The Language of Daily Life in England, (1400-1800) (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800)

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences.

Editor

Associate Editor

Anita Fetzer

Andreas H. Jucker

University of Lüneburg

University of Zurich

Founding Editors Herman Parret

Jef Verschueren

Robyn Carston

Sachiko Ide

Deborah Schiffrin

Thorstein Fretheim

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

University of Trondheim

Aichi University

Paul Osamu Takahara

John C. Heritage

Miriam A. Locher

Jacob L. Mey

University of Southern Denmark

Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board University College London

Japan Women’s University

University of California at Los Angeles

Universität Basel

Susan C. Herring

Indiana University

Masako K. Hiraga

St. Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

Georgetown University Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

Sandra A. Thompson

Sophia S.A. Marmaridou University of Athens

University of California at Santa Barbara

Srikant Sarangi

Teun A. van Dijk

Cardiff University

Marina Sbisà

University of Trieste

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

Yunxia Zhu

The University of Queensland

Volume 183 The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800) Edited by Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala and Minna Palander-Collin

The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800) Edited by

Arja Nurmi Minna Nevala Minna Palander-Collin University of Helsinki

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The language of daily life in England (1400-1800) / edited by Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala, and Minna Palander-Collin. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 183) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  English language--Variation--History. 2.  English language--Social aspects-History.  I. Nurmi, Arja. II. Nevala, Minna. III. Palander-Collin, Minna, 1967PE1074.7.L34

2009

427--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 5428 3 (hb; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8972 8 (eb)

2009000376

© 2009 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Acknowledgements The language of daily life in the history of English: Studying how macro meets micro Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

vii 1

section 1.  Variation and social relations Negotiating interpersonal identities in writing: Code-switching practices in Charles Burney’s correspondence Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

27

Patterns of interaction: Self-mention and addressee inclusion in the letters of Nathaniel Bacon and his correspondents Minna Palander-Collin

53

Referential terms and expressions in eighteenth-century letters: A case study on the Lunar men of Birmingham Minna Nevala

75

section 2.  Methodological considerations in the study of change Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysis: A case study of the Bluestocking letters Anni Sairio

107

Grasshoppers and blind beetles: Caregiver language in Early Modern English correspondence Terttu Nevalainen

137

Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

165

section 3.  Sociohistorical context Singular you was/were variation and English normative grammars in the eighteenth century Mikko Laitinen

199

 Table of contents

Encountering and appropriating the Other: East India Company merchants and foreign terminology Samuli Kaislaniemi

219

Everyday possessions: Family and identity in the correspondence of John Paston II Teo Juvonen

253

appendix.  Editions in the Corpora of Early English Correspondence

279

Name index

303

Subject index

309

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this volume has been supported by the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), funded by the Academy of Finland as part of its Centre of Excellence programme (2000–2005 as the Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, 2006–2011 with the new name and a slightly different composition). The research unit has provided the writers and editors with not only the physical requirements of corpus compilation and research but also an inspiring research environment among leading scholars in the field of English historical linguistics. The writers of this book have (with the exception of Päivi Pahta) been involved in the compilation of the corpora used as research material in the volume. Other corpus compilers particularly deserving mention are Mr Jukka Keränen and Ms Tanja Säily. Without the material, research of this nature would not be possible. We would also like to thank the Social Reality and Language Practices in Late Modern England (SoReaL) project, funded by the University of Helsinki (2005–2007), and Mr Mikko Hakala for help in editing the appendix. We are grateful to the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies and Ms Jenni Laitinen for help in preparing the index. We are thankful to Professor Andreas H. Jucker for initially accepting the book to the series, and Professor Anita Fetzer as the current editor of the series for greenlighting the publication of the manuscript. We would like to thank Ms Isja Conen and the team at Benjamins for their support during the editorial process.

The language of daily life in the history of English Studying how macro meets micro Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

1.  The language of daily life This book stems from the experiences gained during the fifteen years we have been involved in compiling and doing research on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), which by now has grown into a small corpus family, altogether covering the years 1403–1800.1 The corpus contains a stratified sample of male and female informants from different geographical locations and as such provides a rich source of material for the study of language variation and change in the history of English. The letters included in the corpus are personal correspondence between identifiable individuals, who share their concerns and joys over a geographical and temporal distance. The topics discussed cover a wide variety of mundane issues ranging from business matters and estate management to family news and little everyday incidents. The corpus was intended for sociolinguistic studies from the outset, and we can still say that historical sociolinguistics provides the broad framework for our work, although the theoretical orientations applied to the data today are perhaps more varied than originally envisioned. One of the purposes of this book is to illustrate some relevant ways of using the corpus and the kinds of contextualizations we can make on the basis of the data. Historical sociolinguistics, just like sociolinguistics focusing on present-day language use, comprises many different approaches addressing a variety of research questions. Historical sociolinguistics has drawn on correlational sociolinguistics, but increasingly also on a variety of fields such as interactional sociolinguistics, sociopragmatics, discourse studies, contact linguistics and sociology of language.

.  The research reported here was supported by the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence funding for the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English at the Department of English, University of Helsinki (www.eng.helsinki.fi/varieng), the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (www.helsinki.fi/collegium) and the Academy of Finland.



Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

Differences of approach arise from the social theory underlying each tradition —  although this is seldom explicitly spelled out — but significantly also from the focus of research. This is the case whether it is the status and function of language(s) in speech communities, variation and change (in the grammar and phonology) of the language system, or the interactive construction and organization of discourse. All sociolinguistic traditions regard language as a social phenomenon and, accordingly, study language in relation to its users and contexts of use, or they “share in their practice an orientation to the use of language in the social contexts of everyday life” (Eggins & Slade 1997:  33). However, defining the components of language users’ social space or establishing the relationship between language, individual and society is far from being a straightforward task, and one of the central points of controversy has been the significance of “macro” and “micro” in language use and analysis. Stratificational sociolinguistic models have accentuated correlations of linguistic forms with broad macro-societal categories like class or gender, while pragmatic, discourse and conversation analytic approaches have emphasized the importance of situated meaning-making and individual experience on the micro-level, even dismissing the existence of any objective reality as scholarly fabrications. Although macro-  and micro-levels have often been regarded as opposite or even mutually exclusive, they are nowadays also understood as different aspects of language use and analysis that can be incorporated within the same model (e.g., Carter & Sealey 2000; Deumert 2003). In sociolinguistics today, cross-disciplinary, multi-layered approaches are increasingly called for as a way of reaching beyond traditional paradigms and established categories (e.g., Cheshire 2005; Schilling-Estes 2002). Experimenting with and developing such cross-fertilizations is also one of the goals of the Centre of Excellence for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), where all the contributors of this book work as researchers or doctoral students. The variety of specific research aims as well as methods is also illustrated in this book, although it is not necessarily easy to classify each study as a representative of a particular paradigm. All the chapters have a common aim of opening up new insights into the role of language in society and in our everyday lives, which often means combining perspectives, like sociolinguistic and pragmatic approaches and/or quantitative and qualitative methods. Our second aim relates to this. As research on the CEEC has produced baseline, population-level evidence of language variation and change in Renaissance English (e.g., Laitinen 2007; Nevala 2004; Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003 and (Eds) 1996; Nurmi 1999; Palander-Collin 1999), we felt that this book would take on a different task of enriching and complicating the environments of variation and change by specifically bringing in the individual, who uses language to communicate for



The language of daily life in the history of English

specific purposes, to create his or her role in the situation and to maintain and form relationships with others. In other words, language variation and change are located at individual language users, who choose from a variety of options how to express themselves in a given situation and who eventually change language. Thus, language variation and change are matters of “daily life”. All the studies in this book focus on particular linguistic forms, expressions or phenomena as the starting point, but the questions asked are often different. Section 1 explores language variation as a means of identity and role construction in letters, while Section 2 concentrates on questions of language change from the perspective of individuals, their networks and parental input, and Section 3 particularly highlights the social contexts of language use. These approaches address various facets of language in society and partly stem from different theoretical discussions, providing complementary pictures from Late Medieval to Late Modern English. Moreover, we do not see ourselves as detached from what goes on in present-day sociolinguistics, as our broad aim is to understand mechanisms of language variation and change, both being relevant processes in all time periods.

2.  Methodological background: Contexts of variation and change We have been influenced by various theoretical insights that in the following presentation are classified under three headings:  correlational sociolinguistics, interactional sociolinguistics and sociopragmatics. We do not believe in strictly separating these approaches, but present them in this order to highlight how shifting perspectives bring different research questions as well as linguistic features to the fore. At the same time we shall illustrate the types of contextualizations that are required and possible in each approach. One of the essential differences in these approaches seems to relate to their emphasis on either the macro-societal or the micro-interactional level. Moreover, synchronic analysis focusing on a certain period in time and diachronic analysis studying language change in subsequent periods of time is also a relevant distinction that has particularly been discussed in the context of historical pragmatics. 2.1  Correlational sociolinguistics In the context of the CEEC project, the different research orientations in this book perhaps also illustrate the epistemology of science, namely how new questions arise on the basis of what we already know. When the CEEC project was originally launched in 1993 with the aim of testing present-day sociolinguistic theories, findings and methods in historical context, this was a new type of





Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

research enterprise, with Romaine (1982) and Milroy (1992) as the predecessors. The theoretical framework was predominantly correlational and variationist, since the idea was to see how social factors like gender or class affect the diffusion of morphosyntactic change. Correlational research based on the CEEC has produced results on the diffusion of morphosyntactic changes in the population, such as the replacement of ye by you, -th by -s and the which by which, showing, for example, that region, i.e., contact between speakers, tends to be the most dominant social factor in the spread of change (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003). This type of research on the corpus has also provided evidence for a new dating of the decline of do in affirmative statements (Nurmi 1999), and shown that grammaticalization processes are socially embedded (Palander-Collin 1999; Laitinen 2007). Correlational studies typically provide information on language variation and change in relation to fairly broad and partly abstract social categories like gender, class, age and education. Variation and change are studied in tandem, as variation is regarded as a prerequisite of change. Research often focuses on linguistic phenomena that form a variable, so that the speaker has to choose between a set of variant forms every time he or she uses a certain grammatical category. While Labov (1972) studied phonological variation, historical correlational sociolinguistics has focused predominantly on morphosyntactic variation, which is more salient in written data. Correlational studies are typically based on plentiful and representative corpus data and, therefore, produce baseline evidence of language variation and change on the population level. Correlational studies have been criticised for their simplistic treatment of social categories, which does not allow for an individual speaker’s situated understanding and construction of his or her social position to be taken into account. Relevant social categories appear to be determined and isolated by the scholar and they are forced on the informants irrespective of what the categories mean(t) to them. This may be true up to a point, but it is also a matter of focus whether we wish to establish the big picture on the population level or zoom in on specific situations or individual usages. Some research questions, like the spread of morphosyntactic change in the population, are best addressed on the macro-level, whereas others, like situated meaning-making processes, require a micro-level analysis (Carter & Sealey 2000; Deumert 2003; Tagliamonte 2002), but both are relevant components of language use. The broad perspective and situation-specific analyses can also be combined, which often means combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The studies in this book combine macro-  and micro-level analyses in various ways. First of all, they focus on specific contexts in the history of English, such as the Paston family in the fifteenth century, Katherine and William Paston in the



The language of daily life in the history of English

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or the Bluestockings in the eighteenth century. In each case, relevant general developments and theoretical considerations are also addressed and the individuals and their language use are viewed in a more general social or societal context. The macro-societal context with categories like rank, gender and education has been established with the help of socio-historical research, but in practice early English society was, of course, a complex reality (see e.g., Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003:  30–43). For instance, hierarchical status differences were well-established, although contemporaries were not unanimous about the number and division of relevant categories. Moreover, social mobility was possible, and also many of the letter writers in the CEEC moved from one social rank to another during their lifetimes. For men, upward mobility was possible at least through education and the accumulation of wealth, while women’s status was often secured through marriage (for mechanisms of social mobility, see Stone & Stone 1984). Thus, status differences and societal contexts may be operationalised in various ways, and only research will tell which categories were linguistically relevant. Our original social categories were rather fine-grained (see e.g., Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg (Eds) 1996), but in practice rougher tri-  or dipartite divisions such as upper–middle–lower or gentry vs non-gentry tend to bring forth more salient differences in usage. This is understandable as the extreme ends of the social scale are most likely to move in different circles and have access to different discourses as part of their daily experience. 2.2  Interactional sociolinguistics Personal letters were originally selected as research material because they have been shown to be close to spoken language in many ways (Biber & Finegan 1989, 1992). On the other hand, language change typically emerges from spoken language. Thus, a genre like personal letters may provide the best possible access to early phases of change in the history of a language. Moreover, as personal letters are authentic communication between identifiable correspondents, and their background is often known on the basis of such sources as the editors’ and historians’ archival work and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, they provide access to earlier patterns of interaction and can be studied from the interactional perspective. Although interactional sociolinguistics is usually associated with ethnographic methods and the study of face-to-face conversation in present-day speech communities, its emphasis on the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse suits historical sociolinguistic approaches equally well. Interactional sociolinguistics also explicitly seeks to bridge the gap between those approaches that claim





Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

communicative practices to be reflections of the macro-societal conditions and constructivist approaches claiming that social worlds are constructed through discourse (Gumperz 2001: 218). For Gumperz (1982: 29–30), our interactions take place in the broad sociocultural context and imply some, but not necessarily complete, sharing of grammatical and social rules: Language differences play an important, positive role in signalling information as well as in creating and maintaining the subtle boundaries of power, status, role and occupational specialization that make up the fabric of our social life. (Gumperz 1982: 6)

The interactional approach to language practices of past informants has its limitations. Entire sequences of letters have not necessarily been preserved, and it may be difficult or impossible to reconstruct the interactive intentions of the correspondents from the evidence we have. Thus, questions like “(1) how and by what signalling devices language functions to evoke the contextual presuppositions that affect interpretation, and (2) what presuppositions are at work in particular talk exchanges” (Gumperz 2001:  219), in that they essentially rely on the interactants’ interpretations, may prove impossible to answer for a historical linguist. On the other hand, the CEEC material allows us to reconstruct informants’ social networks up to a point and make decisions on their social roles in the situation, as when the informant is interpreted as a master writing to a servant in order to tell him to do something. If the interactional focus is applied to historical sociolinguistics, also the question of language change has to be addressed from the perspective of language as a communicative tool. Thus, questions like “What kind of functions do particular linguistic items serve in interaction?” or “What kind of social meanings do they have?” become important in understanding change as well as variation. Due to the interactional emphasis, the linguistic items or phenomena studied are often somewhat different from isolated morphosyntactic features and do not necessarily form an easily identifiable variable. The focus of analysis may be the “entire way of using language”, or discourse style, in particular settings. This is illustrated in many of our contributions in their choice of the linguistic phenomena studied, such as code-switching or referential forms that are chosen for their interactional significance and are analysed in relation to other linguistic features and/or their social and textual function in the context. 2.3  Historical (socio)pragmatics Historical sociolinguistics could also be said to be the starting point for other historical research on human interaction, such as historical pragmatics. In the first



The language of daily life in the history of English

article which tackles the definition of historical pragmatics, Stein (1985: 347–348) distinguishes between two overlapping approaches to sociohistorical linguistics: the first studies how the social and stylistic meanings of individual linguistic items affect linguistic change, whereas the other studies the ways in which changes in the outside world influence changes in individual language structure. Historical pragmatics, according to Stein (1985: 348), falls under this second type of sociohistorical linguistics and in its wider sense comprises cognitive-related research topics, such as the use of address. In practice, the frame of reference for historical pragmatics most clearly comes from present-day pragmatics, an approach which is overwhelmingly synchronic. Arnovick, for instance, sees historical pragmatics as “a marriage of pragmatics, a field typically concerned with spoken language, and historical linguistics” (1999: 10), and in Jucker’s (2000: 90) opinion, historical pragmatics can be defined as the study of historical data from a pragmatic perspective: the diachronic study of pragmatic elements or the study of language change from a pragmatic perspective. Consequently, incorporating the diachronic component of language change into historical pragmatics and legitimising change as a relevant area of study has been the focus of many definitions and discussions. According to Bax (1991; see also Jacobs & Jucker 1995: 6), historical pragmatics is a sub-category of linguistics which aims to study 1. the description and the understanding of conventions of language use in communities that once existed and that are no longer accessible for direct observation, and 2. the description and the explanation of the development of speech conventions in the course of time. (Bax 1991: 200) Jacobs and Jucker (1995: 11; also Jucker 1998: 4) call those historical pragmatics approaches which study the first aim, i.e., the synchronic description and understanding of language conventions, pragmaphilological. They concentrate on the contextual analysis of historical texts, including the writer (addresser) and the reader (addressee) and the social and interpersonal aspects of their relationship, the overall method and setting of text production and reception, as well as the way in which texts are used to achieve a particular goal. Pragmaphilology is also concerned with the similarities and differences of both written and spoken language and the realisations of certain communicative tasks found in both. The second aim is called diachronic pragmatics (Jacobs & Jucker 1995:  13; Jucker 1998: 4). It focuses on different historical stages of the same language and attempts to give pragmatic explanations for either change in language in general or for development of smaller pragmatic units like speech acts and discourse markers,





Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

as well as politeness phenomena. When change is studied on the basis of a particular linguistic form and its historical development, it is called form-to-function mapping. If, on the other hand, the starting point is speech functions and their realisations in time, it is called function-to-form mapping. But as is generally the case with classifying and categorising, the distinction between the two different approaches is not rigid. Both pragmaphilology and diachronic pragmatics may overlap due to change in linguistic form and function (Arnovick 1999: 11; Jacobs & Jucker 1995: 13). (See also Traugott 2004.) Brinton (2001:  138–140), after noting that pragmatics and discourse analysis mostly cover the same topics, divides the field of discourse analysis into “historical discourse analysis”, “discourse-oriented historical linguistics” and “diachronic(ally oriented) discourse analysis” on the basis of whether the approach is synchronic or diachronic. Historical discourse analysis, like discourse analysis in general, has a synchronic orientation and incorporates form-to-function and function-to-form mapping, while discourse-oriented historical linguistics studies discourse-pragmatic factors in language change or discourse motivations behind diachronic phonological, morphological, syntactic or semantic changes. The third approach, diachronic discourse analysis, involves a synthesis of discourse and diachrony in the sense that discourse change is treated on a par with phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic structure. This is a less well-developed area than the other two but potentially of great interest. Correspondence would seem a particularly good candidate for studying changing discourse patterns in historical time periods. A need for a multiplicity of perspectives has been voiced also, for instance, in Kryk-Kastovsky’s (1998, 2002) work, who calls diachronic pragmatics a “younger sister” of synchronic pragmatics, and emphasises the need for an intermediate stage between the two, for example, in the study of grammaticalisation. Similarly, Jucker and Taavitsainen (2003: 7) note, following Arnovick’s notion of a “marriage”, that the “cross-fertilization” of different methods in both diachronic and synchronic studies has benefited both pragmaticists and historical linguists, and has led to terminological expansion (cf. Fitzmaurice 2000: 3). This means that both the scopes of acceptable data and research questions have been extended as a result of this cooperation. As Jacobs and Jucker (1995: 26) point out: The use of the term historical pragmatics does not only delimit a field of scientific enquiry; it should also bring together researchers who share an interest in both language history and pragmatics. … Pragmatics has learnt to look for communicative behaviour beyond the limits of the spoken word, and historical linguistics has learnt to ask questions that go beyond the immediate sentence and text boundaries of historical texts. … The time has come for interdisciplinary research efforts.



