Won’t, don’t, wouldn’t, isn’t and even ain’t-
where would we be without our contractions? Prevalent in spoken English and
increasingly accepted in written pieces, contractions enable brevity and make
written works more accessible and friendly.
Contractions in some form of English date back to Old
English (450 AD – 1150 AD), a language that bears little resemblance to our
English today. Before this period, although the Romans had already invaded, the
dominant language on the island was Celtic. In the 5th century, several groups,
notably the Angles and the Saxons, began to invade, and they brought their
Germanic languages and rune alphabets with them, along with several
well-established contractions. These included shortened forms for “is not” (nis,
today, “isn’t”), “did not have” (ne haefde), “was not” (ne waes, today
“wasn’t”) and “would not” (wolde, today “wouldn’t).
During the Old English period, Christian missionaries
introduced Latin as well as the Roman alphabet, so by the time the Normans
appeared in the mid-11th century, the language was ready to incorporate a fair
bit of French, the language of post-Conquest English nobility. (In fact, King Richard “The Lionheart” barely spoke
English, and only spent about six months in the country he was king of for
the decade he was king.)
Nonetheless, the common people continued to speak
English, although now peppered with thousands of French words and conventions,
and eventually, this pidgin developed into Middle English (1150 AD to 1450 AD).
Far easier for a modern English speaker to understand, it was during this
period that negative contractions (i.e. using “not”) arrived on the scene in
the form of ne
were (“were not”) and noot (“knows not”). Other contractions from
this period include thilke (for
“the ilke” meaning “the same”) and sit (a
shortened form of sitteth).
By the turn of the 16th
century, the Renaissance arrived in England and with it came further changes to
the language, which by this time is recognizable as Early Modern English (1450
AD to 1750 AD). Latin and Greek words were adopted and altered (e.g., militia,
squalor, illicit and explain), and men like Shakespeare were introducing new
words to the masses at a rapid pace (e.g., assassination, cold-blooded, eyeball
and fashionable).
Some contractions that appear during the Early Middle
English period include I’ll (I will), ‘twould (it would) and ’twill (it will), as well as negative
contractions of every form including can’t (cannot),
don’t (do
not), shan’t(shall not), mayn’t (may not)and won’t (will
not). According
to the Online Etymology Dictionary, won’t first
appeared at the dawn of the period in the mid-15th century as wynnot and then wonnot,
and its modern form in the mid-17th century. Don’t was
first recorded in the 1630s, and can’t first appeared in print in 1706.Ain’t also
first appeared in 1706 as a contraction only for “am not,” although by the
early 1800s, it was also used to mean a variety of negatives including “are
not,” “is not,” “have not,” and “has not.”
As you might have guessed from all this, contrary to
what the latest True
Grit film would seem
to indicate, contractions were around long before Mattie and Rooster were
attempting to avenge her father. However, during the period in which the
character of Mattie was off on her adventure (1880s), in formal writing
contractions were absolutely disfavored. This is a trend that started in
earnest around the late 18th century. However, as we can see by the works
of Mark Twain (1835-1910), among many others who wrote certain characters
speaking the way real people actually talked in this era, in everyday speech,
contractions seemed to have been the norm.
So why did the Coen brothers choose not to use them in
their adaptation of the True
Grit serials?
Ethan Coen explained in an interview, “We’ve been told that the language
and all that formality is faithful to how people talked in the period.”
While this is mostly true in formal writing, it was most definitely not in
common speech, particularly for characters like Rooster Cogburn and Tom Chaney.
And, in truth, the original True
Grit serials, written
in 1968 from the perspective of a woman writing in the 1920s, used “won’t”
instead of “will not” about 36% of the time and “don’t” instead of “do not”
about 60% of the time, among other uses of contractions.
As for today, despite the
many years contractions have been taboo in formal writing, as with many
grammatical sacred cows, time (starting around the 1920s) and more recently the
Internet seems to have changed at least some people’s views of their acceptability
in writing.
Nonetheless, apparently the APA still disapproves of
them, according to many commentators, and the United Kingdom’s The Guardian newspaper
cautions against overusing many contractions including can’t, aren’t, don’t, I’m and it’s even though “they might make a piece . . . easier to read, they can be
an irritant and a distraction, and make a serious article sound frivolous.”
On the other hand, reference guides for AP style note
that contractions found in reputable dictionaries are acceptable in informal
writing, but should not be used excessively, and the Chicago Manual of Style goes
further to say that “most types of writing benefit from the use of contractions,” although they should be used “thoughtfully.”
Experts in business writing
generally approve of the use of contractions for creating a flowing style that
engages the reader, but warn that when writing for an international audience
where there will be non-native English speakers, contractions can be confusing
and should be avoided.
Uncle Sam has even weighed in on the debate. Beginning
in 1998 when President Bill Clinton issued an executive memo instructing
federal agencies to write more plainly, the federal government has been trying
to turn government jargon into readable English. Along with the 2010 Plain
Writing Act signed into law by President Obama, these two directives have
resulted in PlainLanguage.gov, a set of instructions for government employees to help
them write documents Americans will understand.
Under these guidelines, writers are instructed to “use
contractions when appropriate,” even with legal writing as they will render it
“less stuffy and more natural.” To sum it up, the directive is “write as you talk,” but use discretion when including contractions.
If you liked this
article, you might also enjoy:
Bonus Fact:
§ According to the University
of Illinois’ Professor of English and Linguistics, Dennis Baron, we can also
stop worrying about ending a sentence with a preposition. Never intended as a
rule, it began when an 18th century wordsmith cautioned against placing a
preposition at the end of a sentence when this will separate it from its verb
by many words, as this makes the sentence awkward to read.
PORTAL DA LÍNGUA INGLESA has no
responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third-partly internet websites referred to in this post, and does not guarantee
that any context on such websites are, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
In some instances, I have been unable to trace the owners of the
pictures used here; therefore, I would appreciate any information that would
enable me to do so. Thank you very much.
Is something
important missing? Report an error or suggest an improvement. Please, I strive
for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right,
contact me!
Did you spot
a typo?
Do you have
any tips or examples to improve this page?
Do you
disagree with something on this page?
Use one of
your social-media accounts to share this page:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário