ENGLISH LITERARY SOCIETY OF JAPAN CONFERENCE, TOKYO UNIVERSITY, MAY 2009

Middle English and Anglo-Norman in Contact
Richard Ingham, School of English, Birmingham City University
richard.ingham@bcu.ac.uk
Anglo-Norman: some ‘internet myths’
1. ‘Anglo-Normans had an active command of Middle English, which had
become, by the end of the twelfth century, their first language. From the 1160s, vernacular
French had been declining and by 1180 formal, grammatical French had become a second,acquired language. By the early 13th century, formal and grammatical French had been reduced
to a second language, a tongue of acquisition, in England. The primer of Walter de Bibbesworth(1250x1260), produced for Lady Denise de Montchesney, assumed that knightly families spoke
English and some French, but would want to learn a more syntactical French.’
FACT: Bibbesworth’s poem teaches lexis, not syntax. Its morphosyntax is insular, not continental French.
2. ‘In the 13th and early 14th centuries there was an escalation of French literature and prestige.
French became swank and was a distinct marker of ambition and class. However, the parallel
growth industry of teaching French (French textbooks and teaching manuals) tells us that most
French speakers were not, in fact, native. Middle and upper class students who wanted to join theprestigious ranks of politicians, lawyers, judges, and diplomats would learn (continental) French
to help secure their futures.’ http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Heys.htm
FACT: No French textbook/teaching manuals in 13th-early 14th centuries other than Bibbesworth and spelling
manuals. Nothing for grammar until early C15. Lawyers and judges can be seen in the Law Yearbooks to havespoken insular, not continental, French throughout the C14 and beyond.
3.‘From the XIIth century, the French language [in England] began to decline and English wasprogressively restored. The main reasons are the loss of Normandy (1204), which forced thenobility to choose between England or the continent, and the power of Capetian kings, which
contributed to marginalize [sic] the Anglo-Norman language at the expense of the French thatwas spoken in Paris….’ http://www.ecoles.cfwb.be/arjfleurus/Comenius/norman_conquest.html
FACT: French expanded its range of functions in England until the late C14. English was not ‘progressively
restored’ as a language of prose literature and public life until long after the loss of Normandy.
1. Contact between French and English in the medieval period
Anglo-Norman : A variety of French used in England between c. 1066-1420 for literary andadministrative purposes. It is not known to have been taught as an instructed language until thelate C14, see http://www.richardingham.com/id20.html. Two principal modes oftransmission in a naturalistic context: (a) English speakers used French at school until c. mid-C14
as a vehicle language through which to learn Latin. (b) French was frequently used in aristocratic
households and court at least until c. 1400; knights/gentry often sent children to noble
households to learn courtly accomplishments.
Late medieval bilingualism(i) Ieo say bien qe, coment qe le tenant aliene pendant le bref, vnquor il respondra come tenant ; mez coment qil
vouche, il ne luy liera al garranti….
William Paston, YBHenry VI, 17, 1422
‘I am certain that, although the tenant alienates while the writ is pending, yet he will answer as
tenant ; but although he vouches, it will not bind him to warranty…’

1

(ii) And that it lyke yow to… graunte your worthy lettres, witnessing the same acceptacion and admyssion of theseyd resignacion, and al your seyd lettres to delyver to my clerk.
William Paston, Paston Letters, c. 1430

1. Language contact and language change
Degrees of contact (Winford 2003):Language maintenance: Source language and target language are maintained- Borrowing: Target language (TL) borrows items from a Source Language (SL) leaving core
linguistic systems unaffected (recipient language agentivity)- Structural convergence (uncertain agentivity): ‘In cases involving bi- or multilingualism within
the same speech community, the results of language convergence are often manifested inincreasing structural convergence between the languages involved… Thus, though they belong toquite distinct language families, [the] languages use practically the same syntactic structures’(Winford 2003: 13)
Language shift: abandonment of source language in favour of target language- TL adopted as an L1 by incoming group, who may or may not abandon original L1; TL
may be influenced by incoming group’s L1 (source language agentivity)
TL introduced into new geographical area by colonisers, adopted as an L1 by formerly L2
speakers, shows considerable L1 substrate effects, e.g. Hiberno-English (source language
agentivity)
Question: Did ME show contact-induced grammatical change having SL agentivity of French?
Or vice versa? Or both?

