The language of Elves and Hobbits
Language Analysis of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings
One of the most critical aspects to understand about Tolkien’s constructed mythology surrounding Middle Earth involves the inextricable connection between his created languages and the races who speak them. Tolkien himself has been reported as stating that The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) represented “an essay in ‘linguistic aesthetic’” (Macmillan 69).
Even a casual reader, cannot fail to notice the multiplicity of languages which exist in the trilogy ranging from the simple use of English archaisms to complex invented systems such as Elvish. Moreover, all of these distinct languages appear to possess specific qualities, which directly reflect the characteristics of the races who utilize them.
For instance, the Elves’ language is highly distinguished and sophisticated, whereas the Hobbits’ is brimming with loveable colloquialisms. Outside of the mere description of the physicality of the aforementioned races by the narrator, does the manner by which these races interact with each other in relation to their use of language suggest a class separation? This is the question which will inform this article, as I strive to first establish Tolkien’s outlook and processes concerning his hobby of inventing languages and how due to his views the languages of the Hobbits sharply contrasts with that of the Elves. Secondly, I intend to analyze how founded upon these distinctions in their use of language the characters proceed to interact with one another according to their established socio-cultural roles in conversation.
Tolkien as a Philologist and Language Inventor
In order to comprehend the languages utilized in Middle Earth, it is immensely important to understand Tolkien as a philologist with a rather unusual hobby — inventing languages.
A philologist can be defined as “[one] concerned with the sound and shape of words and their meaning”, and particularly, as “[a person concerned] with the history of word-forms and word meanings” (Gilliver et al. 48). Tolkien’s languages of choice involved those from which “the legends, epics, plays, and romances of the early medieval North” originate (Gilliver et al. 53). Languages such as Welsh and Finnish, as well as those with Germanic roots — Old English, Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old High German (Gilliver et al. 53). Tolkien’s discovery of the most ancient Germanic language — Gothic — and his subsequent, fascination and passion for creating Gothic words to fill in the limited remaining vocabulary essentially laid the foundation for the type of “old language” repurposing seen in his mythology (Gilliver et al. 53–54). Two such examples include the word mathom, seen in the prologue of LOTR, as well as the word Elf itself, which Tolkien retrieved from Old English and put to new use.
In Old English, mathom appeared in the following forms: maϸm, maϸum, maϸϸum, or madm (Gilliver et al. 161). The word’s meaning descends most probably from the common German word maiϸum used by the fourth century Goths and relates to “something exchanged” or a “gift” (Gilliver et al.). In LOTR, Tolkien redefines mathom as something held to be a treasure due to its subjective worth — something you feel unwilling to part with (Gilliver et al. 162). In essence, Tolkien adapts “the word into a worn-down modern English form with a domestic sense”, which suits the cultural status of the Hobbits perfectly (Gilliver et al. 162). The Hobbits in many ways embody a culture of “peace-loving rather than heroic, middle-class rather than aristocratic” individuals (Gilliver et al. 162).
However, the Hobbits are not the only race who utilize this word. The Rohirrim are another people group who appear to share a number of words with those from the Shire, including mathom (Gilliver et al. 162). Moreover, all of the shared words appear to possess relatively the same meaning in both societies. However, in stark contrast to the frequently colloquial and relatively standard English the Hobbits utilize, the warriors of Rohan’s speech tends to be marked by its more archaic form — as their society heavily resembles that of the Anglo-Saxons (Gilliver et al. 144 and 162). A paramount example is the word the Rohirrim use for Hobbit: holbytla (Gilliver et al. 144). This word represents a “well-formed Old English compound”, which appears to have been constructed by Tolkien, consisting of hol “hole” and bytla “builder” (Gilliver et al. 144). Thus, although the noble race of the Rohirrim, as well as the unadventurous Hobbit, both possess the word, the two languages still remain separated in their cultures due to the other distinctive patterns seen in their speech.
