.1 UDC 8 0 2 . 0 " 1 7 " Subject heading: eighteenth-century English; sociolinguistics.

ISBN 90 6765 339 X © 1987 Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd e n / o f openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotocopie, microfilm of op welke andere wijze ook, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in The Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

This study wae originally written as a Ph.D. thesis for the University of Leiden, under the supervision of Professor H.E. Osselton from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Arguments for undertaking the present study 1.2. Approach and presentation Botes

4 7

Chapter- 2. The Types of Language Analysed 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The concept of style 2.3. The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century poetry 2.4. The types of language investigated 2.5. Direct speech and the spoken language 2.6. The authors studied 2.7. The corpus 2.8. Conclusion Notes

1

9 9

13 16 18 20 21 25 29

Chapter 3. The Ten Constructions Encountered 3.1. Introduction 31 3.2. Present-day English usage 31 34 3.3. Identification of the ten constructions 3.4. A syntactical and historical description of the ten constructions 35 3.4. 1 . TYPE 1 . Do-less negative sentences: I question not but ... 35 3.4.2. TYPE 2. Do- less questions: How like you . . .? 39 3.4.3. TYPE 3. Subject-verb inversion without do: e.g. nor Indeed know we . . . 43 3.4.4. TYPE 4. JTot+finite: I not like him 45 47 3.4.5. TYPE 5. Plain unemphatic do: I did call . . . 51 3.4.6. TYPE 6. Dotadverbial+infinitive: I do firmly believe . .. 3.4.7. TYPE 7. Exclamatory how/what sentences: What 53 dreadful days do we live in ... 55 3.4.8. TYPE 8. If-less conditional clauses: did I see . . . 3.4.9. TYPE 9. Adverbials as clause openers: most 56 sincerely do I condole with you 3.4.10. TYPE 10. Clauses opening with a foregrounded object: These great Things does Season ... da 57 3.5. Conclusion 53 Notes 60 Chapter 4. The Use and ion—use of the Auxiliary 4.1. Introduction 4.2. A description of the corpus 4.2.1. Addison a. INFORMATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.2. Boswell a. INFORMATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.3. Burke a. INFORMATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE

Do

63 67 67 68 69 70 72 73 73 73 74 75 75 vil

Table of Contents

4.2.4.

a. INFORMATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.5. Defoe a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.6. Fielding a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.7. Gibbon a. ISFORKATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE 4.2.8. Goldsmith a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.9. Johnson a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE 4.2.10. Lady Kary Vortley Xontagu a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE o. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.11. Paine a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE 4.2.12. Richardson a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.13. Smollett a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.14. Steele a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE c. DIRECT SPEECH 4.2.15. Swift a. IHFORXATIVE PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE 4.2.16. Valpole a. IHFORXATIVB PROSE b. EPISTOLARY PROSE 4.3. Tendencies In usage 4.3.1. Periphrasis in the not+adverbial construction (if they did not always use) 4.3.2. The verb in do-less sentences with subject-verb inversion (TYPE 3: nor indeed know we ...) 4.3.3. The colloquial nature of the aot+finite construction (TYPE 4: I not like Aia) 4.3.4. The auxiliary do in affirmative declarative sentences (plain unemphatlc do, TYPE 5: I did call ...) 4.3.5. Adverbial fillers in the dot-adverbial+infinitive construction (TYPE 6: I do firnly believe ...) 4.3.6. A classification of the exclamatory how/what sentences (TYPE 7: What dreadful days do we Jive in ... > 4.3.7. The tense of the finite in if-less conditional clauses (TYPE 8: did I see ...) 4.3.8. Clause-opening adverbials in periphrastic affirmative sentences (TYPE 9: oost sincerely do I condole with you) 4.3.9. Foregrounded objects in periphrastic affirmative sentences with subject-verb inversion (TYPE 10: These great Things does Season . . . do) 4.3.10. The oral or literate nature of sentences with subject-verb inversion vili

Fanny Burney

76 76 77 79 80 80 82 82 84 84 86 87 87 89 90 91 91 92 94 95 96 98 101 101 102 104 105 106 109 110 112 114 115 117 117 118 118 119 121 122 122 122 123

