Semantic opacity

The most important dimension in this respect undoubtedly concerns the semantics of words. The situation in this case is, as a whole, even more opaque due to the constraints of the given linguistic conditions. Thus, it is indicative that so far there has been no reliable dictionary for the Old English age. The extensive DOE (1986 pp.) has just been initiated and, therefore, for the time being we still depend on the quite unspecific MCOE (1980), i.e. we have to rely on our own investigations. The semantic openness which is revealed here, first of all, concerns the present-day reader and linguist, as one can easily imagine the difficulties in finding the exact meaning of Old English words if one considers that the semantic investigation of words basically works only with the help of context analysis and that comparative etymological observations or cross-connections to words which possibly exist in modern English can often give only approximate, if not dangerous support.

Moreover, there have been no comprehensive surveys of Old English vocabulary so far. In contrast to this, a number of studies have been presented on individual words or lexical fields, which are, however, based on doubtful methodological grounds (Kastovsky 1992: 400-408). It is even very difficult to determine the exact content of frequently occurring expressions such as wyrd, dom or lof (Mitchell 1995: 246). This is certainly also due to the fact that these and similar basic concepts in Old English are subject to different ideological connotations (heathen or Christian or a mixture of both). Another difficulty arises from the fact that the use and the content of Old English words in prose texts on the one hand and in poetic texts on the other hand often seem to differ fundamentally, as can be shown by a word like lēod in Beowulf (Jack 1994: 48). In addition to this, there are quite a number of words of which evidence can only be found in Old English poetry (Jack 1994: 18). The special character of Old English poetry, whose formal character is, among other things, expressed by the so-called "variation", needs to be regarded in this context. This device consists in paraphrasing the nature of an object, person or the like in ever new ways, in conveying a total impression which is generally difficult to determine, as it is full of allusions and associations, sometimes repetitive, sometimes synonymically or semantically progressive, yet hardly ever referring to contents which can be exactly described. A well-known example is Caedmon's hymn of creation, which lists the name of God in nine lines in a total of seven different ways, but which are semantically difficult to determine: heofonrīces Weard (1), Meotodes meahte (2), Wuldorfœder (3), ëce Drihten (4, 8), hālig Scyppend (6), moncynnes Weard (7), Frëa œlmihtig (9) (Mitchell 1995: 264). This procedure is reinforced and thus becomes semantically more open by the fact that the unknown poets consistently contrive an abundance of new compounds, which are not always transparent. In this context, a special problem arises primarily in Old English poetry by the quite frequently occurring "hapax legomena". These are words which are recorded only once and, of course, are thus very difficult to interpret. The reasons for the occurrence of such words can never be completely established, yet they may have been caused by faulty or deficient tradition or often by a conscious procedure aiming at the use of archaic and opaque sounding words. Such expressions occur, for example, again and again in Beowulf. What is the meaning of ealuscerwen (769), lemede (905), unhlitme (1129), woroldrœdenne (1142), hēafodsegn (2152), œppelfealuwe (2165) (Jack 1994)? Considering this general linguistic situation, it is not astonishing that even famous works of Old English poetry are still awaiting their comprehensive edition. This is true, for instance, for Beowulf, which was last authoritatively edited by Klaeber (1950).

If one keeps in mind that the users of Middle English were never aware of their linguistic identity, that English at that time was virtually a language without a past, that even the great literary heritage was never fostered with just a few exceptions in the Late Middle Ages (e.g. the works of Chaucer), then one can understand why the Middle English word also lacked firm contours (Blake 1977: 80-100). At the same time typical problems for Middle English vocabulary~ ensue as a consequence of the particular political circumstances. It is known that the official language culture in England was dominated by Latin and French, languages that slowly infiltrated the indigenous idiom. What follows from written sources proves that a very different degree of integration and knowledge of the new vocabulary prevailed with Middle English speakers or writers. Native words possessed contents very difficult to determine, especially when they were in a synonymous relationship to French and/or Latin loanwords. In addition, the question arises in individual cases as to how far these loan-words were congruent in meaning to the original meaning of the borrowed words. This holds all the more considering that only a fraction of the Middle English population had a basic command of Latin and French, and in view of the fact that numerous loan-words, moreover, sounded similar in both Latin and French, confusion was always possible here. Usually, the only reliable lexicon of Middle English, the rather far-advanced MED (1952ff), can scarcely help in overcoming these difficulties. We can illustrate this situation with many examples. What does Chaucer mean, for example, in his famous General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales, when he talks of licour (1. 3) in connection with the beneficial qualities of spring rain? The circumstances in other texts are far more complicated, for instance the texts of the alliterative revival Whoever looks closely at the elaborate and in part very sophisticated vocabulary, for example of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, will confirm this observation (Davis 1967: 138-143). It is highly questionable whether the small elitist circle, for whom this poetry was written, was aware of all the different meanings of the words used. Finally, it is very difficult to identify clearly particular semantic connotations of Middle English~ words, especially when they are borrowings. As a compensation and corrective for the semantic indefiniteness of Middle English words~ and their comparative lack of precision in regard to their use, Blake observes (1977: 97-100) a tendency toward repetition in Middle English (also Old English texts), which is not to be overlooked even if this phenomenon has still other causes.

From the middle of the 14th Century on, the so-called aureate diction begins to make headway in Middle English texts. It includes large parts of the literature of the time and involves the use of polysyllabic, rare and artificial words of Latin and French origin, and is to be detected among almost all the writers and poets of the era. This style intensifies the foreignness and indefiniteness of many texts and words, which must have confronted the reader/listener of that time with the same problems of understanding as the present-day reader. A stanza from Lydgate's Balade in Commendation of Our Lady may illustrate this (Norton-Smith 1966: 25-29, 1. 57-63):

The quite incomprehensible mode of expression here is a convention of the time found everywhere. A corresponding development can even be traced in Middle English prose, especially in technical prose texts on law, administration, theology and medicine that are interspersed with many Latinisms. For Middle English, then, the same state of research now arises as for Old English: with the exception of scattered studies focusing on individual words, there is a lack till now of an overall account of Middle English vocabulary. This is not surprising in view of the great extent of semantic openness and indefiniteness of Middle English words~ .