The word Elf also seems to originate from Old English. For instance, The Oxford English Dictionary lists quotes which mention Elves from both Beowulf — “eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas, swylce gigantas” — and an Old English charm — “Wið ælfe and wið uncuϸum fidsan gniŏ myrran on win” — the word Elf has been bolded in both of the aforementioned quotes (Gilliver et al. 114).
However, unlike the manner in which Tolkien paints these creatures — as pure and wise, in the example of Elves mentioned in the tale of Beowulf, they appear to be associated with other creatures characteristically portrayed as rather cruel or evil (Gilliver et al. 115). Thus, where did Tolkien receive his inspiration for the style of Elf as seen in LOTR? Apparently, although the mention of them in medieval literature remains meager, the Elves were typically linked with the old gods in the context of common folk-medicine (Gilliver et al. 115). Perhaps, Tolkien portrayed the Elves as mystical beings who possess, higher knowledge in LOTR based upon these more medieval concepts of them?
Even in regards to language, the Elves appear to be directly related to what Tolkien deemed divine and pleasant. In Tolkien’s mythology, the origin of the Elves’ speech descended from the “ancient speech of the Gods” — Valya or Valinor (Fimi 104). Moreover, Tolkien considered the speech of the Elves, particularly the Lindar, as beautiful (Fimi 104). However, why does Tolkien specifically exalt the Elves’ speech over the other languages created in his mythology? His preferences directly relate to two main beliefs he held regarding language — concerning both an aesthetic quality inherent in the sound of languages as well as language degradation.
In a paper titled “The Secret Vice”, Tolkien elaborates upon his hobby for language invention, and he additionally expresses his view that “language is not just a utilitarian tool for communication, but also a potential form of artistic creation” (Fimi 77). He views the artistic qualities of a potential language — or real language — as resting predominantly in the sounds of the language; the beauty of the language being intertwined with the word-forms, which exist as entirely separate entities from the meanings of the words (Fimi 77). Thus, people tend to find the sounds typically produced in a foreign language as so striking and lovely because they “are unable to automatically connect a word with its meaning” (Fimi 77). Essentially, Tolkien explains how he views the organs used to produce phonetic speech sounds — oral and nasal cavity, vocal cords, and so forth — as “small-ranged instruments” in music (Fimi 77). Consequently, for Tolkien, the invention of language embodied the ultimate creative experience, in which beauty represents the pinnacle; for these fictional languages could be “beautiful and aesthetically pleasing in a way that real languages can rarely be” (Fimi 79). In relation to Tolkien’s Elves, both in LOTR and his mythology as a whole, the language he invented for them he found to be acutely beautiful, which he constantly strove to perfect (Fimi 92). Moreover, Tolkien portrays his Elves as “the ultimate linguists: they are the creators of ideal languages, capable of aesthetic beauty and sound symbolism” (Fimi 100).
Consequently, for Tolkien, the invention of language embodied the ultimate creative experience, in which beauty represents the pinnacle.
However, the beauty of the Elvish language results from both the beauty associated with its words and sounds, as well as with its close relation to Valya — the language of the Gods. Tolkien believed in a fairly “heretical linguistic idea” known as language decay. The main principle underlying this theory involves the idea of an unspoiled and faultless first language — often connected to the idea of God providing Adam with the first language on earth — which over the inevitable passing of time is open to corruption and decay (Fimi 101). Aligning with the aforementioned theory, for Tolkien, a language’s beauty derives from the closer in proximity it remains to “the original, pure form of the language” (Fimi 102). In layman’s terms, the more ancient a language is the more objectively beautiful it is (Fimi 102). Ergo, Elvish, as it remains the closest descendant of the language of the Gods, symbolizes the most beautiful of all Tolkien’s languages captured within LOTR (Fimi 103).