Table of Contents

4.4. Conclusion notes Chapter 5. The Auxiliary Do In Infornative Prose 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Do-less negative sentences 5.2.1. Frequency of occurrence 5.2.2. Verbs In the do-less negative sentences 5.3. Do-less questions 5.3.1. Frequency of occurrence 5.3.2. Verbs in the do-less questions 5.3.3. Vh and yes/no questions 5.3.4. Positive and negative questions 5.3.5. Transitive and intransitive questions 5.3.6. Periphrasis in questions with pronominal subject 5.4. Development In the occurrence of do-less negative sentences and questions 5.5. Stylistic and sociolingulstic variables 5.5.1. Genre 5.5.2. Age, sex, regionality and socio-economic class 5.5.3. Audience 5.6. Conclusion Botes Chapter 6. The Auxiliary Do In Epistolary Prose 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Do-less negative sentences 6.2.1. Frequency of occurrence 6.2.2. Verbs in the do-less negative sentences 6.3. Do-less questions 6.3.1. Frequency of occurrence 6.3.2. Verbs in the do-less questions 6.3.3. Vh-questions and yes/no questions 6.3.4. Positive and negative questions 6.3.5. Transitive and intransitive questions 6.3.6. Periphrasis in questions with pronominal subject 6.4. Development in the occurrence of do-less negative sentences and questions 6.5. Stylistic and sociolingulstic variables 6.6. Conclusion lotes

123 126 127 127 127 12S 131 131 132 133 133 134 134 135 138 139 141 150 151 154 157 157 157 158 161 161 161 162 163 163 164 165 168 170 172

Chapter 7. The Auxiliary Do In the Language of Direct Speech 7.1. Introduction 173 7.2. Do-less negative sentences 173 7.2.1. Frequency of occurrence 173 7.2.2. Verbs in the do-lees negative sentences 174 7.3. Do-less questions 176 7.3.1. Frequency of occurrence 176 7.3.2. Verbs in the do-less questions 177 7.3.3. Vh-questions and yes/no questions 178 7.3.4. Positive and negative questions 178 7.3.5. Transitive and intransitive questions 179 7.3.6. Periphrasis in questions with pronominal subject 179 ix

Table of Contents

7.4. Development In tie occurrence oi do-less negative sentences and questions 7.5. Direct speech and the spoken language 7.6. Conclusion Hotes Chapter

8. A Stylistic Comparison Language Analysed 8.1. Introduction 8.2. A synchronic comparison 8.2.1. Do-less negative sentences 8.2.2. Do-less questions 8.3. A dlachronlc comparison 8.4. Conclusion Botes

between

the Three

180 182 185 186 Types

of 187 187 187 191 195 197 201

Chapter 9. The Grammarians' Descriptions of the Auxiliary Do 9.1. Introduction 203 9.2. The auxiliary do in sixteenth and seventeenth-century grammars 203 9.3. The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century grammars (I) 204 9.3.1. Negative sentences 204 9.3.2. Questions 207 9.4. The auxiliary do In eighteenth-century grammars (II) 209 9.4.1. Plain unemphatic do 209 9.4.2. Emphatic do 212 9.4.3. Dotadverbial+infinitive 213 9.4.4. Subject-verb inversion 214 9.4.5. Do as a pro-verb 217 217 9.5. The grammatical description of do and its relation to usage 9.6. Conclusion 221 Hotes 224 Chapter Hotes

10. Conclusion

Appendix 1. Primary Sources A. The eighteenth-century texts analysed for the corpus B. Other texts referred to

227 233 235 239

Appendix 2. Grammars and Other Works on the English Language A. The sixteenth and seventeenth-century grammatical works referred to in Chapter 9 241 B. The eighteenth-century grammars and other works on the English language analysed in Chapter 9 242 C. The eighteenth-century grammatical works quoted by Vlsser (1969) 244 Bibliography

245

Index of lanes

251

x

Chapter 1.

Introduction

1.1. Arguments for

undertaking

tie

present

study

The present study seeks to investigate the use - as well as, inevitably, the non-use - of the auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English. Though much has been written on the subject of such as Engblom century

in

opinion

that

the auxiliary