The language of daily life in the history of English

Bearing in mind the sociolinguistic starting point of the CEEC project and the wealth of social data we have gathered on the informants, we are also concerned with different views on how sociolinguistics and pragmatics are generally related to each other. In other words, is there a properly societal aspect to pragmatics? Pragmatics can be thought of as a subcategory of sociolinguistics (e.g., Stein 1985), or it can be distinguished from sociolinguistics as a separate but interrelated discipline (e.g., Levinson 1992/1983; Thomas 1995). A componential approach sees sociolinguistics and pragmatics as separate methodologies. Each component is limited to its own domain, and studies on welldefined objects are conducted by using established methods (Mey 1993: 46). As an advocate for looking at pragmatics as a component equal to phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, Levinson (1992/1983: 29) keeps sociolinguistics on a separate plane from grammar. He admits, however, that the width of scope may vary, so that whereas in the narrow interpretation pragmatics is concerned only with linguistically encoded aspects of context, the wider scope includes access to sociolinguistic information (see also Leech’s (1983) “sociological interface” of pragmatics). In her study, Thomas (1995:  185, 187) sees pragmatics as “parasitic” upon sociolinguistics. She admits that there may be some areas of overlap between sociolinguistics and pragmatics, e.g., in code-switching and code-mixing, but emphasises that these overlaps do not change the fact that sociolinguistics is static, whereas pragmatics is dynamic. The static approach, for her, means studying the linguistic correlates of relatively stable social variables, i.e., the linguistic resources, whereas the dynamic approach is more concerned with changeable features and the manner in which people use language to achieve different goals. It is one of our goals in this book to combine the “static” and the “dynamic” approaches in order to see how different social variables affect language use in written interaction, and, on the other hand, to see how the fact that the material is a written and delayed type of interaction shows in the way social relationships are strategically maintained and/or altered. The functional approach Thomas adopts towards pragmatics is further developed by the view that sees pragmatics as a perspective. This so-called “umbrella model” considers pragmatics as an aspect of language which is interrelated and influenced by structure and semantics (Östman 1988:  155). Pragmatics can be used for a functional tool not only for the “dimensions” of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, but also for, e.g., sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics (Verschueren 1995: 11–12, 1999: 269). In this way, sociological, psychological and emotive factors can be included in the study of language use. Labelling pragmatics as a perspective means rejecting disciplinary limitations. This can, however, lead to overgeneralisations, so that any study on language use can have a pragmatic interpretation: everything is pragmatics.



 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

Rather than looking at pragmatics as a loosely-knit method for covering language use, we prefer an approach where pragmatics can be attached to, and make use of other disciplines, but still be primarily defined in terms of linguistic methodology. Mey’s (1993) view of pragmatics as the study of the conditions of language use within the context of society is near to the sense in which we use the term “historical (socio)pragmatics” in this book, combining macro-societal structures with micro-social situations. Mey sees pragmatics as both societal, i.e., dictated by the norms of society, and social, i.e., as something that is created in interaction. Pragmatics is “the societally necessary and consciously interactive dimension of the study of language” (Mey 1993: 315). In historical sociolinguistics, we look at the social diffusion of language change, and by taking historical pragmatics as a starting point, we can see how these changes are manifested in interaction. The reasons for combining what could be called traditional sociolinguistic and pragmatic approaches naturally vary according to the object of study. In order to describe, for example, how personal pronouns or referential terms are used in correspondence, one has to go beyond the immediate context into the social, as well as societal, dimension. The form which language takes in our corpus material can be said to be influenced, and in some cases even dictated, by social conventions. Background information on correspondents — which includes details on e.g., social status and mobility, as well as on the relationship between the writer and the recipient — has to be carefully examined in order to reach reliable conclusions about social and pragmatic reasons for variation and change in the use of the linguistic feature under study. In the course of the compilation of the correspondence corpora we have been fortunate enough to be able to collect data on the letter writers and their correspondents, and in this way our understanding of the reasons leading to particular linguistic contexts has been broadened. This has already become evident in our previous studies on (strategic) language use in early English correspondence (see e.g., Nevala 2004; Nurmi 1999; Palander-Collin 1999). In sum, historical (socio)pragmatics is used in this book as an umbrella term to cover the partly overlapping areas of diachronic, social, societal, individual and interactional variation and change in the language of early English correspondence. We are interested in who the correspondents are, what kind of language they use, why they use certain linguistic features and in what kinds of situations. In other words, we are interested in everything that makes personal interaction a social phenomenon.

3.  Social theory and sociolinguistics Sociolinguists have repeatedly been criticised for the absence of social theory in their work, although sociological counterparts can easily be found for the



The language of daily life in the history of English

extreme forms of macro-sociolinguistics and micro-pragmatics (see e.g., Layder 2003/1997: 1–28; Coupland 2001). The lack of explicit social theory perhaps results from sociologists’ and linguists’ different sets of questions and levels of abstraction. It may be difficult to operationalise social theory for the purposes of empirical linguistic research, or perhaps questions like the diffusion of morphological change do not immediately seem relevant to social theory. Obviously, we cannot force all the contributors into a particular way of thinking, but would briefly like to discuss the question of “macro” and “micro” from the perspective of social theory. We suggest that integrationist understandings of society and language use, which recognise both the relevance of macro-societal structures and micro-situational meaning-making, provide a suitable framework in which our work can be situated (see Coupland 2001:  15–20). Carter and Sealey (2000), relying on Layder (2003/1997) in particular, also discuss how the sociological concepts of structure and agency in the sense of realist social theory could benefit sociolinguistic analysis. Layder (2006/1994) explores three key sociological dualisms, individual–society, agency–structure and micro–macro, which as concepts are also frequently employed in linguistic studies. For him, these dualisms are not antagonistic but linked. For example, the individual has subjective experiences, otherwise the notion of individual identity would be impossible, but at the same time the individual is never free of social involvements and commitments. The individual is also an active agent who does things which affect social relationships, but within the confines of what the structure, i.e., the objective features of social life, makes possible for the individual to do. Layder (2006/1994: 5) defines structure as social organisations, institutions and cultural products that are “part of a pre-existing set of social arrangements that people enter into at birth and which typically endure beyond their lifetimes”. These dualisms overlap with each other and with micro and macro analyses. If micro analysis is concerned with face-to-face conduct, it relates to self-identity, subjective experience and to the individual’s agency, while macro analysis with its focus on remote, impersonal, large-scale phenomena and patterned distribution of groups of people or resources in society is linked to structure. “The common element in both structures and macro phenomena is that they refer to reproduced patterns of power and social organization” (Layder 2006/1994: 6). Layder’s domain theory (2003/1997) develops these ideas further as a “moderate” form of objectivism incorporating both the notion of systematic and objective knowledge and the analysis of subjectivity to understand social life in general and face-to-face encounters in particular. Layder (2003/1997: 2, 78) proposes a model of four social domains that are always related to each other over time and space and bound together by social relations and positions, power, discourses and practices:  (1) psychobiography, (2) situated activity, (3) social settings and (4) contextual resources. Layder’s (2003/1997:  2–5) domains situate individuals



 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

in a complex web of their personal feelings, attitudes and predispositions, the current face-to-face transaction, the particular setting of a specific location or social organisation and the society-wide distribution and ownership of resources along gender, race and class lines. It may be an extremely complicated task to incorporate all the four domains within the same empirical study of language use, but domain theory might offer tools of contextualisation for linguists interested in language in society and help us incorporate various linguistic aspects and levels of use within the same model of language variation and change. The CEEC data and the background information we have collected on the informants allow this type of contextualisation. First, personal psychobiographies are reflected in such variables as the informants’ family relations, education, social and geographical mobility and professional history. We have, for instance, assumed that the level of education affects the informant’s stylistic literacy and style-shifting practices. Even personal feelings and attitudes in the current situation may sometimes be interpreted from the letters. Second, the current transaction can be situated in terms of the mutual roles of writer and recipient in the situation and the purpose of the letter. Most likely, different linguistic strategies are adopted if a son studying at the university writes to his father to ask for more money or to tell about the progress of his studies. Third, the social setting of letter writing was governed by genre-specific conventions and norms explicated in letter-writing manuals, but also various other institutional practices may have been relevant. Family correspondence, for instance, tends to be more informal and involved than letters written to more distant acquaintances, which often concern business, administrative or legal matters, although these letters are written between individuals rather than their respective organisations. Finally, in terms of the society-wide distribution of resources, social hierarchies were one of the pervasive features of early and late modern society, as pointed out in Section 2.1 above. Status differences are overtly coded in the closing and opening formulae of the letters, but other linguistic choices may also reflect such differences. In line with domain theory, we see that these factors are simultaneously present in any communicative situation. Since educational resources, for instance, were mainly available to upper-class men, they had primary access to written modes and were able to express themselves in different capacities in letters to family, friends and acquaintances. Or, as women were mostly active in the family sphere, their letters are typically written on family matters, possibly in a familial rather than an official type of language.

4.  Letters as research material Correspondence is real communication between identifiable people. Most letters follow certain genre conventions, such as opening and closing formulae, dates and



The language of daily life in the history of English 

such, some of them changing over time. Personal correspondence typically performs one or, more commonly, both of the following functions. On the one hand, letters communicate information (personal, political or social news, business matters, or a combination of some of these) across geographical distances, in a varying length of time. On the other hand, letters also serve the purpose of maintaining and negotiating social relations, whether kinship, friendship or a more distant relationship such as between a suitor and a benefactor. A typical letter throughout the centuries covered by this volume contains a mixture of information and management of social relationships by expressing affection, respect or other feelings towards the recipient. Following Görlach’s (1999:  141) categorisation, letters as a genre can be characterised as independent, original, written, non-fictional, non-technical prose with no accompanying elements (such as images or music).2 On the other hand, correspondence is also very heterogeneous, ranging the whole scale of possibilities from conventional to unconventional and formal to informal, and covering any number of topics. Letters as a text type show some typical characteristics as well. Biber (2001:  98–99) identifies many linguistic features commonly attested in letters, expressing interactiveness and personal involvement (e.g., first-  and secondperson pronouns), personal stance (e.g., modals, private verbs, and emphatics) and structural reduction (e.g., that deletion, and indefinite pronouns). In addition to these, Nurmi and Palander-Collin (2008) identified frequently occurring personal and kinship names and titles as typical of correspondence, as well as temporal expressions. Thus, various forms of person, social and time deixis are frequently expressed. These can be directly related to the formal constraints of letter writing, such as opening and closing formulae and the dating of letters, as well as tracking the course of correspondence. Letters also turned out to be written in less standardised orthography than the comparison corpora of published materials (for details see Nurmi & Palander-Collin 2008). When we regard letters as research material, two advantages appear. Letters provide access to linguistic features from past ages which are not otherwise easily reached. Firstly, correspondence between intimates is carried out in informal registers, and, in the case of less literate writers, exhibits some characteristics of spoken language (e.g., add-on strategies). This makes letters a genre which is more likely to approach the vernacular of the past. Even when writers are more educated and aware of the conventions of written language in general and letter writing

.  However, there are also letters with drawings and musical notations, so this classification of letters as simply text is not entirely accurate. Also the layout of textual elements is considered important in letter writing (see e.g., Nevala 2004: 39).

 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

in particular, correspondence still provides us with access to the language of the private sphere, allowing us to glimpse the daily life of ordinary folk as well as well-known public figures. Secondly, letters are real interaction between specific people. This provides us with an opportunity to study features of interactive language use in real communicative contexts, avoiding, for example, the pitfalls of fictive representations of conversation. Unlike many genres of published writing, letters are commonly more focused on the mundane, and, while individual writers may use them as a means of highly articulate self expression, letters are seldom as polished as anything intended for publication. 4.1  Corpora of Early English Correspondence The main research material in this volume consists of the original Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) and its two complementary parts, the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (CEECE) and the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement (CEECSU). The corpora were compiled to provide a research tool for the study of stratificational sociolinguistics during earlier stages of English, with the intent of both testing the applicability of present-day sociolinguistic methods in historical linguistics and providing a social context for linguistic change. During the course of corpus compilation and use the CEEC corpus family has established its suitability for both quantitative and qualitative research in stratificational and interactional sociolinguistics as well as socio-pragmatics. (For a discussion of the compilation principles, see e.g., Laitinen (2007); Nevala (2004); Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg (2003) and (Eds) (1996); Nurmi (1999); Palander-Collin (1999); Raumolin-Brunberg & Nevalainen (2007).) Table 1.  Corpora of Early English Correspondence. Corpus CEEC CEECE* CEECSU* Total

Timespan

Wordcount

Collections

Writers

Letters

1410?–1681 1653–1800 1402–1681 1402–1800

2.7 million 2.2 million 0.4 million 5.3 million

96 77 19 192

778 194 94 1,066

6,039 4,921 859 11,819

*May 2007 version; some writers appear in all three versions of the corpus.

The main structural units of the CEEC corpus family are collection, writer and letter. Table 1 shows the relevant statistics for the three corpora.3 A collection is .  Two parts of the corpus are published:  the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). CEECS



The language of daily life in the history of English 

usually based on a single edition of one person’s or family’s or other group’s letters. So the collection labelled Osborne contains the letters of Dorothy Osborne, while Paston is a selection from the Paston letters. Collections such as Original 1 refer to our sampling of printed volumes presenting a selection of letters by a great variety of authors from the holdings of the British Library. The Appendix at the end of this volume is organised according to collection, and provides the bibliographical references for each edition, as well as the word counts of our selection and the years covered. All corpus examples in the volume include a collection reference giving the page number of the edition. In selecting suitable collections for the corpus, the most vital consideration, in addition to content, was the quality of editing. We have sought out editions which preserve as much of the original language as possible, maintaining original spelling and clearly indicating doubtful readings. Particularly in the case of older editions, or editions prepared for non-linguistic use, the editorial principles employed have not always been spelled out, if expressed at all. In those cases we have made an estimate of the reliability of the edition based on the appearance of, for example, non-standard spelling and morphology. A number of suspect editions, and editions without any expressed editorial principles, were also spot-checked against the original manuscripts in the British Library and the Public Record Office. It turned out most editions were quite accurate in their representation of the language of the manuscripts. In cases where editorial descriptions were lacking, the differences were such as could be inferred from the published text even without seeing the manuscript, modernised punctuation and capitalisation being the most common, but also, for example, the placing of the date at the beginning or end of the letter. Only a few editions proved too unreliable to use, and some (e.g., Marchall, Pitt2) were re-edited from the manuscripts by our team. The most important unit from the theoretical and methodological point of view is the letter writer. Each letter writer has a unique identifier, and in practice most research is carried out tracing the linguistic patterns of individuals, even if often further grouped according to social variables. The letter writers, our informants, have been selected according to criteria of social representativity. While the poor literacy of earlier centuries places limitations on this principle, our aim has been to reach maximal coverage of the literate proportion of the population. Social variables forming the main dimensions of informant selection were gender and

contains a selection of copyright-free collections from the CEEC, and PCEEC presents the bulk of the original corpus, with added part-of-speech tagging and syntactic parsing. Both published versions can be obtained through the Oxford Text Archive and ICAME.

 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

social rank, but other characteristics tracked included social mobility, domicile and education. A sender database containing extensive background information on each of our informants provides much necessary data for the interpretation of research results. Our preference was for informants who had produced a good body of material and on whom there was a fair amount of background information available. Particularly in the earlier centuries it was necessary to make concessions on both these grounds, and to include people with only one letter extant, or people with insufficient data on their lives, because they were representative of a social category (most typically the lower ranks or women) otherwise poorly represented. While the most central people of the corpus are the letter writers, letter recipients are also taken into account, as register variation is most straightforwardly tracked through this variable. Much of the recipient information is being transferred into a comprehensive electronic database, containing all the same social variables as the sender database, which will provide a major resource in the research focused on interactional sociolinguistics and socio-pragmatics. The third basic unit of the corpus is the letter. The letters from each informant were chosen according to several criteria. Authenticity was a key factor. Our highest priority was to include autograph letters from reliable editions faithfully representing the language forms used by the writer. In the interest of social representativity, however, copies and scribal letters have also been included, particularly for the earlier centuries and in the case of women and the lower social ranks. Another key factor in letter selection was the search for informal registers, which meant the inclusion of as high a proportion of letters to family members and close friends as possible. This was complemented by a selection of letters to more distant recipients, typically written in an official or business context. Whenever possible, a variety of recipient types was included for each writer. This was not always possible, partly because of the random survival of letters and the differing needs of letter writers for written communication, but also because many early letter editors had a clear (although often unstated) preference for either official and “historically valuable” letters, leaving family correspondence unedited in archives, or, more rarely, an interest in the everyday and familial connections, with more distant or official letters disregarded. In addition to these two main criteria for letter selection, the usual corpus linguistic principles of selecting good texts (without any notable gaps, of a reasonable length, and so on) were kept in mind. Also letters with extensive foreign language passages were seldom included. Over the past fifteen years of corpus compilation and research, the CEEC corpus family has shown a remarkable robustness in tracing concomitant linguistic and social changes over the four centuries covered by the material.



The language of daily life in the history of English 

5.  Structure of the volume The volume is divided into three subsections, “Variation and social relations”, “Methodological considerations in the study of change” and “Sociohistorical context”. The division reflects the different focal points adopted in the papers included, although all papers deal with language variation and change in a narrower or broader social context. The sections and the included papers are presented below. 5.1  Section 1: Variation and social relations The first subsection focuses on letters as the type of data that can be used to study language variation from the interactional perspective in the historical context. In these three papers, variation in code-switching, self-mention and addressee inclusion patterns and referential terms and expressions are particularly linked to the ways in which the writers negotiate their identities in the communicative context of the letter, situating themselves and others in social space. Päivi Pahta and Arja Nurmi discuss code-switching in Charles Burney’s eighteenth-century letters to family members, friends and acquaintances, and explore reciprocity in code-switching practices by looking at Fanny Burney’s and Thomas Twining’s letters to Charles Burney. The most common language used by Burney in code-switches is French, but the array of different classical and contemporary languages in his letters is impressive and may be one of the outcomes of his extensive journeys on the continent. The analysis shows that the frequency of switches to different recipients varies and reflects both Burney’s knowledge of the recipient’s command of foreign languages as well as the intimacy of the relationship. There is also reciprocity in switching patterns so that the same languages and similar phrases are used by both correspondents. Code-switching serves both interpersonal and textual functions. Some of the switches are clearly related to the writer’s identity work, such as the use of professional terminology or French to show social status, but others are prefabricated, conventionalised chunks that may simply be void of identity-relevant meaning. The overall uses of code-switching are very similar to those found in present-day languages. Dealing with the late-sixteenth-century correspondence of a Norfolk gentleman Nathaniel Bacon and his circle, Minna Palander-Collin explores how the interpersonal and identity functions of language are enacted through the use of self-mention and addressee inclusion patterns, as they overtly bring in the writer and recipient to the letter. The results show both quantitative and qualitative differences in self-mention and addressee inclusion patterns according to Bacon’s relationship to the addressee. The highest frequencies of self-mention and direct addressee inclusion characterise close relationships where the social distance

 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

between the correspondents is small as well as those relationships where Bacon wrote in the role of a superior (e.g., master to servant). Qualitatively, self-mention and addressee inclusion were involved in different discourse patterns like friendship discourse to social inferiors and humiliative obedience discourse to social superiors. Finally, ranks below the gentry and professionals seemed to be more mixed in their usage of self-mention and addressee inclusion patterns as their experience of and access to the variety of styles was undoubtedly different from a gentleman’s linguistic repertoire. In the final paper of this subsection, Minna Nevala explores referential terms and expressions in eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century letters of the so-called Lunar Society of Birmingham, with Erasmus Darwin, Matthew Boulton and James Watt as its founding members. These Lunar men formed a close-knit social group, which could even be called a community of practice due to its common aspirations. The analysis includes all the references to these three men, and in order to obtain enough data, the Lunar letters included in the CEECE were complemented from other sources. Nevala takes the concept of social deixis as her starting point and asks whether the social identity of the referent can be expressed in the reference. Since referential terms are often derived from direct address forms, which are socially deictic, explicitly coding the referent’s social status, the answer is that referential terms should be regarded as equally important. Moreover, the idea of social deixis includes the contextual role of the referent in addition to the absolute status. Although referential terms do not show much variation in the material, they still serve a variety of interpersonal functions, indexing social networks and strategically indicating local stance. The analysis shows how letters are not merely communication between the writers and their recipients, as reference terms are variously used to attend to the face of the writer, the recipient or the referent. Thus, they contribute to the indexing of in-group and out-group affiliations of all the three parties. 5.2  Section 2: Methodological considerations in the study of change The second subsection focuses on the methodological aspects in the study of variation and change in the language of both individual informants and informant groups or networks. The section begins with Anni Sairio’s article on the reconstruction of social networks, giving methodological tools that can be employed in situating individuals in their social contexts and in testing patterns of linguistic influence and diffusion of language change in a network. Using social network analysis (SNA), Sairio analyses the strength of relational ties in the Bluestocking network in eighteenth-century English polite society. In particular, she looks at the frequencies of pied piping and preposition stranding in Elizabeth Montagu’s correspondence



The language of daily life in the history of English 

with her closest network members in order to see whether strong network connections favour the use of familiar and stigmatised linguistic constructions. The results suggest that stigmatised forms are favoured when the recipients are below Montagu’s own social rank but avoided in letters to her social superiors. Terttu Nevalainen deals with motherese, a specific issue among interactional factors in language change, applying recent research on the development of sociolinguistic competence in children and adolescents. She discusses how parents and other caregivers talked about and communicated with children in their personal correspondence, by reconstructing patterns of child-directed language on several levels in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Unfortunately, studying the whole acquisition process would be methodologically impossible as texts written by young children are rare, but in a case study, Nevalainen analyses the patterns of discourse and linguistic models which Lady Katherine Paston transmitted in her letters to her teenage son in the mid-1620s. Features of her child-directed discourse style include both negative (directives) and positive politeness (approval, belonging, sharing). As to language change, the results show that, compared with the language community at large, Katherine Paston was neither ahead of her contemporaries nor did she lag behind them. This means the linguistic model she provided to her son was fairly middle-of-the-road. Unlike modern parents, who tend to use more standard forms when talking to their children, she did not particularly reinforce current supralocal usages when she wrote to her son, as her language contained local features. In the final article in this section, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg looks at the participation of individual informants in ongoing linguistic change between 1500–1700. The article examines the lifespan linguistic changes of three English gentlemen, Sir Walter Ralegh, Philip Gawdy and John Chamberlain, with regard to the diffusion of several morphological and syntactic changes, ranging from the indicative third-person singular suffix -th vs the sibilant -s to the possessives mine and thine vs their shorter variants my and thy. Raumolin-Brunberg finds that there is considerable individual variation in the adoption of the innovative forms, and she discusses possible reasons for the resulting linguistic profiles of her three informants, namely the effects of communal and generational change, as well as regional and social accommodation. Considering the lifespan changes this analysis reveals, Raumolin-Brunberg suggests that apparent-time analysis and the roles of generational and communal changes as descriptive models should be reconsidered. 5.3  Section 3: Sociohistorical context The final section of the volume presents three case studies of language in a particular sociohistorical context. Mikko Laitinen discusses the early stages of

 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi

language prescription in the eighteenth century, when normative grammars were first becoming widely published and read. He illustrates the standardisation of the second-person past tense form of be into you were and the stigmatisation of you was from three different angles. First, Laitinen charts the general distribution of the competing variants in the multi-genre ARCHER corpus and the CEECE, showing that the use of you was was an eighteenth-century phenomenon. He goes on to describe the gender distribution of the variable, and reports that both the initial increase of you was as well as its decline were led by male informants. Finally, Laitinen looks at the ways in which grammarians and other professionals use you was and you were, and shows that the prescribed new standard form you were is adopted more quickly by them than by other letter writers of the period. In an even more specific historical context, Samuli Kaislaniemi discusses three Japanese loanwords (goshuin, tono and tatami) adopted by East India Company merchants in the early seventeenth century. Each word illustrates a specific set of problems in its adaptation, showing a mixture of cultural misunderstandings, false generalisations and semantic shift. The words were most common in correspondence between merchants working in Japan, but they were also included in letters sent to London, and in these cases they were often glossed. Kaislaniemi tracks the different patterns of adoption and adaptation for the three words, setting them into their original Japanese context as well as in the mercantile jargon of the English merchants. Finally, Teo Juvonen combines the historical and linguistic descriptions of possession in a case study of the letters of John Paston II. Juvonen describes possession as a component of identity, comprising both the material and the social, the first being more defined by legal considerations and the second expressing e.g., familial bonds. Linguistically, Juvonen takes an equally broad perspective of ownership, including any expression of a possessive relation in the qualitative part of his study. The second half narrows the possessive expressions down for a quantitative study charting the connections between different possessee types and possessive structures.

References Corpora CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of English, University of Helsinki.



The language of daily life in the history of English 

CEECE = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. CEECS = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler. 1998. Compiled by Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. CEECSU = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. PCEEC = Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin, with additional annotation by Ann Taylor. Annotated by Ann Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: University of Helsinki and York: University of York.

Other references Arnovick, Leslie K. 1999. Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bax, Marcel M.H. 1991. “Historische Pragmatik:  Eine Herausforderung für die Zukunft.” In Diachrone Semantik und Pragmatik: Untersuchungen zur Erklärung und Beschreibung des Sprachwandels, Dietrich Busse (Ed.), 197–215. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Biber, Douglas. 2001. “Dimensions of variation among 18th-century speech-based and written registers.” In Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (Eds), 89–109. Heidelberg: Winter. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. “Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres.” Language 65 (3): 487–517. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1992. “The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th century.” In History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (Eds), 688–704. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel. 2001. “Historical discourse analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E.  Hamilton (Eds), 138–160. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Carter, Bob & Sealey, Alison. 2000. “Language, structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (1): 3–20. Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. “Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4): 479–508. Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. “Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory.” In Sociolinguistics and Social Theory [Language in Social Life Series], Nikolas Coupland, Srikant Sarangi & Christopher N. Candlin (Eds), 1–26. Harlow: Longman Pearson Education. Deumert, Ana. 2003. “Bringing speakers back in? Epistemological reflections on speaker-oriented explanations of language change.” Language Sciences 25: 15–76. Eggins, Suzanne & Slade, Diana. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.

 Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2000. “Some remarks on the rhetoric of historical pragmatics.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–6. Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in Nineteenth-century England. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John J. 2001. “Interactional sociolinguistics:  A personal perspective.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds), 215–228. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Jacobs, Andreas & Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. “The historical perspective in pragmatics.” In Historical Pragmatics:  Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, Andreas H.  Jucker (Ed.), 3–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jucker, Andreas H. 1998. “Historical pragmatics: An interdisciplinary approach.” In Anglistentag 1997 Giessen:  Proceedings, Raimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes & Andreas H.  Jucker (Eds), 3–7. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. History of English and English Historical Linguistics. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Jucker, Andreas H.  & Taavitsainen, Irma. 2003. “Introduction.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas H. Jucker (Eds), 1–25. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1998. “Methodological issues in synchronic and diachronic pragmatics.” In Scripta Manent, Stanislaw Puppel (Ed.), 125–134. Poznań: Motivex. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2002. Synchronic and Diachronic Investigations in Pragmatics. Poznań: Motivex. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Laitinen, Mikko. 2007. Agreement Patterns in English. Diachronic Corpus Studies on Commonnumber Pronouns. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Layder, Derek. 2006/1994. Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications. Layder, Derek. 2003/1997. Modern Social Theory. Key Debates and New Directions. London: Routledge. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman. Levinson, Stephen. 1992/1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change:  On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English [Language in Society 19]. Oxford: Blackwell. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England [Longman Linguistics Library]. London: Longman Pearson Education. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (Eds). 1996. Sociolinguistics and Language History. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A Social History of Periphrastic do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nurmi, Arja & Palander-Collin, Minna. 2008. “Letters as a text type:  Interaction in writing.” In Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004–2008. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/.



The language of daily life in the history of English 

Östman, Jan-Ola. 1988. “Implicit involvement in interactive writing.” In The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, Marcella Bertucelli-Papi & Jef Verschueren (Eds), 155–178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding:  i think and methinks in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nevalainen, Terttu. 2007. “Historical sociolinguistics:  The Corpus of Early English Correspondence.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Diachronic Databases, vol. 2, Joan C.  Beal, Karen P.  Corrigan & Herbert L.  Moisl (Eds), 148–171. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics. Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2002. “Investigating stylistic variation.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds), 375–401. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Stein, Dieter. 1985. “Perspectives on historical pragmatics.” Folia Linguistica Historica 6 (1): 347–355. Stone, Lawrence & Stone, Jeanne C.  Fawtier. 1984. An Open Elite? England 1540–1880. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tagliamonte, Sali. 2002. “Comparative sociolinguistics.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds), 729–763. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London/New York: Longman. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2004. “Historical pragmatics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (Eds), 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell. Verschueren, Jef. 1995. “The pragmatic perspective.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics Manual, Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman & Jan Blommaert (Eds), 1–19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

section 1

Variation and social relations

Negotiating interpersonal identities in writing Code-switching practices in Charles Burney’s correspondence Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi This study examines code-switching in eighteenth-century interpersonal communication, focusing on the correspondence of musician and music historian Charles Burney. The paper builds on our previous work on code-switching in the history of English texts, and draws on insights gained in research in interactional sociolinguistics. The results show variation in code-switching practices with regard to the relationship between the writer and recipient. Code-switching is more frequent in letters written between correspondents who have a close relationship. Switches can have a locally meaningful function, organising discourse, indicating stance, or indexing the writer’s identity. Switching can also be seen as a style which in itself indexes particular types of social memberships and relationships. My dearest Padre — I have just got your direction, in a Letter from my Mother, an account that you seem to be in health & spirits (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1792; BurneyF I, 228)

1.  Introduction One of the commonplaces in research on language use is the fundamental principle put forth by pioneers in sociolinguistics that there are “no single-style speakers” (Labov 1970: 19).1 The verbal repertoire (Hymes 1984: 44) of each language user is a complex of linguistic resources, “a set of ways of speaking” consisting of

1.  The research reported here has been supported (in part) by the project on Multilingualism as a Problematic Resource, funded in the Finland Distinguished Professor programme by the Academy of Finland and the University of Jyväskylä (Pahta), and by the Academy of Finland (Nurmi).

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

“speech styles, on the one hand, and contexts of discourse, on the other, together with relations of appropriateness obtaining between styles and contexts” (Hymes 1996:  33; original emphasis). The speaker’s varying use of these resources, i.e., intraspeaker variation, in the various contexts of discourse is conditioned by a wide range of language-external factors prevailing in the communicative situation. Some of these factors are speaker-related social identity features, like age, gender and profession or features deriving from the speaker’s life experiences, whereas some are connected with other circumstances in the context of discourse, including the other participants in the communicative situation and their social characteristics, and the nature of the relationship between the interlocutors (see e.g., Biber 1994). The linguistic resources that speakers draw on are mobilized in different ways in different situations, and the choices that speakers make depend on and reflect their understanding and interpretation of the situation at hand and their communicative ends, and index their social identities and relationships with others (Blommaert 2005: 10–13). Present-day bilingual speakers are known to use the multilingual resources available to them in their everyday communication to negotiate their interpersonal identities in social interaction in various ways.2 In a similar fashion, speakers traditionally characterised as monolingual can draw on foreign languages known to them, thus indexing their social identity or their relationship with the interlocutor by their multilingual practices (see e.g., Rampton 1995, 2006). In this study we observe multilingual practices in eighteenth-century interpersonal communication. Our primary concern is code-switching, i.e., the alternation of elements from more than one language, in the letters of Charles Burney, a musician and music historian, and his correspondents. We discuss Burney’s code-switching habits as acts of identity in interaction with his correspondents, offering a microlevel view on the meanings and functions of code-switching in the context of Burney’s social networks and in relation to his varying relationships with the members of those networks. In addition to examining Burney’s own code-switching practices as a resource in the negotiation of his interpersonal roles in the letters he wrote to different recipients, we complement the view by comparing them to the patterns of switching in the letters he received from two correspondents, his daughter Fanny Burney and his friend and collaborator Thomas Twining, in order to search for reciprocity. This allows us to make some observations on code-switching in the letters between Charles Burney and his correspondents engaging in interaction that bears some resemblance to conversational activity in speech.

2.  For recent research, see e.g., the studies in the special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, issue 3: Conversational Code-switching.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

In addition to describing the code-switching patterns of Burney and his correspondents, our study tests varying means of approaching patterns of reciprocity in their letters. Our approach includes qualitative and quantitative techniques in the search of the multilayered multilingual practices evidenced in these writings, building and expressing intricate interpersonal relationships in the course of the correspondence, and hinting at the greater picture of the often multilayered connections between members of the network. Our corpus-based study draws on research carried out in the framework of interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982), combining insights from sociolinguistics, pragmatics and conversation analysis to the study of multilingualism and language contact phenomena (e.g., Auer 1984, 1998; Bailey 2000; Cashman 2005; Li Wei 2005) and applying them to the analysis of written communication in a historical perspective. Section 2 first briefly describes the frame of reference we have used for analysing code-switching in this study. We then introduce the corpus material in Section 3, and our informants, Charles Burney and his correspondents, in Section 4. Section 5 describes the language repertoire in Burney’s correspondence and provides a quantitative view of the distribution and frequency of codeswitching in his correspondence with different recipients. Finally, we focus on code-switching as a communicative resource by which Burney acts out his social identities and interpersonal relationships, and examine the same phenomenon in reciprocity in Sections 6 and 7. Section 8 provides a conclusion.

2.  Code-switching The term code-switching is variously defined by different scholars in research on language contact.3 For many researchers it is a specific subtype of language alternation. Muysken (2000), for example, uses the term code-switching only for changes of language that occur at a sentence boundary, and the term code-mixing for changes of language that take place within sentence boundaries. Auer (1984), on the other hand, reserves the term code-switching only for those changes of language that have local meaning in the context in which they occur. In this study, as in our earlier research, the term code-switching is used as an umbrella term to refer to any identifiable changes from one language to another within a communicative episode, in this case a single letter, or a sequence of letters between two correspondents. Our definition of the term thus excludes alternation of expressions from different registers

3.  Cf. Clyne (2003: 72), who points out that the term has become “so polysemous and unclear that it is necessary to find more precise terms to map out boundaries and interfaces”.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

within one language, which is sometimes also referred to as code-switching — a phenomenon which for clarity’s sake we prefer to call style-shifting. Code-switching, in the general sense in which we use the term, is a common linguistic phenomenon in multilingual contexts. In Gumperz’s (1982: 131) terms we can speak of code-switching as a contextualisation cue, as one of the many linguistic or non-verbal procedures which can be used for signalling contextual presuppositions, both social and interactional. In recent research on spoken data, code-switching is often seen as a multifunctional and polysemous phenomenon that can simultaneously have both macro-level social functions and several microlevel discursive or interactional functions (see e.g., Bailey 2000), although many scholars stress the nature of code-switching as an essentially conversational activity, i.e., one which takes place in conversational contexts (Li Wei 2005: 276). The results on spoken data show that switches can be used for communicative effect and for building stance both on the ideational and interpersonal levels (cf. Biber & Finegan 1989). Switches can emphasise, elaborate or evaluate. A switch can have a discourse-organising function: it can mark episode boundaries or topic shifts, separate reconstructed dialogue, reported speech or a direct quotation from the speaker’s own ideas, or a metadiscursive comment from narration. Switching also serves to index and negotiate speaker identities or interpersonal relationships. It can specify a particular addressee as the recipient of the message, establish groupmembership, intimacy or social distance, or signal power or prestige (see e.g., Milroy, Li Wei & Ching 1992). It is what language users “do” to construct their social identities in interaction (Cashman 2005:  302). In the interactional frame, the “sequential implicativeness of language choice” (Auer 1984: 5) has also become obvious. Several studies on code-switching within the framework of conversation analysis show that code-switching (in a conversational turn or utterances within a turn) influences subsequent language choices by the same or other speakers. The past decade has witnessed an increasing interest in historical codeswitching research (see e.g., Wenzel 1994; Wright 1998; Schendl 2002; Pahta 2004; Nurmi & Pahta 2004; Pahta & Nurmi 2006). This research has shown that some of the functions and meanings of code-switching identified in present-day spoken data can also be found in written texts surviving from past periods. These include, for example, the frequent occurrence of code-switching in quotations and in other types of text-  and discourse-organising functions. Various kinds of genre-  or domain-specific switching patterns typical of particular communicative situations can also be detected, including code-switching connected with the in-group language use of merchants, lawyers, the clergy, or medical professionals (Wright 1998; Nurmi & Pahta 2004; Pahta 2004), or letter-writing conventions, such as the use of code-switched dates or politeness formulae at the beginnings and endings of letters (Nurmi & Pahta 2004; Pahta & Nurmi 2007).



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

The interactional nature of code-switching has so far received little attention in historical code-switching research. Although written letters are obviously a different genre from spoken conversation, they provide evidence of language use in an interactional situation that has many similarities to conversation. Thus, our study examines the letters written by eighteenth-century informants essentially as communication between interlocutors in writing, seeking to provide a diachronic view on code-switching as a resource in the construction and negotiation of interpersonal identities in social interaction.

3.  Material Our data comes from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (CEECE). The primary material is the selection of the letters written by Charles Burney, altogether 40,000 words in 50 letters from the period 1762–1784. This particular material was chosen on the basis of our earlier research (Pahta & Nurmi 2007), which shows that Charles Burney’s letters contain code-switching more often and into more languages than those of the average writer in CEECE. Our earlier research also indicates that Burney’s code-switching practices vary in relation to different recipients, and thus his letters offer us a better opportunity to examine the role of code-switching in the construction and negotiation of the writer’s interpersonal identities and social roles than those of most other writers in the corpus. The CEECE also includes some letters written to Charles Burney by the same people to whom he wrote, which provides an opportunity to examine similarities and differences in the switching patterns of Burney’s correspondents and to compare their practices with his. It also facilitates the search for possible patterns of reciprocity in code-switching practices, i.e., makes it possible to examine codeswitching as a rough equivalent of conversational activity in writing between the correspondents. In this study, we have included letters written to Burney by his daughter Fanny Burney (12,000 words, 15 letters, written 1778–1800) and friend Thomas Twining (27,000 words, 25 letters, written 1773–1785).4 In the corpus sample, the actual letters between the correspondents, however, are only seldom direct replies. Fanny’s letter to her father around 13 August 1779 seems to have received a reply on 29 August, and the exchange of letters between Charles Burney and Thomas Twining in 1773 (TT 7 April, CB 28 April, TT’s short note 8 May, TT’s longer letter 28 May, TT 22 July, CB 30 August, TT 16 October) is something like

4.  More details on the letter collections Burney, BurneyF and Twining can be found in the Appendix to this volume.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

a more direct answer–reply pattern, as is the pair of letters ten years later (TT 22 October 1783, CB 10 November 1783) and the sequence in the following year (TT 26 June 1784, CB 31 July 1784, TT 27 August 1784).5 The nature of the correspondence between Burney and the two recipients in this study prevents a systematic sequential analysis of code-switching practices, but allows some general observations on reciprocity. Foreign language passages have been coded into CEECE by corpus markup, which allowed us to retrieve the data by searching for the mark-up brackets. Decisions on what in fact constitutes a code-switch in the corpus material, i.e., not a borrowing, have been revisited in individual cases during the course of our work, as the larger patterns have become more apparent.6

4.  Charles Burney and his correspondents The central figure in this study is Charles Burney (1726–1814), a musician and a music historian (Wagstaff 2004). His father was a dancer, musician and portrait painter. Burney was educated at Shrewsbury and Chester Free Schools, where he showed a talent for music from early on. He was apprenticed to Thomas Arne, the composer, in 1744 and moved to London. Once in London, Burney found a patron in Fulke Greville, and married his first wife, Esther Sleepe in 1749. The couple had several children; in this study we will encounter Charles Burney Jr, Frances (Fanny) Burney and Susanna Phillips (née Burney). Burney composed music, but started also writing about it in the late 1740s. In 1751 he moved his family to King’s Lynn for health reasons. He was widowed in 1762, and remarried in 1767. During his second marriage Burney travelled