In stark contrast to the elaborate and laborious process undergone to create Elvish, the language utilized by the Hobbits — specifically within the context of the Shire — Tolkien “writes in plain modern English, free of archaism” (Gilliver et al. 75). Moreover, the characters of the Shire, disregarding Frodo and Bilbo, tend to speak non-standard English riddled with colloquialisms — which aligns with Tolkien’s representation of them as similar to “the folk of the pre-industrial English countryside” (Gilliver et al. 78).
For instance, in the chapter “A Long-Expected Party” in the first novel of the trilogy, the Gaffer makes the following exclamation: “A decent respectable hobbit was Mr. Drogo Baggins; there was never much to tell of him, till he was drownded” (Tolkien 22). In the previous sentence, both the inversion of the subject, Mr. Drogo Baggins, and his description, a decent respectable hobbit, as well as the simple past tense of drown presented as “drownded” display the use of non-standard forms of English. The standard versions being subject before description — Mr. Drogo Baggins was… — and “drowned”, respectively. Moreover, the words Tolkien utilizes in the Shire are more dialectical in nature, such as backarappers — a word from the Warwickshire dialect of England — which is included in “the list of fireworks set off at Bilbo’s party” (Gilliver et al. 78). Thus, the language of the Hobbits when compared to the more elegant and arguably divine language of the Elves situates them as, perhaps, more relatable to his readers albeit of a lower societal class in Middle Earth.
An analysis of linguistic stance in the communication between Elves and Hobbits
In order to analyze the interactions between the Elves and Hobbits within LOTR, I must first provide a brief explanation concerning linguistic stance. According to John W. Du Bois, stance may be defined as follows:
A public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field. (Du Bois 163).
By “dialogically”, Du Bois refers to the concept that “a stancetaker’s words derive from, and further engage with, the words of those who have spoken before” in either a current conversation or on a prior occasion relevant to the ongoing discourse (Du Bois 140). Essentially, stance involves a social act of communication in which a person (stancetaker) conjointly “invokes a [type of] evaluation” about the object of discussion, and positions him/herself in relation to the other person involved in the conversation (Du Bois 141). A multiplicity of different kinds of stancetaking exists, including evaluation and positioning. Evaluation may be generally described as “the process whereby a stancetaker orients to an object of stance and characterizes it as having some specific quality or value”, such as “That’s horrible” or “That’s ideal” (Du Bois 142 and 143). In the previous case, “the thing evaluated is referred to in each by the demonstrative pronoun that” (Du Bois 143). Positioning relates to “the act of situating a social actor with respect to responsibility for stance and for invoking sociocultural value”, such as “I know” (Du Bois 143). In the previous example, the speaker (stancetaker) is indicated by the first-person pronoun, I, while “the stance predicate (adjective or verb) specifies the nature of the stancetaker’s position”; in this case with respect to an epistemic state (know) (Du Bois 143). Moreover, stancetaking “can be one of the mechanisms through which dialect and local identity become linked in discourse” (Johnstone 50). For instance, “particular stances or social actions” can become associated “indirectly to social identities such as gender categories,” such as how a stance like deference has been linked with femininity (Johnstone 51).
In LOTR, the manner in which the Elves and Hobbits interact with each other in conversation supports the assumptions previously postulated — based on the styles of the language they speak — concerning their particular social classes. For example, in the “Three is company” chapter, the Hobbits while interacting with the Elves take several intriguing interpersonal stancetaking moves. For instance, Frodo’s first statement: “The meaning of it, fair people…is simply that we seem to be going the same way as you are” (Tolkien 79).