2. French in later medieval England: language shift or language maintenance?
The structural influence of French on English is conventionally downplayed, following
Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 306ff) who argued for only superficial influence, other than lexical.
They claimed that French users ‘shifted’ to English in the 13th century. Their argument partly
relies on minimising the presence of French as a natural language in England. After 1300, poor
knowledge of French in England, ‘no competent speakers of French’ after c. 1250. This view is
not well supported, however :(i) Anglo-Norman (AN) thrived in C14 (Rothwell 2001, Trotter 2003), spreading across genresfrom late C13 onwards, as does a standard language (Haugen 1966)(ii) AN followed syntactic changes in French ongoing around 1300 (Ingham 2006a,b)(iii) AN remained accurate on noun gender until late C14 where phonological interference was
not involved (Ingham forthcoming)(iv) AN used partitive article after point, not after pas, just as in Continental French (Ingham 2008)
Thus competent users of French were in a position to have influenced English later than is often
supposed. Contact influence in a bilingual context would then be expected, following Clynes(2003), who shows how divergent syntax may ‘converge’ in bilingual usage in Australia, e.g.
German verb positions adopt English order.

3. Contact influence of French on English
3.1. Modal + ‘have’ auxiliary
Molencki (2001) found that EME consistently avoided modal + aux in favour of the pluperfect.
The following examples of counterfactual past conditionals support his position:(1) & 3ef an miracle nere …. ha hefde iturpled wið him…. dun into helle grunde(CMANCRIW,II.195.2804)‘And were it not for a miracle she would have toppled with him down to the bottom of hell.’(2) 3ef he nefde iseid þt ilke þing…. he were idemet imong þe forlorene .
(CMANCRIW,II.234.3387)‘If he had not said the same thing; he would have been condemned among the lost souls’

2But some use of main clause modal + aux have in Early Middle English, e.g.:(3) Mo ðanne fif ðusende besantes of gode þohtes , and of gode wordes, and of gode woerkes,
ðu mihtest habben bi3eten , 3if ðu woldest
Vices and Virtues 17 (c. 1200)‘You could have obtained more than 5,000 besaunts’ worth of good thoughts and of good words
and of good works, if you had wanted.’(4) Hwenne schulde ich al habben irikenet.
‘When should I have counted it everything?’

Ancrene Riwle 152 (c. 1225)(5) Ich mahte… wel habben aweld hire.
‘I could have well rewarded her’St Katherine p. 27 (c. 1225)

Molencki (2001) showed that in ME a trend developed towards the use of a modal + auxiliary
have in the apodosis of counterfactual past conditionals , e.g.:(6)a He wald haue forced me in…
(6)b Wold he neuer haue ghyuen to rede…
‘He would never have given his advice’

Cursor Mundi ms. C 4399 (Southern)
Cursor Mundi mss. T & A 10788 (Southern)

In contexts where Southern mss make more use of modal + aux have, Northern mss keep thepluperfect in the apodosis, e.g. (cf. 6b):(7) Ne had he neuer gyuen to rede…
Cursor ms G 10788 (Northern)‘He would never have given his advice’
Molencki argued that these show a changing taking place by which the modern English
construction, with modal + perfect in the apodosis clause, spread from Southern to Northernvarieties; this direction of change is relatively unusual in the earlier history of English.
Fischer (1992: 257) ‘it is unlikely that either Latin or French played any role’. However, Brunot& Bruneau (1949) show that Old French commonly used the modal + perfect infinitive with avoir
to express counterfactual past notions, e.g.:(8) …que je ne le deüsse pas avoir refuse (Joinville sec. 426).
‘…that I should not have refused it’
Further examples:
Early C13(9)a Ge voldroie miauz avoir faite une chevalerie
Lancelot du Lac II p. 314 (c. 1220)‘I would rather have done some knightly deed’
Later C13(10a) Se je le demandoie par les resons que je peusse avoir dites devant le jugement….g’irois
contre le jugie’Beaumanoir I 126 (c.1280)‘If I asked for it according to the reasons I could have said before the hearing… I would goagainst the sentence’(10)b Il deussient avoir receu les deniers…
Monfrin, Haute Marne 77‘They should have received the money’In all these cases modern French uses the conditional of the auxiliary plus the infinitive of themodal verb (e.g; j’aurais pu, vous auriez dû, etc.).
Anglo-Norman counterfactuals with the perfect infinitive are attested early, in the mid-12th
century:(11)a Ke vus dussez aver dyst issy adeprimes