5.  The seemingly long intervals between answers and replies are frequently commented on by the correspondents. So, on 30 August 1773 Burney explains how various disagreeable impediments have prevented him from answering Twining’s “admirable Letter of May 28th” (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining; Burney 138), and on the 10th of November 1783 he begins his letter with “excuses for letting so kind, so afflicting, so comforting, & so admirable a Letter, remain near 3 weeks unanswered” (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining; Burney 387). Twining for his part responds to Burney’s comment on the length of his letter (“I am as much ashamed of the Length of this Letter as of the Time you have waited for it.” Charles Burney to Thomas Twining; Burney 148) with “You say you were ashamed of the length of it” (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney; Twining I, 84), thus confirming he is replying to the letter sent nearly a month previously. 6.  The brackets take the form of (\exempli gratia\). For a discussion of this phenomenon in earlier letter material, see Nurmi and Pahta 2004.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

extensively, which may to some extent explain his command of an impressive array of languages. In 1770 he made a tour of France and Italy to collect material for his General History of Music (4 vols), published in 1776–1789. Burney received the degree of DMus from Oxford in 1769, and became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1772, but still continued to give music lessons and to write about music. He also became a corresponding member of the Institut National de France in 1810. The fact that Burney was a well-educated and a well-travelled man is reflected in the wide repertoire of languages in which he had some degree of fluency. The recipients of Burney’s letters provide the “interlocutors”, who, though most of them in practice passive and silent in this study, have an important role as Burney’s perceived partners in the negotiation of his interpersonal identity. The network studied here is by no means an exhaustive set of Burney’s correspondents, merely the sample included in CEECE. There are two main kinds of recipients, family members and others, but within these two groups there are further subdivisions into more and less intimate addressees. Furthermore, there is more background information preserved on some members of the network than others, which makes the assessment of the nature of their relationship with Burney in some cases quite difficult. CEECE contains Charles Burney’s letters to various members of his family. Elizabeth Allen (1728–1796) was Burney’s second wife. She was the widow of Stephen Allen, a good friend of Burney’s in King’s Lynn. The couple married in 1767 (Wagstaff 2004). The two letters addressed to her are from a period before their marriage, but after their first spouses had died. There is no information on Elizabeth Allen’s language skills, but she was admired for both her beauty and her education, so it is feasible she may have had some learning in foreign languages. Burney comments in a surviving fragment of his memoirs how, apart from his first wife, few of the Lynn ladies were readers except for Mrs Stephen Allen, “a beautiful woman who had educated herself, & by her passion for reading had acquired the superficies of general literature in a superior degree” (Klima, Bowers & Grant (Eds) 1988: 115–116). Three of Burney’s children are among the recipients in our sample. Burney’s son, Charles Burney Jr7 (1757–1817) was a schoolmaster and book collector (Troide 2004). He was educated at Cambridge, but was forced to leave the university in disgrace in 1777 after stealing books from the university library and selling them. Burney senior was appalled at his son’s behaviour, but managed to

7.  We refer to him as Charles Burney Jr simply to distinguish him from his father in this study — the abbreviation Jr is not commonly added to his name.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

arrange for Charles Jr to be further educated at King’s College, Aberdeen, where he received his MA in classical studies in 1781. Charles Burney Jr was then employed at Dr William Rose’s private school at Chiswick, where he succeeded Rose as headmaster in 1786. The younger Burney distinguished himself in the classics, and published many translations, commentaries, editions and reviews of Greek and Latin works. Later he gained honorary doctorates of law both from Aberdeen and from the University of Glasgow. In 1807 he was reinstated at Caius College, Cambridge, and received his MA by royal mandate in 1808. This was followed by rapid advancement in the church. Burney became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1802 and professor of ancient literature at the Royal Academy in 1810. His immense private library was purchased by the British Museum in 1818. Charles Burney Jr married Dr William Rose’s daughter Sarah (1759–1821) in 1783, and they had one son (Troide 2004). The younger Burney was obviously very skilled in classical languages, but there is no information on his knowledge of contemporary languages, and nothing is known for certain of his wife’s education. However, since Burney became a schoolmaster, and his wife was daughter to one, it is likely that they had knowledge of at least French. Of the two Burney daughters included in our sample, Frances Burney (1752–1840) was the elder (Rogers 2004). Fanny, as she was known in the family, was educated at home, and in her early years she developed a taste for reading and a passion for writing. She taught herself French as a teenager. Fanny acted as her father’s amanuensis while he was writing his magnum opus on music history. The family’s contacts with the London musical and literary circles brought her in touch with a variety of distinguished people, and in 1776 she became part of Hester Lynch Thrale’s (later Piozzi) circle. Her first novel, Evelina was published in 1778, and the subsequent fame gave Fanny access to e.g., Elizabeth Montagu’s refined literary circle (see Sairio in this volume). The latter half of the 1780s Fanny spent at court, attending to Queen Charlotte. After her release from the demanding duties, she made visits to literary friends, and during one of them became acquainted with a group of French emigrants, including Alexandre-Jean-Baptiste Piochard D’Arblay (1754–1818), who was to become her husband in 1793. In 1802 she followed her husband to France, where they lived with short interruptions until 1815. Some of the letters Fanny wrote to her father are included in CEECE and were examined for this study. Burney’s other daughter appears in our study under her married name, Susanna Phillips (1755–1800) (Wagstaff 2004). In 1764 Burney took two of his daughters, Esther and Susanna, to France “in order to abridge the time necessary in England for learning a little bad French, by dipping them over head and ears in it, where being boarded in a house where nothing else was spoken, they must



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

drink or drown; and they being young and the Organs of speech ductile, they wd acquire a better pronunciation & idiom in a few weeks, than at home in as many years, where it is book French wch children learn & English translated” (Klima et al. (Eds) 1988: 156–157). Among Burney’s other correspondents, there is a clearly identifiable group of friends, an inner circle, and a few more distant connections, an outer circle. Samuel Crisp (1707–1783) was a playwright and a close friend of both Charles Burney and his daughter Fanny. The son of a wealthy London merchant, Crisp was educated at Eton, and studied arts and music in Italy for some years. The Burneys were frequent visitors in Crisp’s home at Chessington (Sambrook 2004). Unfortunately no letters from Crisp to Burney are available for this study. In Crisp’s letters to other recipients, switches into French, Italian and Latin appear, so it seems he had at least some command of these languages. Another close friend was Thomas Twining, a vicar, classical scholar and translator, as well as a talented musician. He was a great help to Charles Burney in the writing of Burney’s General History of Music (Lane-Poole 2004). Twining’s command of Latin and Greek is clearly evidenced in his own publications, and his letters to Burney show evidence of his well-rounded skills in contemporary languages as well. Several of the letters he wrote to Charles Burney are inluded in CEECE; our material in fact contains more letters from Twining to Burney than vice versa (see Nurmi & Pahta forthcoming). The last recipient of Burney’s letters included in this study that can be regarded as a member of the inner circle is Hester Lynch Thrale (1741–1821), or Hester Piozzi after her second marriage. She was a friend of the Burney family (Franklin 2004). Her parents were keen to educate their daughter, and she mentions in her autobiography how “they had taught me to read and speak and think and translate from the French, till I was half a Prodigy” (Lobban (Ed.) 1910: 5). She was also taught Italian, Latin and Spanish at an early age (Lobban (Ed.) 1910: 11). With her second husband, Gabriel Mario Piozzi, she travelled in France, Italy and Germany for three years in the 1780s. Unfortunately, no letters from her to Burney are available for this study. In addition to the inner circle, there are three more distant recipients of Burney’s letters. The first of these, Charles Davy (1722/3–1797), was a clergyman with an interest in music. He studied at Cambridge, and settled in Norfolk after his studies (Cooper 2004). As far as it is possible to ascertain on the basis of the extant letters, it seems that Davy and Burney corresponded fairly formally, mostly on matters related to music and Davy’s translations in the field. The second more distant recipient was John Montagu, fourth earl of Sandwich (1718–1792). He was one of Burney’s patrons. In this case the distance is also due to the social distance of rank. Lord Sandwich was an educated man, a

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

respected scholar and orientalist, who had a great interest in music as well (Rodger 2004/2006). The last recipient included in this study is Rev. Montagu North (1712–1779), D.D., who was installed Canon of Windsor in 1775. He and his older brother Roger were friends of Burney. His father, Roger North, wrote an informative manuscript “Memoirs of Music”, which Burney quoted in his General History of Music (Klima et al. (Eds) 1988: 110–111).

5.  The repertoire and frequency of code-switching Charles Burney’s letters display a command of a wide repertoire of languages, although it is evident that he was more fluent in some than in others. In addition to his travels on the continent (see Section 4), he also had a great many connections with international circles in England. This can be seen from the passage quoted in example (1), where Burney describes a tea party at his house in a letter to Mrs Thrale.

(1) I had a Congress of out-landish folks at Tea — a Sigr Fontana, a very intelligent Florentine — a Germans Meister das Sprache — an Irish Gentn — wth a Portugal, & a Dutch Jew, his Companion. (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1797; Burney 289)8

Details of Burney’s and his correspondents’ language selection in the switched passages are shown in Table 1, recording the non-English segments in Charles Burney’s letters to all recipients, and in Fanny Burney’s and Thomas Twining’s letters to Charles Burney. In addition to English, Burney used six other languages in the sample of his correspondence included in this study. French and Italian are the two most frequently occurring foreign languages. The frequency of French seems to echo its contemporary role as the language of culture and social interaction among the upper social strata, whereas Italian was the dominant language in music, Burney’s professional domain. Classical languages, the languages of education and scholarship, also occur in the data. In addition, there are some occasional instances of other contemporary European languages.

8.  It can be seen from this example that Burney’s German skills were by no means impeccable, since rather than Meister der Sprache he writes Meister das Sprache.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

Table 1.  Language repertoire in Charles Burney’s correspondence (N = number of code-switched segments, ASL = average length of code-switched segments in words). Writer

Language

N

N/1000 w

ASL

Charles Burney

French German Greek Italian Latin Spanish Total

56 3 3 38 16 2 118

1.4 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 3.0

2.9 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.6

Fanny Burney

French Italian Latin Total

21 4 2 27

1.7 0.3 0.2 2.2

4.2 1.3 1.5 3.6

Thomas Twining

French Greek Italian Latin Total

78 1 33 20 132

2.9 0.0 1.2 0.7 4.9

2.3 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.1

The length of the switched segments in Burney’s letters varies between one and 33 words; the average length is 2.6 words. French segments tend to be somewhat longer than the others. Burney’s letters typically contain passages with frequent code-switching, often to more than one language in the course of a short space. This is illustrated in example (2), containing switches to both French and Italian, and example (3), with segments in Latin and French.

(2) But, en attendant, let me tell you that our dear Pacchierotti is come back, (entre nous, par une Trame de ma facon) Though such is the distracted state of Opera Governmt, it is very doubtful whether any Theatrical use will be made during the whole winter of his Talents — but he is here — & I shall now & then hear him — I have made him very fond of a Cantata by Haydn, lately come from Vienna. “Ah, come il core mi palpita” — It is so much in his best style of singing that it seems fatta apposta per lui (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1783; Burney 398)



(3) How can you be so ungrateful to complain of the Emptiness of the Place you are in, when surrounded with Wisdom, Learning, & Beauty; to wch you can, ad Libitum, contribute the Seasoning of Wit. — I feel very comfortable that you and the dear & sweet Mrs Crewe club Chatation together. Pray put her in mind of me again & again. And don’t let my Master think to diddle me daddle me out of all my breeding — Cook up I entreat you, selon son goût, mille Jolies Choses de ma Part — here comes the postman, or I shd have been my own Cook (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1779; Burney 258–259)

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

In Fanny Burney’s letters, French is the most commonly occurring foreign language, with isolated instances of Italian and Latin. Her switched passages tend to be longer than those of her father’s, particularly the French passages; the average length of all code-switched segments is 3.6 words. On the other hand, the frequency of switched segments in her letters is somewhat lower than in her father’s letters. In Thomas Twining’s letters, too, the most frequent foreign language is French. Twining code-switches more frequently than either Burney or his daughter, but the switched segments in his letters are shorter; the average length of the code-switched segments is 2.1 words. Table 2.  Code-switching in letters by Charles Burney to different recipients.

F A M I L Y

O T H E R

Recipient

Words

Letters

Letters with CS

% CS

Elizabeth Allen Charles Burney Jr Fanny Burney Sarah Burney Susanna Phillips

1,174 2,711 5,115 1,490 3,011

2 4 10 3 3

0 2 7 0 3

0 50 70 0 100

Family total

13,501

22

12

55

Samuel Crisp Charles Davy Montagu North Lord Sandwich Hester Lynch Thrale Thomas Twining

3,552 881 1,159 2,746 6,840 10,772

5 2 2 4 11 4

3 0 1 0 10 4

60 0 50 0 91 100

Other total

25,950

28

18

64

Total

39,451

50

30

50

An analysis of the distribution of code-switched segments in the material shows that Charles Burney’s code-switching practices vary both quantitatively and qualitatively in letters written to different recipients. Table 2 presents our quantitative findings in letters written by Burney to different recipients. On the basis of their relationship to Burney, we initially divided the recipients into two categories, “family” and “other”, using a stable social categorization that in some earlier studies of language use based on the correspondence corpora has proved salient (see e.g., Nevala 2004; Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003:  198–200; Palander-Collin 2002, 2006). The first category includes Elizabeth Allen, i.e., Burney’s second wife-to-be; his daughters Fanny Burney and Susanna Phillips; his son Charles Burney Jr; and his daughter-in-law Sarah Burney. Among the “other” recipients, Samuel Crisp and Thomas Twining can be regarded as Burney’s close friends, and Hester Lynch Thrale (later Piozzi) was a member of the same literary circle. Charles Davy and Montagu North were Burney’s acquaintances and Lord Sandwich his long-time patron.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

The table shows the number of words in the letters addressed to each recipient, the total number of letters, and the number of letters containing code-switching, as well as the percentage of letters in which code-switching appears. The two most notable things in this table are Burney’s practice of varying his code-switching according to recipient, and the lack of a clear-cut difference between family and other recipients in his code-switching practices. Table 3 provides the corresponding information on Fanny Burney’s and Thomas Twining’s letters to Charles Burney. When the figures are compared with Table 2, it is evident that on this level of quantification they both reciprocated with Burney in their code-switching practices. Table 3.  Code-switching in letters by Fanny Burney and Thomas Twining to Charles Burney. Writer

Words

Letters

Letters with CS

% CS

Fanny Burney Thomas Twining

12,102 26,689

15 25

12 24

80 96

The patterns of variation emerge even more clearly in Table 4, where instances of Burney’s code-switching are given in more detail. The table includes the raw frequencies of switched segments, normalised frequencies per 1,000 words, and the number of switched segments related to the number of letters. The last column shows the average length of the switched segments in words. Table 4.  Charles Burney’s code-switching frequency by recipient. Recipient

CS segments CS segments/1,000 w CS segments/letter ASL

F A M I L Y

Elizabeth Allen Charles Burney Jr Fanny Burney Sarah Burney Susanna Phillips Family total

0 3 10 0 19 32

0.0 1.1 2.0 0.0 6.3 2.4

0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 6.3 1.5

0.0 2.3 2.7 0.0 2.2 2.4

O T H E R

Samuel Crisp Charles Davy Montagu North Lord Sandwich Hester L. Thrale Thomas Twining Other total

7 0 1 0 33 45 86

2.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 4.8 4.2 3.3

1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 11.3 3.1

1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 2.6

118

3.0

2.4

2.6

Total

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

According to this data, Burney code-switches most often in his letters to his daughter Susanna Phillips, and friends Hester Lynch Thrale and Thomas Twining. Switching is also fairly frequent in letters to his other daughter Fanny and his friend Samuel Crisp. On the other hand, there are no code-switches in letters to Elizabeth Allen, Sarah Burney, Charles Davy or Lord Sandwich. In the first two cases it may be assumed that Burney’s knowledge of the recipient’s insufficient or lacking command of foreign languages influenced his own performance. In the case of Davy and Sandwich, it is possible that the lack of intimacy in the relationships caused Burney to avoid switching as a communicative strategy. Since the recipients who are most frequently the targets of Burney’s switching are among his intimates, it is plausible that regardless of the recipients’ knowledge of foreign languages Burney did not regard switching as appropriate in more distant relationships. Table 5.  Charles Burney’s code-switching to recipients by language (switches/1,000 words). Recipient

French

German

Greek

Italian

Latin

Spanish

F A M I L Y

Elizabeth Allen Charles Burney Jr Fanny Burney Sarah Burney Susanna Phillips Family total

0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 2.7 1.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.7 1.0

0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1

O T H E R

Samuel Crisp Charles Davy Montagu North Lord Sandwich Hester L. Thrale Thomas Twining Other total

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.6 1.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.0

0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Total

1.4

0.1

0.1

1.0

0.4

0.1

Table 5 shows Burney’s switching patterns to each recipient with regard to frequency of switched passages in the various languages he employed. The frequency of switching seems to correlate with the wide selection of languages that are used in the correspondence. The patterns of reciprocity are also fairly clear. As is seen when comparing these frequencies with Table 1, Fanny Burney writers and receives both French and Italian quite frequently. While she also occasionally resorts to Latin in letters to her father, he does not reciprocate. Thomas Twining and Charles Burney employ amongst themselves almost the whole range of languages attested in our material (only Spanish is not found in Twining’s letters to Burney, although there is an instance of it in Burney’s letters to Twining).



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

Table 6 confirms the pattern of the frequency of switching for Burney’s two correspondents. Fanny Burney switches as frequently when writing to her father as he to her, but the switched segments in her letters are longer than in his. Thomas Twining code-switches in his letters to Burney slightly more often than Burney does in letters to him, but Twining’s switched passages are slightly shorter than Burney’s (see Table 4). Table 6.  The code-switching frequency of Charles Burney’s correspondents. Writer Fanny Burney Thomas Twining

CS segments

CS segments/1,000 w

CS segments/letter

ASL

27 132

2.2 4.9

1.8 5.3

3.6 2.1

6.  Code-switching practices in Charles Burney’s letters Charles Burney’s letters contain instances of the common types of code-switching that we identified in an earlier study on eighteenth-century letters in CEECE (see Pahta & Nurmi 2007). This earlier study, based on 725,000 words by 86 informants in 1,237 letters contained in the then available version of the corpus, showed that various types of prefabricated chunks play a substantial role in the code-switching practices of many eighteenth-century letter-writers. These included proverbs and citations repeating utterances that were formulated by other speakers or writers, or conventionalised and formulaic items, such as fixed phrases used in interactional routines like leavetaking. This is perhaps the easiest form of switching, which does not require any fluency in the second language. In Burney’s letters this is seen in examples like (4) to (7), illustrating code-switched proverbialised quotations or polite formulae, which, if nothing else, portray Burney as a member of the welleducated social ranks of his age.

(4) Never complain of want of νους or of spunk — for yr Critique is full of Fire. (Charles Burney to Samuel Crisp, 1771; Burney 89)9



(5) As there are many Bipeds who are insensible to the Charms of Wealth, Honour, Ambition, & even Love, so there are others that know not the fascinating Power of certain Figures, & dispositions over our souls, when the Congenial Spirit, the Idem velle et idem Nolle, operate in favour of those we call our Friends — the thing, however subsists, & its effects have been so often proved, & recorded that there can be no doubt of its having always existed. (Charles Burney to Charles Burney Jr, 1781; Burney 317–318)10

9.  Here Burney gives a free translation of νους as ‘spunk’. 10.  ‘(To want) the same in intentions and disinclinations’, Sallust, Bellum Catilinae.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi



(6) you are a good honest sort of a shop-keeper, a man of real business, who hates to waste Peoples Precious time in palaver, & useless words — Quid multa? Pauca Verba — shall be his Motto. (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1781; Burney 323)11



(7) I must, & ought to run away as I did yesterday — so once more addio — & portez vous bien — C. B. (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1778; Burney 246)

However, some eighteenth-century writers in CEECE code-switch quite freely and fluently from one language to another, using code-switched segments beyond mere conventionalised or ready-made expressions as a resource to organise their discourse and to create subtle meanings, suggesting a more than basic command in the language in question. Charles Burney is one of the writers whose switching patterns are more varied than those of most other informants in CEECE, and his letters contain more examples of fluent switching between languages than those of most other writers. Accordingly, the proportion of prefabricated or conventionalised chunks is smaller in his letters. In Charles Burney’s language use, code-switching frequently serves as a resource for indicating various kinds of shifts and transitions, or changes in footing, involving a change in the writer’s alignment in relation to the situation at hand (Goffman 1981). These include discourse-organising switches, as in example (8), where the French discourse marker coincides with a topic shift, or example (9), where the switched segment is a parenthetic aside, a metadiscursive comment reflecting the writer’s attitude towards the main topic.

(8) Here’s no news yet! & so we’ll have no Politics — they sour the blood, & are not half so exhilerating as Quibbles & nonsense — á propos — here has been our Frd Jemmy Mathias to day, singing like a bird — of wisdom, as he is — & has taken up all the precious time I intended to bestow on you, with his old songs & saws (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1779; Burney 277)



(9) others will be yet curious in their enquiries after a Balon being sent out on discoveries and in pursuit of Comets, Meteors, & double-stars. — Tout cela viendrá, soyez sure — and Fanny, or at least, her Children, will live to see many things in these Aerial voyages wch elder sons & daughters of mother Earth have hitherto thought beyond the reach of human ken. (Charles Burney to Susanna Phillips, 1783; Burney 403)12

In addition to metadiscursive comments, Burney’s code-switches often occur in other contexts indicating stance, i.e., his attitudes, feelings, judgements, or

11.  ‘What penalty? Few words.’ These were common phrases. 12.  ‘All this will happen, you can be sure.’