Frodo almost immediately positions himself as relatively lower when compared to the Elves through his use of the attributive noun phrase: “fair people”. Moreover, throughout the subsequent conversation, Pippin begins twice with expressions similar to Frodo’s: “O Wise People!” and “O Fair Folk!” (Tolkien 79). Furthermore, Frodo continues to show respect and pay reverence throughout the conversation, particularly in the following exclamation: “’I thank you indeed, Gildor Inglorion,’ said Frodo bowing. ‘Elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo, a star shines on the hour of our meeting,’ he added in high-eleven speech” (Tolkien 79). In the previous utterance, Frodo bows — which in and of itself, represents an unspoken stancetaking move — and proceeds to speak in the more highly regarded language: Elvish. Perhaps, he does so in order to both show respect to the Elves, as well as elevate himself as more knowledgeable when contrasted with the fellow Hobbits in his company? Especially, as earlier in the dialogue the Elves state in response to, Frodo’s initial invitation to join their company, “But we have no need of other company, and Hobbits are so dull” in mirth (Tolkien 79). Moreover, only after Frodo’s portrayal of his knowledge of Elven do the Elves proceed to name him as “Elf-friend” and welcome the Hobbit party to join them.
Throughout the rest of the first novel, whenever the Hobbits interact with the Elves the conversations proceed in a similar fashion. For example, in “The Council of Elrond” chapter, both instances of specific interactions between the Elves and Hobbits occur, as well as interactions between the other races of Middle Earth in relation to these races. In the gathered group of individuals — including Dwarves, Men, Hobbits, Wizards, and Elves — Elrond appears to occupy the position of wise counselor, or head, who grants people the position to speak and offer insight concerning the object of discussion. For instance, when Bilbo refers to Elrond as “Master”, he accomplishes the same interpersonal stancetaking move as Frodo by positioning himself as occupying a lower social position in relation to the Elf (Tolkien 242). Moreover, Elrond positions himself as societally more significant through the subsequent utterance in the dialogue with Bilbo: “’I had not named you,’ said Elrond smiling. ‘But I do so now. Come! Tell us your tale’” (Tolkien 242). Moreover, the other races present appear to adhere to this societal structure, as well. For instance, Boromir reacts to Elrond, the Elf, and Frodo, the Hobbit, in a markedly different manner. When desiring to speak in the council, Boromir beseeches Elrond to allow him to speak — “Give me leave, Master Elrond…” (Tolkien 239). Whereas pertaining to Frodo, he merely refers to him as “the Halfling” in bewilderment when realizing who currently carries the ring of power (Tolkien 241). Furthermore, even other individuals who appear to occupy higher societal positions defer to the Elves, such as Gandalf. Even though Gandalf seemingly possesses more status, as he utters the foul language of Mordor without asking Elrond’s pardon, he still refers to Elrond as “Master Elrond” (Tolkien 248). Thus, a hierarchical system is effectively established between the different races seen through the manner in which they communicate and position themselves in relation to each other with the Elves occupying the head echelon.
Conclusion
Tolkien’s Elvish encompasses his attempt at creating a divine and aesthetically pleasing language. The Elves, themselves, embody a race of incredibly talented linguistically creative beings who are not solely sophisticated, but additionally, wise. A reader thus perceives the elves as elevated in society — separate from the other races, but regarded with reverence. Whereas, the language of the hobbits resonates more closely to the English of modern readers. A language which paints the hobbits as a loveable, simple crew of individuals who the other races seem to neither typically concern themselves with nor are particularly knowledgeable about. Moreover, the manner in which the two races interact support the disparity in their distinct social rankings. For instance, not solely the Hobbits, but the other races as well offer deference to the Elves wisdom and utilize noticeably respectful language when speaking with them, which positions the race as more significant. Furthermore, the Hobbits appear to generally not be noted as particularly important as they are neither deferred to nor spoken to with particularly respectful terminology. Thus, Tolkien constructs a world in which a noticable class system is established with simply the use of language.
References
Du Bois, John W. “The stance triangle.” Stancetaking in Discourse. Edited by Robert Englebretson, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
Fimi, Dimitra. Tolkien, Race and Cultural History: From Fairies to Hobbits. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 69–115.
Gilliver, Peter, et al. The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2006, pp.45–86.
Johnstone, Barbara. “Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking.” Stancetaking in Discourse. Edited by Robert Englebretson, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