Jeu d’Adam: 31 (c. 1150)

3

‘That you should have said this first’(11)b Ke nus ne purreiom aver heu autre bref
‘That we could not have had another writ’

Jeu d’Adam: 47 (c. 1150)

They continue to be commonly used in later AN:(12) E pout adunke aver change sy yl vousit, e ne fit nent‘And could then have changed if he wanted, and did nothing’

Petitions 1292 p. 53

Old English did not have a ‘have’ perfect infinitive, so the Middle English trend towards modal+ have is a candidate for contact influence from French. Examples (13) show the source structure
was present in insular French at the beginning of the Middle English period.
How plausible is it to see Southern LME modal perfect as the result of ‘drift’ i.e. independent
development? Heine & Kuteva (2006) argue against drift and in favour of a contact-based
account of the development of the HAVE perfect, citing especially its presence in Slavic varieties
only where these were in contact with non-Slavic languages: ‘(Our) observations suggest that…
language contact must have been involved in the diffusion of the present perfect.’ (Heine &Kuteva (2006 : 181)
Since insular French was stronger in the South of England (Rothwell 2001) than in the North, it
is plausible to see the same motivation for the development of the English modal perfect: Frenchsource language agentivity on English.

3.2. Discourse narrowing of Object-Verb syntax
Old English and Early Middle English commonly had OV in auxiliated clauses, e.g.:(13)a Þonne nemiht þu na
þæt mot … ut ateonÆlfr Hom (Pope) XIII 163
then NEG might thou NEG the speckout draw‘Then you might not draw out that speck’(Fischer et al. 2000: 306)
(13)b …hu hie sullen here lif ladenTrin. Hom. 23 (c. 1200)‘…how they should lead their lives’
Canale (1978) and van Kemenade (1987) argued for a parameter shift from OV to VO around1200. However, optional OV order lasted until the late C14 (van der Wurff 1999, Fischer et al.
2000, Roberts 2007).
Analysis of Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus by Pintzuk & Taylor (2006) showed 28% OV in ME1
period (1150-1250), c. 3% in ME2 (1250-1350) and c. 1% in ME3 and ME4. Ingham (2007b):
only 7/495 (1.4%) OV with ordinary Objects in late 14th century English prose.
But where ordinary OV is found in Late Middle English, it tended to be used in a particular
discourse context (Foster and van der Wurff 1997): the object referent in OV has the discourse
status of evoked or inferrable information. Thus the loss of ordinary OV in Middle English
seemingly took place in 2 steps:i) restriction to certain contextsii) elimination
Old French had OV in various constructions (Buridant 1987), e.g. in subject relative andauxiliated clauses. Comparison of relative frequency of OV and VO in auxiliated clauses in:
Table 1: percentage of OV in auxiliated clauses in OFr and M Fr chronicles
Chronique d’Ernoul (c.1220):
GCRF VI (c.1275):
GCRF VII (c.1300):
GCRF IX (c.1350):
Chr. JII/Ch. V (c.1380):

37.9%
36.0%
18.3%
14.7%
4.8%

4

Loss of OV in French also took place in two stages:i) OV as a substantial minority pattern in late Old French without particular discourse
conditioning, e.g.:indefinite/non-specific(14)a…que aucuns eust un home occis
GCRF VI 119‘that someone had killed a man’(14)b…tuit cil qui pooient armes porter
GCRF VI 52‘All those who could bear arms’
definite /specific(15)a …quant il voloit tel chose faire
GCRF VI 144‘… when he wanted to do such a thing’(15)b …quant li enfes ot les reliques baisies
GCF VI 204‘’…when the child had kissed the relics’ii) Middle French tended to narrow OV to discourse-evoked O, e.g.:(16)a pourquoy il avoient celle chose faite
GCRF IX 22‘…why they had done this thing’(16)b de quelle part il pourroient plus ladite ville de Lille grever
GCRF IX 177‘…from where he could cause more harm to the said city of Lille’(16)c Dieu qui tout voit et qui vouloit la dicte ville sauver
J II/ChV 205‘God who sees all and who wished to save the said city’
The type illustrated in (14) tends to disappear in later C14.
Contact with insular French prevented loss of vOV from going to completion before 1400, andproduced the discourse narrowing observed by Foster & van der Wurff (1997).

3.3 XVS order with pronominal subjects in Late Middle English.
Old English did not normally show XVS order (inversion after an initial non-subject constituent)
with pronominal subjects. However, Haeberli (forthcoming) show that XVS order withpronominal subjects becomes a notable feature of Late Middle English(17) And þe cherch of Lincoln gaue he to Herry Beuforth…

(Capgrave, 210.11)

This ran against the tide of a gradual loss of inversion overall. With full nominal subjects, XVS
survives longest in intransitive clauses, but transitive clauses show a very sharp decline from OE
and EME levels of around 80% to below 30% in LME:
Table 2: Frequency of XVS with nominal & pronominal subjects in Late Middle English
Middle English: Helsinki Corpus period

Inversion
with Inversion
with Inversion withtransitive V and other V and full pronominal
full NP subject
NP subject
subject
M2 (1250-1350)
30.4% (7/23) 73.7% (60/92) 25.4%(16/63)
M2/4 (comp. 1250-1350, ms. 1420-1500)
40.3 (39/97)
65.2 (60/92)
15.4 (6/39)
M3 (1350-1420)
2228.6%52.5%
18.5%(3321/1121)(1357/2587)(181/976)
M3/4 (comp. 1350-1420, ms. 1420-1500)
27.7%
54.0%
38.1%
(67/242)(258/478)(110/289)
TOTAL

434/1483(29.3%)

1735/3249(53.4%)

313/1367(22.9%)(source: Haeberli, forthcoming, adapted)

5Pronominal VS runs at c. 23% between 1250-1420, compared with 29% for nominal VS.
Haeberli (forthcoming) considers that French influence is a likely explanation for the rise of
VSpro in LME to rough parity with VSnom.

4. Contact induced grammatical phenomena in AN
4.1 Case assimilation in Anglo-Norman
Middle English lost accusative versus dative personal pronoun case distinctions of Old English.
AN showed a tendency to level these case forms in 3rd person of French personal pronouns, e.g.:
Le (3rd singular direct object ) for lui (3rd singular indirect object)(18) E jeo trovai le clerc le weucunte…, e jeo le demaundai ce ke il aveit receu de la vile, e il me
respundi ke…. Litterae cantuarienses II, 320-22 (1268). Anglo-Norman Correspondence Corpus‘And I found the sheriff’s clerk, and I asked him about what he’d received the previous day, andhe replied to me that…’
Les (3rd plural direct object ) for lor (3rd plural indirect object)(19) Et le rei les dona truage de xvi. M. liveres.
Le livere de reis de Engleterre (late C 13 ?)‘And the King gave them a ransom of 16,000 pounds’
These are not common, but can be seen as contact-induced.
4.2 Preterite and imperfect in AN
Old French verbal marking distinguished a punctual past time event (preterite tense) from a pasttime event seen as having duration (imperfect tense):(20)a …li traitor,/Ki nus jugat devant l’empereur‘The traitor, who accused us before the emperor’(20)b Jo atendeie de te bones noveles‘I was waiting for good news from you’