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

commitments concerning the propositional content of the utterance (Biber & Finegan 1989). These include emphasis in expressions concerning precision, as in examples (10) and (11), or in apologies, as in (12). (10) I believe you wd do justement comm[e] ca (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1781; Burney 324) (11) You must perceive though I have not said it, totidem verbis, that The Italians are far behind us in the construction of their Instruments & in their performance upon them; but that in singing, the first & most essential part of music, they are before all the world. (Charles Burney to Montagu North, 1771; Burney 96) (12) But I forget that I am writing, & my Pen prattles away your Time about Tweedledum & Tweedledee … Perdona! amica mia Colendissima! (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1778; Burney 243)13

Emotional colouring, as in the previous example, frequently triggers code-switching in Burney’s letters, including expressions of both positive (example 13) and negative emotions (example 14). (13) Love me, & teach your Husband & Bratty to love me as well as I love ye all, & shall be Molto Contento — Love to the good Mrs H. & honest Kate —  (Charles Burney to Susanna Phillips, 1784; Burney 416) (14) but that there are certain Diavolini degl’Impedimenti, or mischievous Sylphs & Gnomes that successfully forge Fetters for Resolution, even wise Folks will deny; & yet, I seem surrounded with an Army of them, that prevent me from doing every thing I wish & intend. (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1777; Burney 236)

Example (15) illustrates Burney’s ironical code-switched remarks, also connected with commentary, emphasis and emotional colouring. (15) What a nonsense Letter is this to send to a learned Lady! Well, vive la bagatelle! (Charles Burney to Hester Lynch Thrale, 1781; Burney 324)

On the other hand, code-switching is also clearly a resource by which Charles Burney expresses his interest and professional knowledge in music. (16) His voice was in good order, & he sang divinely — his 1st song a Grasiosa —  or rather mezza bravura Air of Bertoni, which I had never heard before; but so elegant & fanciful that I shd have been less surprised had I been told that the Catilena was Pacchierotti’s — his 2d Air a Cantabile in the gran gusto by Anfossi — and the 3d air, Rasserena il mesto ciglio, of Gluck, wch we got encored. (Charles Burney to Susanna Phillips, 1783; Burney 404)

13.  ‘Pardon me! My most worshipful friend!’

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

7.  Reciprocity in code-switching practices Since Burney’s letters show some variation in switching practices according to the recipient, it is interesting to compare the similarities and differences in the letters of two of his correspondents, his daughter Fanny and his friend Thomas Twining. The following two subsections explore the patterns of reciprocity in their code-switching practices. 7.1  L  ike father, like daughter? Correspondence between Charles Burney and Fanny Burney There are many similarities in the code-switching practices of Charles and Fanny Burney. This is hardly surprising, since, in addition to the familial relationship, Fanny worked as her father’s amanuensis, and thus, the ties between them are close in two important social domains. Both Charles and Fanny use formulaic and conventionalised expressions. These include routine expressions used in greetings and leavetakings (example 17) as well as various words and phrases on their way to becoming part of the English vocabulary, like incog in example (18), an eighteenth-century variant of the originally Latin incognito, which has been integrated into English lexicon.14 (17) Adieu, adieu, I shall present Hetty with this bit of paper to write down her dream upon, for she is now fast asleep at my Elbow. (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney, 1764; Burney 47) (18) I have so earnestly desired to continue incog (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1778; BurneyF III, 41)

Since father and daughter are equally involved in various artistic pursuits, both literary and musical, it is not unexpected to find them employing special terminology, e.g., for literary concepts or musical genres, thus reflecting their professional and personal interests and life styles (examples 19 and 20). (19) — I am just come from the Comick Opera, wch is here Called the Comedie Italienne (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney, 1764; Burney 41)

14.  Incognito appears in standard Present-day English dictionaries like the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary as part of the English lexicon. The first entries in the OED date from the mid-seventeenth century. Cf. Nurmi and Pahta (forthcoming), which notes that in Thomas Twining’s correspondence nearly a third of all switched passages has an entry in the OED, the first citation in many cases originating from the literary circle of which the Burneys were also members.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

(20) & as soon as I have read myself into a forgetfulness of my old Dramatis persona, — lest I should produce something else as Witless as the last. (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1779; BurneyF III, 347)

The use of French in the Burneys’ letters also reflects the role of French in contemporary society, particularly among the upper classes, among whom the Burneys increasingly associated (example 21). (21) Cecilia’s Notoriety & publicity among les Gens comme il faut (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney, 1782; Burney 354)

Both Charles and Fanny use code-switching as a structuring device to separate different sections or levels of text or discourse. Especially Fanny code-switches frequently for speech representation, including direct and indirect speech, and quotations (for more on this topic, see Nevala & Palander-Collin forthcoming). These are in the language of the original utterance, so that Fanny reports her French husband’s words in the original French in (example 22), and a second-hand quotation in example (23). (22) The Gardener says I must insert mille choses aimables de sa part & says he has not forgot he was promised some gooseberries (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1795; BurneyF III, 144) (23) I always think of the words that so long impressed M. Beaumez, “il faut étre ou Coquin, ou fou,” to have any thing to do with them (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1794; BurneyF III, 38)

Switching attains a very different function in expressions which can be seen as emotionally loaded, expressing stance in a foreign language. Tenderness, for example, might be more difficult or embarrassing to express in English (example 24), or perhaps the strength of the emotion might be more emphasised in English (examples 25–27; see also examples 13–14 above). (24) Il caro Amico va partire subito, subito, & there is not the least hope of getting a day for the party I had planned (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney and Suzanna Phillips, 1784; Burney 419)15 (25) The fatal knell then, is knolled! & down among the Dead Men sink the poor Witlings, — for-ever & for-ever & for-ever! — I give a sigh whether I will or not to their memory, for, however worthless, they were mes Enfans (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1779; BurneyF III, 345–346) (26) Bambino is quite well. (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1795; BurneyF III, 144)

15.  ‘The dear friend will leave quickly, quickly.’

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

(27) M. d’A. has here un petit heritier du nom (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1795; BurneyF III, 358)16

Switching is also frequently resorted to for reasons of decorum and, possibly, humour. Whether the description of Fanny’s appearing before Mrs Crewe en déshabillé is intended to be decorous or humorous, is of course difficult to determine without more intimate knowledge of the father–daughter relationship. It is quite possible that the switching is in fact intended to be humorous, in order to allow mention of a state of dress which is less than socially suitable. (28) I rejoice very much that Mrs. Crewe is in Town, & her spirited kindness in her menaced visit at your Bed Side reconciles me completely to the bold deed of appearing before her en Robe de Chambre et en pantoufles. (Fanny Burney to Charles Burney, 1794; BurneyF III, 37)

Finally, it is often the case that switching seems to serve no particular local function at all. On these occasions it is plausible that the expressions used are merely fashionable terms at the time, and show an attunement to the current idiom used in their social circles. Examples (29) and (30) represent instances of this kind. (29) Mrs Rishton, writes word to D. Y. that she has read Cicely 3 Times over, herself, & her sposo, like Sr Jos. wth Evelina is unable to eat & drink for it — he brings the bk constantly to table at dinner & supper — (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney and Mr and Mrs Phillips, 1782; Burney 343) (30) The weather is now delicious, and though I hate being in London, yet I feel but little appetite for Ches. when neither yourself nor the Phills are there — don’t tell Kate — & therefore I have made a bargain wth Sir Jos. at a venison dinner he gave yesterday, to club horses, & go in his Chariot, like Cavalieri, to Norbury. He has long promised, he says, & long wished, to go thither; & it is now determined that we get there by dinner, on tuesday, & stay till thursday. (Charles Burney to Fanny Burney, 1784; Burney 440)

7.2  F  riends and collaborators: Correspondence between Charles Burney and Thomas Twining The relationship between Charles Burney and Thomas Twining was apparently quite close. Twining was permitted to know of and attempt to help in the cover-up of Charles Burney Jr’s Cambridge scandal, which speaks strongly of a certain degree of intimacy. Twining also corresponded to some extent with Fanny and Charles Jr, so he can be regarded as a friend of the whole family. The main connection between

16.  ‘A little heir to his name.’



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

Twining and Burney, however, was in the writing of Burney’s history of music: Twining was a respected classical scholar (as well as a seemingly talented amateur musician), and was able to offer comments on Burney’s manuscript (for further information on Twining’s code-switching see Nurmi & Pahta forthcoming). Some of the switching in their letters can be regarded as conventionalised, as in examples (31) and (32), containing expressions that have become common in English.17 (31) I made my escape to the House of a Friend in a small Village, ten or twelve Miles from a Market Town, where I recd your last kind communication, & where I am at work upon the opus Magnum, in Peace and Quiet, for I can do nothing at it in London on acct of eternal Interuptions, nor at Lynn for eating & drinking. (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 139) (32) Though he is passé as a composer, &, to the generality of the world, as a player, I shall always think his musical talents & his natural taste very respectable (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1777; Twining I, 148)

In examples (33) and (34), in the two Burneys’ correspondence, quotations are often given in the original language. But unlike the correspondence between Burney and his daughter, example (33) also includes some Greek, indicating a level of formal education which gives access to literature in both classical languages. (33) And I think the very passage in Euclid upon which those who think otherwise have founded their opinions, is in our Favour. He says that the Diatonic Tetrachord moves from the acute to the grave by the Intervals of Tone, Tone, & Semitone: κατα τόνον, καί τονον, καί ἡμιτόνιον. (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 142)18 (34) Lord Bacon talks somewhere about a certain “viscositas mentis”. Now I have always felt a great deal of this glew in my mind. (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1784; Twining I, 256)

Similarly, code-switched comments on the discussed topics are common (examples 35–36). Sometimes these comments seem to include emotional colouring, and to function like exclamations.

17.  Both magnum opus and passé are recorded in Present-day English dictionaries. Opus magnum is recorded in use in the OED for the first time in c. 1704 and the first citation of passé is from Fanny Burney’s diaries in 1775. 18.  Burney provides an English translation of the Greek preceding the switched passage: “Tone, Tone, & Semitone”.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

(35) as a player, he was always deficient in Time; as a composer, laboured; & as a Critic, jamais de bonne Foi, changing his opinions according to his Interest, as often as Caprice. (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 144)19 (36) For a week, or nearly, after my removal hither, I cou’d do nothing — mais, rien du tout (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1781; Twining I, 218)20

Since a great deal of the two men’s correspondence dealt with Burney’s magnum opus on the history of music, it is not surprising to find Italian musical terms appearing frequently in their letters (examples 37 and 38), sometimes in metaphorical uses, as in example (39). (37) He said it was the kind of Recitativo Cantante (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 398) (38) that he got much from Lulli (particularly the method of modulating in legatura) & from Bononcini’s famous Camilla. (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1773; Twining I, 80) (39) the flute-players & instrumental performers — all this is a crescendo of interest & amusement (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1775; Twining I, 102)

Emotional colouring and various exclamations also appear in both writers’ letters, as in examples (40)–(44). If we consider code-switching as an index of intimacy, this may well be a means of regulating the strength of emotional expression, perhaps softening or strengthening the tone in comparison with an English expression. This seems to apply to the expressions of personal emotion (as in examples 41 and 42) as well as to the expression of emotion more generally (examples 40 and 44). (40) but what we do cón amore is usually done at a Jerk (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 148) (41) Ah! je respire! — vous m’avez soulage! (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1774; Twining I, 88)21 (42) I have been pretty much repandu, as a Correspondent, since I first communicated to the Public my design of attempting a Histy of Music. … You seem to me to get to the Root of my Besogne, while others are playing at See-saw on the Branches. I have often seen with disgust the grossierté of Strong Compliments (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 138)22

19.  ‘never sincere’. 20.  ‘just nothing at all’. 21.  ‘I breathe more easily! You have relieved me!’ 22.  ‘widely spread … labour … vulgarity.’



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

(43) Indeed, next to such a Dread as yours of being thought a Pushing Fellow, there is nothing that would Mortify me more than to find myself á Charge to my Friends. (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 140) (44) When He told you of poor Corelli’s Disgrazia at Naples, I suppose he sunk his own, at the same place. (Charles Burney to Thomas Twining, 1773; Burney 145)

Many of the switches appear to have no particular local function in the letters, unless we consider the appearance of fluency in foreign languages, and, particularly in the case of French, a certain wish to be regarded as a member of the upper classes as such. It may also well be that the use of French idioms in written (and possibly spoken) language was so commonplace that expressions such as the following were barely noticeable as switches for the correspondents. (49) One was that you were much en liaison with one Mr. Bewly … (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1781; Twining I, 197) (50) I will write again as soon as I have read thro’, or made some progress in, the Essay on Tune. En attendant — You guess at my joys & sorrows (Thomas Twining to Charles Burney, 1781; Twining I, 197)

8.  Conclusion Our case study of Charles Burney’s code-switching practices shows that there is considerable variation in the quantity of code-switching in the letters by the same informant. To some extent this variation is conditioned by the interpersonal relationship between the writer and the recipient, so that Burney uses his multilingual resources in different ways with different interactants. The general tendency observed in Burney’s correspondence seems to be that a close relationship between the writer and the recipient is a prerequisite for frequent and multilingual code-switching. In this sense, switching in our data is very much an in-group phenomenon. However, the in-group cannot be defined in terms of stable social categories or simple dichotomies like family–others, for the individual interpersonal relationships between the writer and the recipient seem to be more significant. Interestingly, similar variation in the quality of code-switching was more difficult to establish. While the switched segments occur in a range of discourse functions, there was no significant alteration between letters addressed to different correspondents. Conventionalised, prefabricated chunks are in all cases most frequent, but our informants also code-switch quite freely and fluently from one language to another and are able to use multilingual resources to organise their discourse and to create subtle, often emotive meanings. On the basis of our

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi

observations it seems possible that code-switching is linked to a more general style shift in letters to more intimate correspondents. In that case the appearance of code-switching in personal correspondence could be regarded as a linguistic phenomenon that goes hand in hand with an informal style. This hypothesis would require the study of further linguistic variables to confirm it. On the other hand, it is also true in our data that “[l]anguage alternation can be void of identity-relevant meaning in some contexts, and yet in others extremely rich in the identity-work it accomplishes” (Auer 2005: 409). Some code-switches can be seen as an integral part of identity expression in these letters (professional terms, for example, or the use of French as a signifier of social status), and provide evidence of Burney and his correspondents making intersubjectively understood choices to achieve their interactional goals (cf. Li Wei 2005:  376). Others seem purely conventionalised, exhibiting very little identity work in the local context in which they occur. These findings could suggest that code-switching itself is a style indexing particular types of social memberships and relationships (cf. Auer 2005: 406). In a diachronic perspective, the findings also provide evidence of at least some continuity in the use of multilingual resources in social interaction.

References Auer, Peter. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, Peter. 2005. “A postscript:  Code-switching and social identity.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 403–410. Auer, Peter. (Ed.). 1998. Code-switching in Conversation:  Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. Bailey, Benjamin. 2000. “Social/interactional functions of code switching among Dominican Americans.” Pragmatics 10: 165–193. Biber, Douglas. 1994. “An analytical framework for register studies.” In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan (Eds), 31–56. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.” Text 9 (1): 93–124. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cashman, Holly R. 2005. “Identities at play:  Language preference and group membership in bilingual talk in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 301–315. CEECE = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. Clyne, Michael. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, Thompson. 2004. “Davy, Charles (1722/3–1797).” Rev. Philip Carter. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/7309, accessed 24 April 2006.



Code-switching in Charles Burney’s correspondence 

Franklin, Michael J. 2004. “Piozzi, Hester Lynch (1741–1821).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22309, accessed 24 April 2006. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, Dell. 1984. “Sociolinguistics:  Stability and consolidation.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45: 39–45. Hymes, Dell. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Towards and Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor and Francis. Klima, Slava, Bowers, Garry & Grant, Kerry S. (Eds). 1988. Memoirs of Dr. Charles Burney 1726–1769. Edited from Autograph Fragments. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press. Labov, William. 1970. The Study of Nonstandard English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Lane-Poole, Stanley. 2004. “Twining, Thomas (bap. 1734; d. 1804).” Rev. Anna Chahoud. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/27910, accessed 24 April 2006. Li Wei. 2005. “‘How can you tell?’ Towards a common sense explanation of conversational codeswitching.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 375–389. Milroy, Lesley, Li Wei & Ching, Pong Sin. 1992. “A two-step sociolinguistic analysis of codeswitching and language choice: The example of a bilingual Chinese community in Britain.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2: 63–86. Lobban, J.H. (Ed.). 1910. Dr. Johnson’s Mrs. Thrale. Autobiography, Letters and Literary Remains of Mrs. Piozzi, Edited by A. Hayward, Q.C., Newly Selected and Edited with Introduction and Notes. Edinburgh/London: T.N. Foulis. Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevala, Minna & Palander-Collin, Minna. Forthcoming. “O England! England! She says my Father my Sisters my friends! shall I ever see you more? Reporting in 18th-century correspondence.” In Interactional Discourse, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, Johanna Karhukorpi & Mia Raitaniemi (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Nurmi, Arja & Pahta, Päivi. 2004. “Social stratification and patterns of code-switching in early English letters.” Multilingua 23: 417–456. Nurmi, Arja & Pahta, Päivi. Forthcoming. “Preacher, scholar, brother, friend:  Social roles and code-switching in the writings of Thomas Twining.” In Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English, Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Minna Palander-Collin (Eds). OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2008. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http:// www.oed.com. Pahta, Päivi. 2004. “Code-switching in medieval medical writing.” In Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English, Irma Taavitsainen & Päivi Pahta (Eds), 73–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Päivi Pahta & Arja Nurmi Pahta, Päivi & Nurmi, Arja. 2006. “Code-switching in the Helsinki Corpus: A thousand years of multilingual practices.” In Medieval English and its Heritage: Structure, Meaning and Mechanisms of Change, Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Dieter Kastovsky (Eds), 203–220. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pahta, Päivi & Nurmi, Arja. 2007. “What we do cón amore:  Structures of code-switching in eighteenth-century letters.” In ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New Insights into Late Modern English, Javier Pérez-Guerra, Dolores González-Álvarez, Jorge L. Bueno-Alonso & Esperanza Rama-Martinez (Eds), 401–420. Bern: Peter Lang. Palander-Collin, Minna. 2002. “Tracing patterns of interaction in historical data.” In Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 117–134. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Palander-Collin, Minna. 2006. “(Re)constructing style and language as social interaction through first- and second-person pronouns in Early Modern English letters.” In Dialogic Langugage Use, Irma Taavitsainen, Juhani Härmä & Jarmo Korhonen (Eds), 339–362. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodger, N.A.M. 2004/2006. “Montagu, John, fourth earl of Sandwich (1718–1792).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/19026, accessed 24 April 2006. Rogers, Pat. 2004. “Burney, Frances (1752–1840).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/603, accessed 24 April 2006. Sambrook, James. 2004. “Crisp, Samuel (1707–1783).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6706, accessed 24 April 2006. Schendl, Herbert. 2002. “Mixed-language texts as data and evidence in English historical linguistics.” In Studies in the History of the English Language:  A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert P.  Stockwell (Eds), 51–78. Berlin/New York:  Mouton de Gruyter. Troide, Lars. 2004. “Burney, Charles (1757–1817).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4079, accessed 24 April 2006. Wagstaff, John. 2004. “Burney, Charles (1726–1814).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4078, accessed 24 April 2006. Wenzel, Siegfrid. 1994. Macaronic Sermons:  Bilingualism and Preaching in Late-Medieval England. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Wright, Laura. 1998. “Mixed-language business writing: Five hundred years of code-switching.” In Language Change:  Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, E.H. Jahr (Ed.), 99–118. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Patterns of interaction Self-mention and addressee inclusion in the letters of Nathaniel Bacon and his correspondents Minna Palander-Collin This paper explores patterns of interaction in late sixteenth-century personal letters. Self-mention (I) and addressee inclusion (you vs nominal title) are studied quantitatively and qualitatively in the letters of Norfolk gentleman Nathaniel Bacon and his correspondents to see how social relationships are mutually constructed. The results suggest that Bacon used more first- and second-person pronouns with his inferiors and equal family members than with his superiors, style-shifting to “humiliative” discourse when writing to social superiors, and to “friendly” discourse when writing to inferiors. Noblemen writing to Bacon employed somewhat similar patterns, but Bacon’s inferiors seemed to be more mixed in their usage. It is argued that differences in educational background and consequent repertoires of stylistic literacy may explain such differences.

1.  Introduction Letters are genuine interaction between correspondents.1 Although it is seldom possible to follow a full sequence of letters between the same writers, letters nevertheless show glimpses of past interactions and provide valuable material for the study of earlier patterns of interaction. It has been more usual to study interaction in spoken language or in texts imitating speech, like plays, than in written texts, but there is now a growing body of research on Present-day English showing that “written texts embody interactions between the writers and readers” (Hyland 2005a:  173) and that identities are linguistically produced in interaction (Bucholtz & Hall 2005). Even present-day academic texts that are perhaps regarded as an informational genre par excellence contain interactive elements

1.  This research was funded by the Department of English, University of Helsinki, and more recently by the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, where it was carried out as part of my project on Language Variation and Change in Social Context: Constructing Identities in Written English 1450–1900.

 Minna Palander-Collin

that construct an appropriate authorial self and negotiate accepted participant relationships (Hyland 2005a, 2005b). The letter genre allows us to observe how authorial selves and participant relationships change from one letter to another and how such changes affect the linguistic style adopted by the writer. In sociolinguistic studies, style is generally viewed as intra-speaker variation, but the explanations of style-shifting vary (for a discussion, see e.g., Rickford & Eckert 2001).2 Labov’s (1972) influential work on style attributed a central role to attention paid to speech as a cause of shifting between casual and formal styles, whereas accommodation theory associates style particularly with the speaker’s orientation and attitude to the addressee (e.g., Giles & Coupland 1991; see also Rickford & Eckert 2001 for approaches to style). A similar approach is presented in the audience design framework, which suggests that speakers design their style primarily in response to their audience (Bell 2001). According to Bell (2001: 139) the sociolinguist’s core question about style is “Why did this speaker say it this way on this occasion?” Style can also be seen as a distinctiveness that is used to build group identities (Irvine 2001), or “as a clustering of linguistic resources, and an association of that clustering with social meaning” (Eckert 2001: 123). According to Fairclough (1992:  64–66), language has at least three central functions and conveys three types of meaning: it contributes to the construction of social identities or types of self (identity function), to the construction of social relationships between people (relational function), and to the construction of knowledge and beliefs about the world (ideational function). In this view, language is a social practice rather than a purely individual activity; there is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure so that discourse is shaped and constrained by social structure such as class, social relations, and relations to particular institutions, but discourse also constitutes them (Fairclough 1992:  64–73; see also Halliday 1994). My purpose in this chapter is to see how letter writers’ linguistic choices construct and reflect their social roles in relation to the recipient in the interaction found in a sample of late sixteenth-century letters. The individual’s social rank and hierarchical relationships are an important feature of early modern English society, and these are constituted by various discursive practices. After a brief discussion of conventional and recommended linguistic practices of the early modern period in Section 2, I shall focus on patterns of self-mention (I) and addressee inclusion (you vs Your Lordship/Worship) in the letters, because these overtly

2.  I have used style here much in the same sense as register is used elsewhere, to refer to situational variation in language use. With the term style, however, I wish to emphasise language variation as an individual’s linguistic resource.



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

signal the degree of author presence in the texts and the author’s wish to involve the addressee in the communicative situation. The degree and nature of author presence and audience engagement is expected to vary according to the mutual relationship of the correspondents. For instance, many sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury conduct books describing the ideal of civil behaviour and civility of speech and writing advise that the inferior must not ask directly or contradict the superior, and that no direct pronouns should be used to the superior, but instead the superior’s title should be repeated (Bryson 1998: 167–169).

2.  Civility of speech and writing Early modern England was a highly stratified society where people’s rank, in other words, a combination of lineage, wealth and education, prescribed their position in society and the behaviour and roles appropriate to them vis-à-vis other people (e.g., Keen 2002; Wrightson 2002, 2003). Analysing the civil language of early modern Europe, Burke (2000: 33) proposes a working hypothesis that “the more hierarchical (highly stratified or more sharply stratified) the society, the more formal or elaborate its civility will be”. This hypothesis would predict a fair amount of linguistic coding of hierarchical relationships, which is, in fact, evident in the recommendations of early modern conduct literature and letter writing manuals (see Nevala 2004: 33–53; Bryson 1998). For instance, William Fullwood’s The Enimie of Idleness. Teaching the maner and stile how to endite, compose and write all sorts of Epistles and Letters (1568) advised the readers that superlative terms of address should be used to superiors, “familiar reverence” should be employed with equals, and plainness would be most suitable with inferiors (see Bryson 1998: 157). The norms of speech and writing were, thus, central to the ideal of the civil gentleman and apparently a form of cultural capital: Polite conversation was the most sophisticated means whereby ‘civil’ gentlemen could express and elaborate their common culture in an exclusive social milieu; and polite verbal and epistolary forms and formulae proliferated to provide the ‘civil’ gentleman with a much expanded repertoire of signs by which to orientate himself in an increasingly crowded and complex ‘civil society’. From the later sixteenth century onward, conduct literature for the adult depicts social life as a life full of prudent, graceful, and civil discourse. (Bryson 1998: 159)

The most overt and conventional indicators of social roles are presumably those that are explicated in conduct books, but we cannot be sure to what extent even these rules were really followed. Undoubtedly, various linguistic means were

 Minna Palander-Collin

used to code identities, social roles, relationships and hierarchies in the sixteenth century. Some of these means were more overt and resulted from a conventional choice, like the formulae used to address the recipient at the beginning and the end of a letter (Nevala 2004), or the repetition of the superior’s title at intervals during the exchange (Bryson 1998: 165), whereas others are perhaps more intuitive and less formulaic (cf. Bucholtz & Hall 2005; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1995: 505). Moreover, it can be hypothesised that the type of civility described in conduct books reflects the ideal conduct of the upper echelons of early modern society, whereas the vast majority of the population did not have access to such a style through education or everyday experience. Although the provision of educational facilities in general increased in the early modern period, the opportunities for education at the lower end of the social scale were still poor (Wrightson 2003: 191–207). Repertoires of literacy typically develop during an individual’s lifetime from childhood to early adulthood, and, for instance, in the present-day context register-specific linguistic skills of academic writing like dense information packaging develop during university education (Ravid & Tolchinsky 2002; Biber, Reppen & Conrad 2002: 461). Nathaniel Bacon (1546?–1622), a Norfolk “county magnate” and local politician educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and Gray’s Inn, is the central informant in this study and the kind of person who would have been aware of the appropriate ways of speaking and writing due to his university education and experience of a variety of genres and styles (Hassell Smith 2004/2005). Examples (1) and (2) below are from letters written by Bacon to two addressees of different social positions in sixteenth-century England. Example (1) concerns local administrative matters and was written to a baron, who was socially superior to Bacon. Example (2) concerns the business of farming and was written to a local yeoman, Goodman Aldred, who was possibly a tenant farmer, but clearly Bacon’s social inferior (for the use of titles, see e.g., U.  Busse 2002:  104–105; Postles 2005).

(1) […] I ame well assured that your Lordship will not finde fault with any thinge done touchinge this cause when you shalbe let to understand the truthe of the procedinge therein. Thus beseching God to blesse your Lordship with an increase of his holie spirit to his glory and your great comfort, I humblie take my leave. (Nathaniel Bacon to Lord North, Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge, 1582; Bacon II, 227)



(2) Aldred, yf the rentes of West Somerton be ready & gathered, I wold have them delivered to Momforth, the bearer hearof. Toutching your rent corne I am content he shall bargaine with yow either for the whole or for your part … Thus far yow hartely well … Your very friend Nathaniel Bacon (Nathaniel Bacon to Goodman Aldred, 1570s; Bacon I, 93)



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

Examples (1) and (2) are written in very different styles, showing the writer– addressee relationship in various ways. Writing to the nobleman, Bacon repeats the recipient’s title (your Lordship), employs circumlocution (I ame well assured that …) and emphasises the writer’s humbleness (I humbly take my leave). Bacon’s letter to the local yeoman, on the other hand, states the business of rents directly without conventional phrases of politeness, but the end of the letter emphasises his friendship and goodwill towards Aldred (Thus far yow hartely well… Your very friend Nathaniel Bacon). Moreover, the recipient is addressed merely with his name, although the title Goodman as a polite form to a lower class person would be possible (U. Busse 2002: 108; cf. example 6 to Goodman Cressey). The styles of these letters are a result of contemporary discursive conventions and letter writing practices, where some linguistic choices, like the use of the phrase your Lordship in example (1), is highly conventional (Bryson 1998:  151–192). The phrases like far yow hartely well and your very friend are also fixed as they are repeated in other contexts where Bacon addresses a social inferior or a lower-gentry equal and by other contemporary letter writers. These conventional patterns of interaction convey hierarchical relationships, and Lord North as Bacon’s superior also ends his letter to Bacon with “hearty” and “friendly” phrases of politeness as shown in example (3).

(3) I bidd you hartely fare well, praieng the Almighte to bles and kepe you… Your very loving frend R. North (Roger Lord North to Nathaniel Bacon, 1591; Bacon III, 117)

Thus, Nathaniel Bacon portrays himself as Lord North’s “obedient and humble servant”, while Lord North is a “hearty and loving friend” to Bacon. Phrases of submission and the language of servitude to address superiors were common not only in England but also in other parts of early modern Europe, and they were used to signal even fairly small social distinctions. For example, a knight addressing a baron would adopt a humiliative mode, although he was only one step lower in the social hierarchy (Burke 2000: 44–45). Later, the humiliative style was criticised and it declined in the eighteenth century together with phrases of submission and devotion and hyperbolic compliments (Burke 2000: 45–46). Politeness was also recommended when addressing inferiors (Burke 2000: 38). According to La Serre’s Secretary in Fashion (1654), this should be shown in the subscription formula of the letter as affection, whereas in the case of a superior service should be stressed (Bryson 1998: 169). The term friend could construct various interpersonal relationships at the time, as it was used between people who were intimately associated, but also to address a stranger or an otherwise distant person, or subservient people (U. Busse 2002:  152; also B.  Busse 2006:  316–318). In examples (2) and (3), friend may of course characterise

 Minna Palander-Collin

the relationships as amicable, but even more clearly friend indicates a status difference and the superior’s appropriately affectionate stance towards the recipient (for the use of the word friend as an in-group marker in the eighteenth century, see Nevala in this volume; and for the concept of friendship in the eighteenth century, see Sairio in this volume). Thus, the discourses of friendship and obedience were established patterns of interaction and recognised ways of constructing social hierarchies in early modern England, and they can be observed in examples (1)–(3) above. The conventional discourse of obedience and servitude is to some extent reproduced when social inferiors write to Nathaniel Bacon addressing him as Your Worship and ending their letters with phrases like Yours to comawnd or I with my hubbull dutye rest at command, but their styles appear to have been more mixed and somewhat less humiliative than Bacon’s style to his superiors, as will be discussed below.

3.  Self-mention and addressee inclusion In this study, conventional patterns of interaction depicted above are further explored through instances of self-mention and addressee inclusion. Both writer presence and addressee inclusion are evident in examples (1)–(3) in the form of first- and second-person pronouns as well as the nominal third-person title your Lordship. These are not the only linguistic means that can be used to refer to the writer and the recipient, but they are most commonly used for this purpose in the body of the letter. Additionally, the writers refer to themselves by name in the subscription of the letter as well as by various nominal epithets (e.g., your friend, your humble servant). Third-person pronouns may occasionally refer to the writer, but not particularly in these letters (see, however, Nevala in this volume). Apart from the second-person pronouns and third-person titles, the recipient is conventionally addressed at the beginning of the letter and may be addressed with vocatives in the body of the letter (e.g., Sir, if there be any thinge … which you shall stande need of, yf you please to sende me worde I shall make request…).3 The analysis in Section 5 includes first-person singular and second-person pronouns and titles as alternative ways of addressee inclusion in place of the direct second-person pronoun you. In other words, the writer may chose between I ame well assured

3.  For a detailed study of Early Modern English address terms in correspondence, see Nevala (2004); for vocatives in Shakespeare’s plays, see B. Busse (2006).



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

that your Lordship will not finde fault with any thinge (cf. example 1) and I ame well assured that you will not finde fault with any thinge. Acts where the interactants refer to one another are typical of even brief interactions. As the person speaking or writing is the “default origo” of such an act and the addressee its “focus”, these acts always index “some social relation between speaker and addressee” (Agha 2007:  280). Similarly, Mühlhäusler and Harré (1990: 5) suggest that “the use of person-indexing expressions in most languages include reference to specific social relations”. For I, they propose a thesis of double indexicality by which “I and other first-person expressions are used not to denote anything, but as indices of location” (Mühlhäusler & Harré 1990: 92). These locations are of two kinds as I not only indexes the speaker’s utterance in place and time but also with the person to be held morally responsible for the utterance. For instance, in (2) above, I am content he shall bargaine with yow locates the act of being content at the writer and specifies the time as simultaneous with the writing. The responsibility indexing specifies the impact of the utterance in relation to the writer’s position in the situation, and the responsibility for the outcome is taken by the writer (i.e., what kind of consequences the writer’s state of satisfaction may have, or what would happen if he were not content). Many languages grammaticalise social relationships in the second-person (T/V systems), or alternatively, third-person systems signal respect for the addressee (Mühlhäusler & Harré 1990: 135–148). In earlier periods and in some dialects in this period, the opposition of you and thou served to indicate distance, intimacy and power as a kind of T/V system.4 The informants in this material, however, chose between the direct pronoun you and the deferential phrase Your Lordship, Your Ladyship, Your Honour, or Your Worship. The choice depended on the addressee’s gender and social status. Bacon addressed the noblemen in the data as Your Lordship or Your Honour, which was also used for other social superiors, and the titled ladies as Your Ladyship. Nathaniel Bacon, on the other hand, was addressed as Your Worship if a title was used rather than the pronoun you. In general, the title Your Lordship was reserved for the nobility, whereas Your Honour could be used to address “any person of rank or quality” and Your Worship to address “a person of note” (Oxford English Dictionary; see also B. Busse 2006: 61–65). 4.  The findings of many studies on you/thou variation (e.g., U. Busse 2002; Walker 2007) indicate that in broad terms the choice between these pronouns corresponds to relative power relations between the interactants, as inferiors tended to be addressed as thou and superiors as you, although there is considerable room for manoeuvre to show shifts in feelings, attitudes, level of intimacy, etc., to the point that every individual shift between you and thou cannot be accounted for (Nevala 2004: 177–178).

 Minna Palander-Collin

In an earlier study, I analysed Nathaniel Bacon’s letters to various recipients showing that the first and second persons were important loci for the coding of social hierarchies as the frequencies of self-mention (I) and direct addressee inclusion (you) were higher in letters to social inferiors than superiors, while indirect addressee inclusion (Your Lordship) was used in letters to superiors, including Bacon’s father (Palander-Collin 2006). Such patterns of interaction may change in time, but very similar tendencies were observed also in eighteenth-century letters where first- and second-person pronouns related to deference and solidarity, since equal family recipients like siblings received the highest frequencies of both first-  and second-person pronouns, whereas in more distant relationships these pronouns were less frequent. They were also less frequent when writing to superior family members, i.e., parents (Nurmi & Palander-Collin 2008). In register studies the frequent use of first- and second-person pronouns —  together with other “involvement” features like private verbs, present tense verbs, be as the main verb, contractions, general emphatics, hedges and amplifiers — has been shown to be characteristic of spoken and speech-related registers including personal letters, whereas written registers and formal speech are clearly less involved (e.g., Biber 1988, 2006: 50; Biber & Finegan 1989). The present study builds on my earlier study of Nathaniel Bacon’s language (Palander-Collin 2006), including now also letters written to Nathaniel Bacon. The purpose is to see how roles and hierarchies are mutually constructed and whether other social groups employ patterns similar to Bacon’s usage. Methodologically, the frequencies of self-mention and addressee inclusion provide the quantitative baseline evidence (Section 5) against which individual and contextualised usages are viewed more closely (Section 6). The results show that although conventional elements of the “humble servant” pattern are reproduced to some extent in letters by social inferiors to Nathaniel Bacon, the self-mention and addressee inclusion patterns differ from those employed by Nathaniel Bacon to his social superiors. It is consequently suggested that this may be a result of the level of stylistic literacy that different social groups had at that time. My claim is that the use of the first and second persons is meaningful for the discourse of social hierarchies of the period and that discourse styles vary according to the writer–addressee relationship. Different social ranks, however, seem to have used different discourse styles, making patterns of interaction socially embedded.

4.  Data and method This study is based on a sample of sixteenth-century letters from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC). Since I am analysing the linguistic construction



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

of social relationships and hierarchies, it was important to find one central letter writer with letters to several different type of addressees. It was equally important to have different types of people writing back to the central character. Following these principles, I chose Nathaniel Bacon (1546?–1622), a younger son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, as my central informant.5 Table 1 shows the social background of the letter writers, the number of writers and word counts for each group. Concentrating on one network of writers diminishes the impact of regional dialect variation. Gender variation is another aspect, which was not particularly accounted for here, as most of the informants are male:  19% of the total word count in Bacon’s letters is addressed to women, and 15% of the total word count in letters to Bacon is written by women. Both the women addressed by Bacon and those writing to him belong to the family circle and are titled ladies by marriage. The social rank of the informants provides an important framework of reference concerning their mutual relationships. There is ample evidence of the importance of social rank in early modern England (see e.g., Wrightson 2002, 2003), although it was by no means a simple matter for contemporaries to decide which ranks were relevant and how many of them there were. William Harrison in 1577, for example, defined the population of England as consisting of four degrees of people: gentlemen (nobility, knights, esquires, mere gentlemen), citizens and burgesses, yeomen of the countryside, and poor people such as day labourers, poor husbandmen, artificers, and servants, who had “neither voice nor authoritie in the common wealthe, but are to be ruled and not to rule other” (cited in Wrightson 2003: 27). Ranks were not closed as upward as well as downward social mobility was possible (Stone & Stone 1984), nor can the relations between ranks be described in simple terms. For instance, servants were inferior to their masters and deference was the expected mode of conduct, but, on the other hand, servants were also regarded as members of their master’s family (Wrightson 2002:  33). The probable practical implications of this asymmetrical relationship between masters and servants are captured in the anecdote told in Wrightson (2003:  71): “The apprentice Roger Lowe bought drinks for his equals, but never for his superiors. They bought drinks for him and he in turn, as a promising lad, listened deferentially to their opinions and advice”. A rank-based starting point, nevertheless, provides a practicable abstraction and a model for operationalising social relations as the more precise and local nature of the relationships between individual letter writers is not necessarily

5.  More details on the letter collection Bacon in the Appendix to this volume.

 Minna Palander-Collin

known to us. Table 1 relies on a fairly detailed rank division separating the nobility from knights (GU), and knights from esquires and mere gentlemen (GL) (for details of the rank model, see Raumolin-Brunberg 1996 or Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003). Family members have been treated as a separate group, as there was also a recognised separation between civil and domestic life (Bryson 1998: 167). Table 1.  Personal letters (1571–1594) from and to Nathaniel Bacon (1546?–1622) (number of different letter writers in parentheses). From Nathaniel Bacon* (Gentleman)

Rank of the addressee/letter writer

To Nathaniel Bacon

7,743 words 2,701 words 1,227 words 840 words 7,746 words 11,275 words

Nobility (N) Gentry Upper (GU) Gentry Lower (GL) Professionals (P) Merchants (M) Other (O) Family Father

1,652 words (2 writers) 5,119 words (6 writers) 10,437 words (15 writers) 9,823 words (7 writers) 1,865 words (5 writers) 9,509 words (9 writers) 15,786 words (16 writers) 614 words 

*Palander-Collin (2006:  Table 2) shows more detailed information about the recipients of Nathaniel Bacon’s letters.

