ABSTRACT As the vernacular was re-assigned the functions that Latin fulfilled in the Middle Ages, close comparisons between these two languages stressed the urgent need for the standardisation of English. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England saw the rise of codification and prescriptivism, two stages in the standardisation process that succeeded the selection, diffusion and acceptance of certain linguistic forms. A large number of works were published within the umbrella of codification, including grammars, spelling lists, pronouncing dictionaries or linguistic treatises, each targeting different areas of the language. James and Leslie Milroy (2012: 57) claim that ‘just as dictionaries prescribe uniquely correct spellings, so handbooks of usage prescribe uniquely correct grammatical constructions’, thus establishing a parallelism between the two. Most dictionaries published during the Early and Late Modern periods declare themselves prescriptive in their aims to provide the ‘True-spelling’ (Preston 1674: title page) of the English language, as if there was a false or fake alternative, thus vetoing all other orthographic variants. However, there arises an issue in this endeavour: spelling had become widely standardised by the time these dictionaries were available, except for some of the remnants of variation that continue to exist today. This paper addresses the standardisation of colour- and theatre-type words in historical British English for the purpose of assessing the impact that linguistic prescription had, if any, on the speakers’ spelling habits. As a corpus-based study, the analysis relies on a close comparison of usage and precept that draws correspondences between these two dimensions of language.
Read full abstract