Ch. Roland 1024-5
St. Alexis 479

The verb estre formed an exception, in that the preterite and imperfect could be usedinterchangeably to denote a past state of affairs (Foulet 19390: 224).
In AN, the imperfect was sometimes used to denote a punctual past time event, as noted by
Buridant (2000: 368ff).
Medieval English did not distinguish punctual and durative aspect in past time events; the –ed(e)tense inflexion was used for both, e.g.:(21)a (durative) Al folc him luuede‘Everyone loved him’(21)b (punctual) … & bebyried him heglice in þe minstre.
‘… and buried him solemnly in the cathedral’

ASC 1140
ASC 1137

By searching the AN Hub prose texts for typically point-time adverbs (puis, maintenant, lors), 250
past-referring contexts were identified. 240 uses of the preterite were recorded, as against ten
uses of the imperfect. Thus the choice of tense form was highly nativelike. The AN texts
displayed imperfect and preterite forms of the estre auxiliary just in actional passive clauses, e.g.:
Imperfect of auxiliary(22)a Et lors estoit sertein jour assigné
Cron Lond 71‘And then a particular day was assigned’(22)b Monsire William de Mountagu, qi puis estoit fait counte de Salesburi Anon Chr2 168‘Sir W. de M., who later was made Count of Salisbury’

6Preterite of auxiliary(23)a … ki engendra de ly Henri, ke fu pus fet rey de Engletere‘Who begat from her Henry, who later was made King of England’(23)b Et lors furent maundez messagers à le…
‘And then messengers were sent to the…’

Reis Britt 180
Cron Lond 70

Four instances of the imperfect with estre were observed, as in (22), out of 24 actional passive
contexts, the other cases having the preterite as in (23). The clearly atypical uses of the imperfect
were limited to these few atypical passive constructions e.g. (22).
With over 70 ordinary verb types (240 tokens), AN users never confused the preterite and theimperfect. Faulty learning of the Old French tense system by L2 learners does not offer asatisfactory account of these results.
The imperfect/preterite alternation with estre as an actional passive auxiliary can be seen as acontact phenomenon, in which a target language intensifies a pre-existing trait, under thepressure of a source language. Contact with English favoured an extension of the imperfect tense
beyond the stative cases to an actional passive sense of estre where in continental French thealternation did not apply.

5. Conclusions
Continental French paralleled Middle English in:(i) developing a modal perfect(ii) eventually losing OV in auxiliated clauses, after a period of discourse narrowing(iii) inversion with pronominal subjects
Nos. (i) and (iii) are present in Anglo-Norman, but (ii) as yet unclear in absence of parsed AN
corpus.
How much structural convergence M iddle English – Anglo-Norman?
Limited but genuine contact influence in each direction, suggesting bilingual users were generallyable to keep the grammatical systems of the two languages distinct, yet liable to operate somestructural convergence, in keeping with Winford’s (2003) language maintenance scenario.
The period 1250-c.1400 was one of continued bilingualism among educated classes in England.
Massive lexical borrowing at this time can now be better understood: its source was insular, notParisian French (Rothwell 2001). This outcome is inexplicable if French speakers had shifted toEnglish c. 1250. The ‘language shift’ model (see esp. Thomason & Kaufman 1988) should beabandoned, in preference for a ‘maintenance with bilingualism’ model until the late C14.
Primary sources‘Beaumanoir’: Les coutumes du Beauvoisis, de Philippe de Beaumanoir, éd. A. Beugnot, Paris, 1842.
‘Chronique d’Ernoul’ : ‘Ern’: Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, éd. M.L. de Mas

Latrie, Champion, Paris, 1871.