Living in a country estate in Norfolk, Bacon was concerned with the business of farming and estate management, which his letters to servants and local yeomen, i.e., the group “other” in Table 1, mostly deal with. His judicial and administrative duties as a Justice of the Peace also placed him within a wider community locally, but not nationwide (Hassell Smith & Baker 1988:  III, xvi). Many letters to and from noblemen and members of the gentry deal with administrative business. Bacon represents the social rank of lower gentry writing both to his social superiors, equals, inferiors and family members. He also had a number of correspondents from different social backgrounds who wrote to him. The letters date from the years 1571–1594 when Bacon was first a young husband in his twenties and later a father arranging his daughters’ marriages in his late forties. He can be found as Sir Nathaniel Bacon in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but since he was knighted only in 1604, I shall refer to him as Nathaniel Bacon or Bacon (Hassell Smith 2004/2005). The distribution of material shown in Table 1 presents the typical problem a historical linguist often faces: the material is not equally representative of different groups of writers and addressees. For instance, Bacon’s letters to the group “other”, which is the lowest group in social standing including servants and local



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

yeomen, are infrequent. Similarly, the letters to and from members of the gentry are far better represented than those to and from nobility, merchants or professionals. Bacon himself has no letters to merchants or professional people in the material. The correspondence is fragmentary in the sense that letters do not usually form chronological series so that there would be entire correspondences from and to Bacon. Nor are Bacon’s letters to different ranks always addressed to the same individuals that have written letters to him as representatives of that rank. Self-mention and addressee inclusion in the letters are measured as frequencies per 1,000 words. Self-mention is understood as the first-person singular pronouns (I, me, myself, my, mine) and addressee inclusion as the secondperson pronouns (you, your, yours, yourself) or alternatively as nominal forms (Your Lordship, Your Ladyship, Your Honour, Your Worship) that refer to the addressee indirectly in the third person. I shall first present the frequencies of self-mention and addressee inclusion in Section 5, and then discuss their use in context in Section 6.

5.  Distribution of self-mention and addressee inclusion The frequency of first-person singular pronouns reveals how often the writer overtly mentions himself in his writing. In the letters of Nathaniel Bacon, selfmention is most prominent in letters to the group “other”, including Bacon’s social inferiors, and to family members with the exception of his father Sir Nicholas Bacon (Figure 1; see also Palander-Collin 2006 for a more thorough discussion of Bacon’s use of first- and second-person pronouns). Thus, the first person relates to social hierarchy and familiar intimacy in Bacon’s usage. In situations requiring social reverence, like writing to socially superior noblemen or his father, first-person pronouns occur less frequently (chi-square=106.39, df=5, p<.0001). The second person is important in the overt and easily recognisable construction of social hierarchies and distance between the writers. Addressee inclusion can be seen in all Bacon’s letters but the linguistic means used are different. A comparison of the frequencies of the direct address pronoun you and the third-person title Your Lordship shows that Bacon uses the direct address you to his servants and other addressees in the group “other”, gentry equals and siblings, whereas he addresses the noblemen and his own father mostly with the deferential Your Lordship (Figure 1) (you chi-square=234.15, df=5, p<.0001; Your Lordship chi-square=154.17, df=5, p<.0001).

 Minna Palander-Collin 140 120 100 Your Lp 2nd person 1st person

80 60 40 20 0

NB to N

NB to GU NB to GL

NB to O

NB to Family

NB to Father

Figure 1.  Self-mention (1st person) and addressee inclusion (Your Lp, 2nd person) in Nathaniel Bacon’s letters according to recipient’s social rank. Frequencies /1,000 words. Rank codes in Table 1; absolute figures in Table A (Appendix).

In the letters written to Nathaniel Bacon, the assumption was that the patterns would be similar to those in Bacon’s own letters. In other words, more frequent self-mention was expected in letters written by the nobility and gentry and less frequent in letters written by social inferiors, but this was not the case (Figure 2). In family letters the first person is slightly more frequent than in letters by other groups, but the noblemen or upper gentry informants do not talk about themselves particularly frequently, whereas social inferiors in the group “other” and merchants mention themselves more often (chi-square=100.72, df=7, p<.0001). As regards Nathaniel Bacon’s inferiors, the professional group uses self-mention most sparingly. This may be partly due to the impersonal subject matter in their letters, but it may also result from the professionals’ level of education, experience with different linguistic styles, knowledge of the conventions of written language and subsequent stylistic literacy. The language of professional people probably shows awareness and mastery of polite gentry discourse that the letters by servants and other less educated people do not show. The frequency of the second-person pronoun you in these letters, moreover, shows that the professional people and merchants use you to address Bacon less frequently than the rest of the informants, i.e., the group “other”, family members and social superiors (chi-square=955.79, df=7, p<.0001). As the professionals also have fewer first-person occurrences than the other writers, their style can perhaps be characterised as most impersonal, least involved, possibly most business-like, as shown in example (4).





Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

(4) Sir, Mr Solicitor hath sene the articles of the agreament betwene you & Mr Touneshend and ys allso infourmend of your state in the mannors to be assuered, and he doth advise that there should be bothe a fyne & a recovery for the making that assuerance. The fyne he wissheth should be pursued to be a fyne ingrossed of this terme and yet not to be acknowledged till after the terme… (Stephen Drury to Nathaniel Bacon, 1593; Bacon III, 258) 140 120 100 Your Lp 2nd person 1st person

80 60 40 20 0

N to NB

GU to NB

GL to GLP TO NB NB

P to NB

M to NB

O to NB

Fam to NB

Figure 2.  Self-mention (1st person) and addressee inclusion (Your Wp, 2nd person) in letters written to Nathaniel Bacon by writers’ social rank. Frequencies /1,000 words. Rank codes in Table 1; absolute figures in Table B (Appendix).

The informants addressing Bacon indicate their relationship to him with the choice of the direct address pronoun or the indirect third-person phrase Your Worship, as shown in Figure 2. Social superiors address him only with the direct pronoun you, social inferiors either with the direct pronoun or the deferential Your Worship. Those who are presumably most distant in social terms, i.e., the group “other”, are not the most frequent users of Your Worship. This phrase occurs most frequently in the letters by professional people and merchants (chi-square=55.21, df=4, p<.0001). Moreover, even these groups do not use it to the same extent as Bacon used it to the members of the nobility or his own father. 6.  Discussion of patterns of interaction Quantitative analysis provides us with tendencies and baseline evidence. These results can further be explored with a contextual reading. On the whole, the frequency of self-mention and addressee inclusion varies according to the addressee in Nathaniel Bacon’s letters so that first- and second-person pronouns occur more

 Minna Palander-Collin

often when writing to social inferiors, equals and family members, and less often to social superiors including Bacon’s father. Superiors are indirectly addressed as Your Lordship. Informants writing to Nathaniel Bacon also show their relationship to him with the choice of the direct address pronoun or the deferential title Your Worship. However, the lowest ranks included in this study (“other”) do not necessarily show the most deferential use of these pronouns. One of the obvious difficulties with these results is that I have presented evidence of style shifting only in Bacon’s letters and have analysed other informants only when they write to Bacon. It is possible or even likely that a servant writing to a gentleman like Bacon only in moderately deferential terms would be more deferential when addressing a nobleman. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the lowest ranks did not style shift in the same way as Bacon or presumably other members of the gentry did as their social experiences, education and access to different linguistic styles were undoubtedly different. The kind of self-mention and addressee inclusion found in Bacon’s letters may be characteristic of the civil discourse style of the gentry and nobility that was not shared by people with other social backgrounds. In the following discussion, I shall illustrate the nature of self-mention and addressee inclusion in Bacon’s letters to noblemen and the group “other” and in the letters by these groups to Bacon. Merchants’ letters to Bacon are also discussed, but unfortunately the material does not include Bacon’s letters to them. Nathaniel Bacon’s letters point to consistent style shifting. The characteristics in Nathaniel Bacon’s letters when he writes to superiors include the use of appropriate opening and closing phrases emphasising Bacon’s duty and humbleness towards his superior (e.g., My humble dutie remembred unto your Lordship; Your Lordships at commaundement; Yours to command; I will leave any further to trouble Your Lordship, beseching God to blesse you with muche increase of honour). This is further emphasised by the frequent repetition of the title Your Lordship or Your Honor. Only in a few letters does Bacon thematise himself at the beginning of the letter; it often seems more appropriate to focus on the recipient and/or the issue at hand first, and the first-person subject (I) occurs only later. This is the case in (5), where Bacon tells Lord North that he disagrees with the lord’s decision to appoint Austen Ranowe as new steward. This disagreement is related in the first person (Though I cannot withstande…), and as if to alleviate the contradiction, Bacon makes use of the discourse of servitude, referring to his duty bestowed upon him by Lord North as the reason why he thinks it necessary to inform the recipient of his opinion even if the recipient might not like it. The deferential title your Lordship further softens the argument. In these letters to superiors first-person pronouns additionally occur in formulaic expressions that are not used in Bacon’s letters to the group “other”, including the opening and closing formulae but also (semi-)formulaic expressions in the body of the letter such as I have thought good to advertise your honour, or in example (5) the almost comparable I thought yt my duetie.





Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

(5) My humble dutie remembred unto your Lordship. There hath ben delivered unto me latelie your Lordships letter by one Austen Ranowe wherin your Lordship doth signifye your choice of him for havinge the stewardship which Spratte had. Though I cannot withstande your Lordships placing of him, yet before such tyme as I would give anie allowaunce to his exercise of the office therof I thought yt my duetie in regarde of myne owne place which I have from your Lordship to acquaynte you first how I holde the man verie unfytte for the roome […] Thus beseching God to blesse your Lordship alwaies with the grace of his holie spirit, I take my leave. From Stiffkey this xxviii of December 1589. Your Lordships at commaundement. (Nathaniel Bacon to Roger Lord North, 1589; Bacon III, 94)

Bacon’s letters to social inferiors, on the other hand, go directly to the matter at hand without fixed phrases of politeness. They state in the first person what Bacon has done or wants the addressee to do. They may also command the addressee to do something, and the inferior is addressed directly with you. Writing to inferiors, Bacon also presents himself as the inferior’s friend, signing his letters as your friend (example 6, see also example 2 above).

(6) Goodman Cressey, I sende this bearer for the mouldes which I toke order to be by you made and which I understand by Derne are done and fynished. Thoughe you and I have agreed of no certenty of price, yet I make no doute but you will deale well with me, and in so doyinge I shalbe the more willinge hereafter to deale with you againe as I shall have occasion. I sende by this fellowe some money. And yf they come to more, I shall the next weeke sende you the rest. I desier you by writinge to sett doune the particuler prises of eche moulde. And thus fare you hartelie well. From Cockthorpp this xiii of Aprill 1577. Your lovinge freinde Nathaniel Bacon. (Nathaniel Bacon to Richard Cressey, 1577; Bacon I, 255)

Noblemen addressing Nathaniel Bacon behave much in the same way as Bacon addressing his inferiors. They go straight to the point. The noble writer overtly talks about himself in the first person and addresses Bacon simply with you (example 7). Noblemen also present themselves as your friend to Bacon. (7) Sir, after my vearie hartie commendacions. For that I understand by the deathe of him that latelie executed the place of your deputie of the stewardshippe yowe have at Lynne yowe are to make choise of sum other fitt person for the discharging of that place, I have thowght good uppon the knowledge and experience I have of the discretion and learninge of Mr Lewis, a gentleman of good continuance in the studie of the lawes and dwelling in the said towne of Lynne, hartelie to praie yowe the rather at this my request yowe would be contented to appoint him your deputie, […] And so recommending him hearein to your favour, I commend mee hartely to yowe.  Your vearie lovinge frend W. Burghley. (William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Lord Treasurer, to Nathaniel Bacon, 1591; Bacon III, 120–121)

 Minna Palander-Collin

The group “other”, many of whom are servants writing to Bacon, show that they are inferior to him, but not so consistently as Bacon shows verbal respect to his superiors. The letters by the group “other” may often start by stating the business directly without the polite phrases emphasising the duty to the superior, the writer may overtly talk about himself using I and address Bacon with you. Some of the most visible aspects of civil speech, such as the use of Your Worship, are used in the letters by the group “other”, but somewhat sporadically. Your Worship often occurs at the beginning and towards the end of the letter together with other conventional phrases of politeness. The end and the beginning of a letter in general show the relationship between the letter writers in conventional ways (Nevala 2004: 39). However, Your Worship is not necessarily repeated throughout the letter as in Bacon’s letters to superiors. Example (8) shows a letter written by Bacon’s clerk Martin Man. In this letter the first person occurs 26 times (Fq/1,000 words = 44), whereas the second person occurs ten times, and your worship three times. Thus, Martin Man did not particularly avoid mentioning himself or addressing Bacon directly with you. The humiliative tone common in Bacon’s letters to social superiors is evident in Man’s letter only in the conventional salutations and the signature (underlined). (8) My dutie remembred unto your worship. At my coming up to London I mett Mr Smith homwardes, who tolde me within two or three daies he meante to come unto you and make further knowen such speche as Mr Secretarie had touching your contempte upon the delivery of the letter. I delivered your letter to Mr Brograv and shewed him the coppie …

Ther is herinclosed a letter from Mr Frances Bacon, who tolde me that this soommer Mr Secretarie tolde him of the contempte, being somwhat displeased, but since Mr Secretary tolde him that he was well satisfied therin by your letter, and added further his good comendacion of your worship … I am to receive this daie £20 for Steven Chappell of his brother in lawe, which your worship maie use here yf you please, otherwise I meane to sende it to Norwich. Thus praying the increase of your good estate & welfare, I humbly take my leave. Your servant Martyn Man. (Martin Man to Nathaniel Bacon, 1587; Bacon III, 35)

Many of the letters by the group “other” go straight to the matter at hand like Martin Man above. The letter writers in this group are usually acting on behalf of Bacon and report what they have done in the first person (e.g., I mett x, I delivered your letter). There is, however, individual variation and some writers in the group “other” resort to longer opening phrases referring e.g., to good relations not just with Bacon, like miin lovinge frende Meester Baken in example (9), but also with



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

Bacon’s family, before embarking on the actual business of the letter (marked with # in the examples). These openings may additionally refer to the health of the writer as well as to Bacon’s or his family members’ health as in examples (9) and (10).

(9) Written whitin the Brille the xxii of Februarii anno 1574. Recommendacion unto you miin lovinge frende Meester Baken and Mistrise Backen and Meester Monfoort. I laet you understande that I I am in a goode haelte as I trust in Gode that you are so toe, whith your wyf and with Meester Monfoort and alle oeder good freends. #I doe laet you understande that wee are come at Rotterdam unto a verye ill meerkite with the goede that I hade whithe me. (Francis Johnson to Nathaniel Bacon, 1574/5; Bacon I, 156)

(10) Ryghte worshoppfull, my dewttey remmemberyd. This shall be to let your worshope to understand that Mestres & Mestres Anne & Mestres Besse are all in good helthe, & all the rest of your howshold. #This shall be to let your worshope to understand that I have bowght for my Lord & you a gret bargenye of tymbere of Mr Gorge Thembelthorpe of Follshame, the whiche I dowe thingke your worshope wylle thingke welle of, (Richard Manser to Nathaniel Bacon, 1576; Bacon I, 233)

In the letters by the group “other” first and second person pronouns also occur in formulae like I bid you heartely farewell, I with my humble duty rest at command, my humble commendations to x, or I let you understand. These formulae show similar elements of obedience as Bacon’s formulae to his superiors, but they also employ the friendship discourse with “hearty commendations” and phrases like min lovinge frende Meester Baken that is not found in Bacon’s letters to the noblemen but mainly to his inferiors. The closing formulae used by the group “other” may combine different discourses like the humiliative tone (I leve to trobbull your worshop), a reference to God and the recipient’s health as in example (11). Bacon, on the other hand, expresses health wishes in family letters, particularly to his father. (11) Thus I leve to trobbull your worshop for this tyme, praynge to God to send you helthe with incresse of worshope to the plessure of God. (Richard Mansner to Nathaniel Bacon, 1576; Bacon I, 233)

Since the frequent use of first- and second-person pronouns characterises informal spoken rather than formal written registers, their frequent use by the group “other” to the superior addressee may reflect the writers’ relative lack of experience and schooling in formal writing practices. For example, Chafe and Tannen (1987) report that basic writers tend to rely on oral strategies in writing. Additionally, the language of the letters between Nathaniel Bacon and the group “other” may reflect the servants’ role as members of Bacon’s extended family. In other words, servants show appropriate deference formulaicly, but as they were probably in frequent contact with Bacon and his family, a certain familiarity and informality also creeps into their language, like health wishes and the frequent use of I and you.

 Minna Palander-Collin

Some of the merchants’ letters to Bacon show more consistent deference, e.g., by the repetition of the title Your Worship, than the letters by the group “other”, but the usage varies somewhat from merchant to merchant, possibly reflecting the merchant’s level of education and social standing. In these letters the maintenance of good business relations may also explain the humiliative tone. Example (12) shows Richard Clarke’s respectful style, whereas Samuel Smith in example (13) remembers the deferential phrase Worshipfull Sur, my dewghty consedered at the beginning of the letter, but returns to this type of phraseology only at the end of the letter with Thus God kep your worship. Yours to commawnd Samuell Smyth. In both letters, the writers are negotiating a purchase of barley, and arrangements are being made e.g., for measuring and paying for the merchandise (12). In (13), the situation is somewhat different as it would appear that the barley in question is not marchantabull. (12) Pleaseth it youe righte worshipfull to be advertized that I have sent this berer my servaunte named Thomas Spencer with one Skarrowe, a keelman, to fethce awaye the 300 combes of malte that my sonne did bye of you. And my saide servaunte shall helpe to skryne it, as also take the measure of it, hopinge that your worship will yelde me good measure… (Richard Clarke to Nathaniel Bacon, 1589; Bacon III, 87) (13) Worshipfull Sur, my dewghty consedered. These maye be to lett yowe understand that I have ben at Blakney with in this 4 dayse where I fund at Allens howse 100 combes barly left by your tenantes, as I think they be, which is soo evell as I mynd nott to medull with all… (Samuel Smith to Nathaniel Bacon, 1580; Bacon II, 117)

It has been suggested that wealthier merchants may have been in many ways close to the gentry, including their discourse styles, or may have had aspirations to that rank (e.g., Klein 1994:  37), whereas lower ranks were perhaps indifferent to, or partly ignorant of, gentry manners and discourse styles. In the seventeenth-century context in particular, Burke (2000: 39) refers to politeness in speech together with other forms of behaviour as a way for “middle classes” (i.e., the families of merchants and professional groups) to show their closeness to the upper classes. 7.  Conclusion This discussion focused on the linguistic construction of social identities, relationships and hierarchies in a sample of late sixteenth-century letters. I showed that the first- and second-person pronouns and the nominal address form were used for identity and relational functions, and that they had a meaning-making significance in the linguistic construction of social hierarchies between the writers.



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

A quantitative analysis of self-mention and addressee inclusion showed that Nathaniel Bacon as a representative of the lower gentry was consistent in his style shifting when addressing superiors and inferiors. The highest frequencies of first- and second-person pronouns were found in letters to family members (except to his father) and socially inferior recipients, whereas socially superior recipients received considerably fewer self-mention and direct addressee references. The professional ranks and merchants also observed the pronominal patterns to some extent, but the lowest ranks obeyed the “rules” of deferential style the least. Self-mention and addressee inclusion were also involved in different types of discourse, like humiliative obedience discourse and friendship discourse. Nathaniel Bacon seemed consistent in his use of humiliative discourse to his superiors and friendship discourse to his inferiors, whereas the servants (group “other”) writing to Bacon mixed elements of humiliative and friendship discourse. In conclusion, the civility of writing and polite language, as manifested in the use of self-mention and addressee inclusion, seemed to be a quality which characterised the discourse style of the gentry and nobility in the late sixteenth century. Persons clearly below this rank, including e.g., servants, did not take part in or master the “civil” discourse in the same way. They seemed to adopt the most overt markers of the civil discourse style to some extent, such as the use of the deferential title Your Worship, but even this feature is not used consistently or particularly frequently, not to speak of the less overt markers, such as the avoidance of the first-person pronoun, observed in Bacon’s address to superiors.