‘GCF VI, VII, IX’: Les Grandes Chroniques de France, publiées pour la Société de l’Histoire deFrance par J. Viard, T. VII, Paris, Champion, 1925-1932.
‘Jean II/Charles V’ : Chronique des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V. Ed P. Delachenal. Paris :Renouard, 1910.
‘Jeu d’Adam’ Le Mystère d’Adam, ed. P. Studer, Manchester, 1918.
‘Kunstmann’ : Kunstmann, P. (1991): Miracles de Notre-Dame. Les Presses de l'Univ. d'Ottawa 17.
‘YBHenry VI’: Year Books of Henry VI: 1 Henry VI, AD 1422, ed. by C. Williams, Selden Soc.
Vol. 50, London: Quaritch.

7

References
Web sites
Anglo-Norman Hub site, University of Wales at Aberystwyth: www.anglo-norman.net
Anglo-Norman correspondence corpus version 1.1
http://www.lhds.bcu.ac.uk/english/?page=anglo-norman-corpus
Middle English and Anglo-Norman workshops at Birmingham City University, February 2007 &January 2008
http://www.lhds.bcu.ac.uk/english/?page=me-an-workshop-prospectus
Printed sources
Brunot, F. & C. Bruneau (1949) Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française Paris: Masson.
Buridant, C. (1987) L’ancien français à la lumière de la typologie des langues: les résidus del’ordre OV en ancien français et leur effacement en moyen français. Romania 108, 20-65.
Buridant, C. (2000) Nouvelle Grammaire de l’ancien Français, SEDES, Paris.
Canale, W. (1978) ‘Word order change in Old English.’ Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Toronto.
Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages, CUP.
Fischer, O. (1992) ‘Syntax’. In N. Blake (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language Vol. II
1066-1476. CUP.
Fischer, O., B. Los, A. van Kemenade, & W. van der Wurff (2000) The syntax of early English.
CUP.
Foster, A. & W. van der Wurff (1997). From syntax to discourse: the function of object-verb
order in late middle English. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Studies in Middle English linguistics.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 135-155.
Haeberli, E (forthcoming) ‘French influence on Middle English ‘. In R. Ingham (ed.) The AngloNorman language and its contexts. Boydell.
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2005) Language contact and grammatical change. CUP.
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2006) The changing languages of Europe. OUP.
Ingham, R. (2006a) Syntactic change in Anglo-Norman and Continental French: was there a‘Middle’ Anglo-Norman? Journal of French Language Studies 16,1 25-49.
Ingham, R. (2006b): The status of French in medieval England: evidence from the use of object
pronoun syntax. Vox Romanica 65, 1-22
Ingham, R. (2008). ‘The grammar of later medieval French: an initial exploration of the AngloNorman Dictionary textbase’. In C. Guillot, S. Heiden, A. Lavrentiev, C. MarchelloNizia (eds.) Corpus 7, Constitution et exploitation des corpus d’ancien et de moyen français. Pp. 115134.
Ingham, R. (forthcoming) ‘The transmission of later Anglo-Norman: some syntactic evidence’. In
R. Ingham (ed.) The Anglo-Norman language and its contexts. Woodbridge: Boydell.
Kunstmann, P. (1991) Miracles de Notre-Dame tirés du Rosarius, ms. B.N.fr.12483, Ottawa,
Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. (Publications Médiévales, 17).
Molencki, R. (2001) Counterfactuals in the different manuscripts of the Cursor Mundi.
Neuphilologiche Mitteilungen 102, 1 11-22.
Pintzuk, S. & A. Taylor (2006) The loss of OV in the history of English: In A. van Kemenade &B. Los (eds.) The handbook of the history of English. CUP.
Rothwell, W. (2001). English and French in England after 1362. English Studies 82, 539-559.
Thomason, S. & T. Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Traugott, E. (1992) Syntax. In R. Hogg (ed.) Cambridge History of the English Language Vol. I. CUP.
Trotter, D. (2003). L’anglo-normand: variété insulaire ou variété isolée? In Grammaires du vulgaire:
normes et variation de la langue française, Médiévales 45. Paris: Presses Universitaires deVincennes. Pp. 43-54.
Van der Wurff, W. (1999) Objects and verbs in Modern Icelandic and fifteenth century
English: A word order parallel and its causes. Lingua 109.237-65
Van Kemenade, A. (1987) Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Winford, D. (2003) An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

8