Appendix Table A.  Absolute frequency (N) and normalised frequency per 1,000 words (Fq) of the first-person singular pronouns, second-person pronouns and Your Lordship in letters by Nathaniel Bacon. Your Lordship

Recipient

1st person

2nd person

Rank

N

Fq

N

Fq

N

Fq

81 616 591 53 160 366 11

96.4 79.5 52.4 43.2 59.2 47.3 9.4

27 189 45 47 70 83 27

32.1 24.4 4.0 38.3 25.9 10.7 33.8

0 31 206 0 20 178 6

0 4.0 18.3 0 7.4 22.9 6.3

Other (840 words) Family (7,746 words) Father (11,275 words) Gentry lower (1,227 words) Gentry upper (2,701 words) Noblemen (7,743 words) Collective (798 words)

 Minna Palander-Collin

Table B.  Absolute frequency (N) and normalised frequency per 1,000 words (Fq) of the first-person singular pronouns, second-person pronouns and Your Worship in letters to Nathaniel Bacon. Sender Rank Other (9,509 words) Merchants (1,865 words) Professionals (9,823 words) Gentry profs (2,844 words) Family (15,786 words) Father (614 words) Gentry lower (10,437 words) Gentry upper (5,119 words) Noblemen (1,652/877 words)*

1st person

2nd person

Your Worship

N

Fq

N

Fq

N

Fq

549 104 402 165 1,010 44 676 201 44

57.7 55.8 40.9 58.0 64.0 71.7 64.8 39.3 50.2

364 60 211 39 512 23 396 193 193

38.3 32.2 21.5 13.7 32.4 37.5 37.9 37.9 37.7

35 20 11 17 0 0 27 0 0

3.7 10.7 1.1 6.0 0 0 2.6 0 0

*The analysis includes five letters by noblemen (1,652 words); two, however, were co-authored by William Cecil and Sir Walter Mildmay. Consequently, they did not contain any first-person singular examples and were excluded from the first-person singular analysis.

References Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bell, Allan. 2001. “Back in style:  Reworking audience design.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Penelope Eckert & John R.  Rickford (Eds), 139–169. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language. A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. “Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres.” Language 65 (3): 487–517. Biber, Douglas, Reppen, Randi & Conrad, Susan. 2002. “Developing linguistic literacy: Perspectives from corpus linguistics and multi-dimensional analysis.” Journal of Child Language 29: 458–462. Bryson, Anna. 1998. From Courtesy to Civility:  Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira. 2005. “Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.” Discourse Studies 7: 585–614. Burke, Peter. 2000. “A civil tongue: Language and politeness in early modern Europe.” In Civil Histories. Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas, Peter Burke, Brian Harrison & Paul Slack (Eds), 31–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Busse, Beatrix. 2006. Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.



Self-mention and addressee inclusion 

Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chafe, Wallace & Tannen, Deborah. 1987. “The relation between written and spoken language.” Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 383–407. CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. Eckert, Penelope. 2001. “Style and social meaning.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (Eds), 119–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1995. “Constructing meaning, constructing selves. Snapshots of language, gender, and class from Belten High.” In Gender Articulated. Language and the Socially Constructed Self, Kira Hall & Mary Bucholtz (Eds), 469–507. New York/London: Routledge. Eckert, Penelope & Rickford, John R. (Eds). 2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fullwood, William. 1568. The Enemie of Idleness. London. Giles, Howard & Coupland, Nikolas. 1991. Language:  Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Hassell Smith, A. 2004/2005. “Bacon, Sir Nathaniel (1546?–1622).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/998, accessed 29 March 2007. Hassell Smith, A. & Baker, Gillian M. (Eds). 1987–1988. The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, vols I–III. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. Hyland, Ken. 2005a. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Metadiscourse. London/New York: Continuum. Irvine, Judith T. 2001. “‘Style’ as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (Eds), 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keen, Maurice. 2002. Origins of the English Gentleman. Heraldry, Chivalry and Gentility in Medieval England, c. 1300–c. 1500. Stroud: Tempus. Klein, Lawrence. 1994. “Politeness as linguistic ideology in late seventeenth-  and eighteenthcentury England.” In Towards a Standard English 1600–1800, Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 31–50. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press. La Serre. 1654. The Secretary in Fashion. Revised ed. London. Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and People:  The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence. Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman Pearson Education. Nurmi, Arja & Palander-Collin, Minna. 2008. “Letters as a text type: Interaction in writing.” In Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang.

 Minna Palander-Collin Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004–2008. Oxford:  Oxford University Press.  http://www.oxforddnb.com/. Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com. Palander-Collin, Minna. 2006. “(Re)constructing style and language as social interaction through first- and second-person pronouns in Early Modern English letters.” In Dialogic Language Use, Irma Taavitsainen, Juhani Härmä & Jarmo Korhonen (Eds), 339–362. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Postles, Dave. 2005. “The politics of address in Early-Modern England.” Journal of Historical Sociology 18 (1): 99–121. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. “Historical sociolinguistics.” In Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Eds), 11–37. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Ravid, Dorit & Tolchinsky, Liliana. 2002. “Developing linguistic literacy:  A comprehensive model.” Journal of Child Language 29: 417–447. Rickford, John R.  & Eckert, Penelope. 2001. “Introduction.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Penelope Eckert & John R.  Rickford (Eds), 1–18. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Stone, Lawrence & Stone, Jeanne C.  Fawtier. 1984. An Open Elite? England 1540–1880. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues, Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wrightson, Keith. 2002/2000. Earthly Necessities. Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470–1750. London: Penguin Books. Wrightson, Keith. 2003/1982. English Society 1580–1680. London/New York: Routledge.

Referential terms and expressions in eighteenth-century letters A case study on the Lunar men of Birmingham Minna Nevala The main aim of the article is to explore how interpersonal relations and social roles influence the form and function of person-referential terms in the Late Modern English letters written by, to, and about three members of the Lunar Society of Birmingham. The article discusses whether Levinson’s (1992) concept of social deixis can be implemented by using referential terms and also explores how distance/proximity, as well as authority, influence referential usage. Since most terms used show no great variation in form, the key findings concern the different functional aspects of nominal reference. The analysis shows, for one, that the use of addressee- and self-oriented reference in particular seems to be determined by socio-contextual aspects of appearance, attitude, and authority.

1.  Introduction The necessity of knowing how and when to take other people into consideration in speech and writing is learnt through experience in different interactional situations.1 Social norms which determine communicative situations, as well as individual expectations and choices, are usually learnt in childhood. Any linguistic indicator reflecting the speaker’s or writer’s personal approach towards the audience is particularly sensitive to becoming socially or situationally predetermined. The inability to comply with these, often unwritten, conventions of interaction may lead to a breach in mutual understanding and result in an unwanted conflict. In this article I will study one such linguistic indicator of interpersonal relations, referential terms and expressions, in the eighteenth-  and early nineteenth-century letters written by, to and about three members of the Lunar Society of Birmingham,

1.  The author gratefully acknowledges the funding received during the writing of this article from the Academy of Finland (Project number 114045).

 Minna Nevala

namely Erasmus Darwin, Matthew Boulton, and James Watt. The Lunar men formed a close-knit social group of people who regularly managed to keep in contact despite the fact that most of them lived and worked within a great distance from each other. The three members under study were among the founders of the Society, and their letters, which contain information about various aspects of life during the Enlightenment, make them a rich source for linguistic study. The main goal of this article is to study how interpersonal relations and social roles influence the form and function of person-referential terms and expressions. Furthermore, I will discuss whether Levinson’s (1992) concept of social deixis can be implemented by using referential terms: can the social identity of the referent be expressed in reference? Both the social and situational dimensions comprise the notions of distance and proximity, as well as authority. I will study how these concepts influence the use of reference, and how certain contextual changes, e.g., in mood or topic, can direct shifts in the situational role of either the writer, the addressee, or the referent, and result in affecting the referential terms chosen. In this article, I will firstly go through the theoretical background of social deixis, reference, and politeness in Section 2, and then move on to introducing my material, the Lunar men and their letters, in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 5, I will introduce the nominal forms used to refer to Darwin, Boulton, and Watt in the material, which will be followed by a discussion on third-person reference to the writer and the addressee him/herself in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7 I will make some general observations on the occurrence of referential terms in the material, as well as discuss for which pragmatic functions people use reference forms, and how these functions relate to saving and/or threatening face and to altering distance between the interactants.

2.  Theoretical background In this section, I will, firstly, introduce the concept of social deixis and then discuss how it relates to the way sociocultural information is shared in personal reference. Since reference is, via social conventions, closely connected with building a discursive image of both oneself and the other, I will also take up the relationship between reference and politeness. 2.1  Social deixis Deixis concerns not only the used utterance itself but also the different aspects surrounding it, i.e., the context. In addition to traditional deictic categories of person, place, and time, we may distinguish social deixis and discourse (text)



Referential terms and expressions 

deixis. Social deixis means the use of those features in a communicative event which encode the social identities of the interactants and their social relationships (Levinson 1992:  89–91; Sifianou 1992:  56; also Traugott & Dasher 2005: 226ff.). Both relational and absolute information can be encoded in and expressed by linguistic elements such as suppletive forms, particles, affixes and forms of address, which, Levinson (1992:  92) argues, are socially marked for speaker–referent relationship.2 Relational information usually expresses the relations between the speaker and the referent (referent honorifics), the speaker and the addressee (addressee honorifics), the speaker and the bystander (bystander or audience honorifics), and the speaker and the setting (formality levels).3 Absolute information includes terms which are reserved for either authorised speakers (e.g., polite particles used by either male or female speakers in Thai) or authorised recipients (e.g., titles). Social deixis can be considered an additional feature of personal deixis, since deixis itself includes sociocultural information. Whereas Levinson (1992: 93) separates social deixis from the sociolinguistic notion of reference (i.e., including concrete social contexts and systems), Mühlhäusler and Harré (1990: 74–75) have found a very strong correlation between personal deixis and social hierarchy. According to Mühlhäusler and Harré (1990: 93–94), personal pronouns, for example, are inherently double indexicals, i.e., they identify both the speaker and the addressee and locate the speaker in a culturally specific moral order. In some languages, like Chinese, certain personal pronouns have even been replaced by phrases consisting of degrading and enhancing nouns, and particular honorific nominal expressions have been grammaticalised for the same effect. Also, in other Asian communities, the use of deictic terms indexes certain social factors about the addressee/referent, like status and social group, sex, and age (Morita 2003: 370).

2.  This view is opposed by traditional semanticists. Napoli (1997: 190), for one, argues that proper names are prototypes of reference in that they are, as primitive expressions, sheer proxies which only stand for something instead of characterising it. Yagisawa (1998: 450) makes a distinction between the semantic notion of reference and the pragmatic notion of naming. 3.  Brown and Levinson (1987: 179) confine their study on deference (honorifics) to cover primarily relational information on a hierarchical social dimension, although they admit that there are many cases in which also social categories, like sex and group membership, are encoded directly in the language.

 Minna Nevala

2.2  Person-referring expressions and shared knowledge According to Hanks (1992:  55), a basic feature in interaction is its dynamism: as the interactants shift their position, the indexical framework of reference changes. There are two different forms of reference which convey deictic information: recognitional reference forms which have unique reference throughout the communicative situation, like personal names and recognitional descriptions (e.g., the guy who is sitting beside you), and non-recognitional reference forms, which shift according to the situational context, like pronouns (Schegloff 1996:  459; Kryk-Kastovsky & Kastovsky 1997: 1670–1674; Helmbrecht 2003: 188–189). When using recognitional reference forms, both the speaker and the addressee know who the referent is; in the case of non-recognitional reference forms, only the speaker may be able to identify the referent. The use of referential terms and expressions involves several participant roles, and as a form of description they can be used to define the relationships between the writer, the addressee, and the referent. For example, the manner in which the writer refers to the addressee by way of describing his/her character, appearance or work, relates to the way the writer wants the addressee’s identity or person to be seen, not only by the addressee him/herself but also by others. Reference is also intertwined with societal parameters and the interactants’ statuses within them and involves what might be called “appearance boosting”, both at the interpersonal and societal levels of interaction. Bell (1984, 2001) equates style with the speakers’ ability to modify their speech in response to their audience. Extralinguistic factors have a central influence on the realisation of the linguistic level. They include interspeaker (“social”) and intraspeaker (“stylistic”) variation. The social factors include age, gender, and class, whereas the stylistic factors move deeper into the situational level of communication ranging from the topic of discussion to addressee design (see e.g., Palander-Collin in this volume). The two categories are interdependent so that variation in the stylistic dimension derives from variation in the social dimension, which means that a variable cannot have intraspeaker variation if it has no interspeaker variation. The concept of dynamic speaker–addressee–referent axes includes the notion of shared knowledge. The use of person-referring expressions basically concerns a need to specify the referent. The overall distribution of those expressions may also be motivated, firstly, by social factors, such as distance or power, and secondly, by the interactants’ conversational roles (Wilson & Zeitlyn 1995: 72ff., 87). According to Krauss (1987: 86), the meaning of a message can be thought of as something that is negotiated between the speaker and the addressee (receiver), and this requires a shared base of knowledge. People expect that other interactants know what they are referring to and can reason through the speaker’s meaning on the basis of



Referential terms and expressions 

their common ground (Clark & Murphy 1982:  295). For example, when people communicate with people they do not know well, they can first make only rough assessments of what the others are likely to know. The process of finding out what the shared knowledge is between the two usually starts with primarily categorising others into social categories: the more that is known about a social category, the more accurately the speaker can predict what kind of knowledge a typical member of that category is likely to have. After that, the speaker is able to assess the addressee’s informational needs during the course of communication. Social conventions become even more central in such communicative situations where there are more than two participants. The tension caused by the use of different referential expressions of the same referent, i.e., the acknowledgement of the different social roles of the referent, is usually solved by making compromises between the expressions the speaker would use of the referent and the ones the addressee or the audience would use. The common ground is a symmetric form of shared knowledge: it joins the speaker and the addressee and puts them on a roughly equal footing relative to the referent. It makes no difference whether the participants are separated spatially or perceptually, they nevertheless share specific knowledge of the referent based on experience prior to the speech event (Hanks 1992: 68; Clark & Marshall 1981: 57). According to Schegloff (1996: 458–459), this can also be recipient design: it means that reference forms are chosen on the basis of who the addressee is, what the addressee knows about, and where he stands in respect to the referent. 2.3  Reference and politeness Second-person pronouns and direct address forms are the most commonly appearing linguistic elements in addressee-oriented person deixis which may be used to show politeness. According to Lerner (1996: 292), e.g., the pronoun you can, however, be used for both reference and address at the same time, leaving the listeners to solve the question of who is/are being referred to and who is/are directly addressed. As Murphy (1988: 321) points out, face preservation plays an important role in reference: the speaker must take the face wants of others into consideration when choosing a referential term.4 Reference to the writer him/herself or to the addressee can thus be used to alter the writer’s psychological status in the situation. When using third-person reference of the addressee, the speaker may wish to express superiority indirectly (e.g., over a child or a servant), to avoid conflict

4.  See Murphy’s (1988: 339) rule of polite reference (RPR).

 Minna Nevala

(e.g., disagreement with the addressee) or to show criticism (e.g., sarcasm, irony). It is not certain, however, that the addressee receives the speaker’s attempt to claim a certain status the way the speaker has primarily meant it. The addressee may see the speaker’s attempt to avoid conflict as face-threatening and interpret the use of third-person reference as an act of hostility. According to Ochs (1988:  1), people’s perceptions of themselves are influenced by how other participants in interaction see them and treat them. This is not, however, an automatic process but requires selecting from the images and perspectives that other people “infer” in a communicative situation (Ochs 2002: 103). Cecchetto and Stroińska (1996: 783) see the building of discursive self-image as relating to the concept of face, as it contributes to the definition of the contextual identity of the participants. In some situations, the direct self-reference, i.e., using first-person pronouns, may be considered an imposition of one’s subjective view on the addressee/audience (see also Nurmi & Nevala forthcoming). In order to avoid seeming too authoritative or assertive, the speaker may refer to him/herself in the third person and thus manages to make his/her presence known but still appears modest and inferior. Reference includes the possibility of performing politeness not only towards other interactants but also to oneself. Building on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) strategies, Chen (2001: 88) proposes that it is possible for the speaker to perform self-politeness to protect and enhance his/her own face. Chen (2001:  104) argues that the relationship of other-politeness (i.e., Brown & Levinson’s politeness to save face of other) and self-politeness can be seen as a continuum: the one end includes those cases in which other-politeness is the primary goal, whereas the other end includes those cases in which self-politeness is viewed as more important. The way in which the actual forms of self-reference are situated on the continuum depends on the point of view: they can be seen as referring to the writer only, or pointing to the addressee. The most likely interpretation is that they are used co-dependently, so that they refer both to the writer and the addressee at the same time. This places their use in the middle of Chen’s scale of politeness continuum. In Brown and Levinson’s view, these forms can also be categorised as negative politeness towards the hearer by humbling oneself or raising the hearer. According to Cecchetto and Stroińska (1996: 782), the use of politeness strategies is not, however, as obvious in the system of reference in written discourse as in spoken discourse, since forms of self-reference can often be grammaticalised and cannot be seen to have an equally active role in forming attitudes.5 As the

5.  This is corroborated by my own study on politeness in direct address and reference in early English letters (Nevala 2004, Chapter 10).



Referential terms and expressions 

varying degrees of politeness can be seen to correlate with a shift away from the deictic centre of the speaker, using e.g., formulaic terms means the defocalisation of the speaker’s role (see Haverkate 1984: 63–66).

3.  The Lunar men Different types of groups and networks can often be considered as building referential hierarchies and social conventions of their own. One such society was the Lunar Society which met in Birmingham at regular intervals between the years 1765 and 1813. The club was a gathering place for scientists, inventors, and natural philosophers of the time. The name of the society derived from their habit of having their meetings each month at the time of the full moon for practical reasons: the light of the moon made the journey home easier. The founding members, or Lunaticks as they called themselves, included e.g., Matthew Boulton, Erasmus Darwin, Josiah Wedgwood, James Watt, William Small, Joseph Priestley, and James Keir. In addition to their scientific pursuits, the members of the society had a social agenda as well: they wanted to improve the lot of the ordinary people, and detested slavery in all its forms. The members believed in private property and capitalist self help, and they tried to reduce corruption and the power of the church and aristocracy. The Lunar men were skilful at manipulating public opinion, a goal which was easy to achieve through their roles at the centre of the Industrial Revolution. I shall now introduce three of the founding members of the Lunar Society that I have chosen as the informants of my study: Erasmus Darwin, Matthew Boulton, and James Watt. 3.1  Erasmus Darwin One of the founder members of the Lunar Society, Erasmus Darwin (1731– 1802) was born the son of a lawyer at Elston Hall near Newark.6 After studying at Cambridge and Edinburgh, Darwin established his medical practice in Lichfield. It was an immediate success, with patients travelling considerable distances for his consultations. At one stage he was offered the post of royal physician to George III, which he refused. Darwin was married twice and had altogether fourteen children, including three illegitimate daughters. One of his sons was Robert Waring Darwin, father of the naturalist Charles Darwin.

6.  All biographical data on Erasmus Darwin presented here is taken from Uglow (2002) and McNeil (2004/2007).

 Minna Nevala

Darwin’s own inventions and ideas varied enormously. He invented a horizontal windmill in 1765 which was constructed and used by Josiah Wedgwood. A carriage that would not tip over was designed in 1766, whereas in 1771 his inventions included a speaking machine, a canal lift for barges, and an artificial bird. In 1778 he came up with a copying machine and a variety of weather monitoring devices that included a north–south airflow machine and a weather vane. Despite his many innovations, however, he retained no patents. He felt they would have harmed his reputation as a doctor and instead encouraged his friends to pursue his ideas and patent their own, modified, versions. Darwin formed the Lichfield Botanical Society in order to translate the works of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus from Latin into English. The work took seven years and resulted in two publications, A System of Vegetables (1783–1785) and The Families of Plants (1787). In addition to his scientific interests, Darwin was also one of the most successful poets of his time. He published several volumes of botanical verse that received great fame and proved influential to the likes of Wordsworth, Keats, Byron, and Coleridge. Between 1794 and 1796 he worked on his book, Zoonomia, which included discussions on scientific topics written in rhyming couplets, including a theory of how all life originated from one spark, which grew into the variety of animals on the planet. A close friend to Darwin, Anna Seward, described him as having “florid health, and the earnest of good humour, a sunny smile, on entering a room, and on first accosting his friends, rendered, in his youth, that exterior agreeable, to which beauty and symmetry had not been propitious” (Uglow 2002: 41). He was bold, imaginative and excellent in networking, but he could also be arrogant, sarcastic, and capable of producing wounding irony towards people he did not like. He loved the long culinary feasts that often followed “the philosophical feasts” of the Lunar men whenever they met. Darwin was robust and corpulent, which did not matter to him because, in his view, a man was “an eating animal, a drinking animal and a sleeping animal” (Uglow 2002: 430). His hedonistic traits lasted right until his death in April 1802 at the age of 70. 3.2  Matthew Boulton Boulton was born in Birmingham, where his father, Matthew Boulton the elder, was a toymaker, i.e., he manufactured small metal articles.7 In 1749 Boulton became a partner in his father’s business, and when his father died in 1759, Boulton went into partnership with John Fothergill. In 1762, the two men established the Soho

7.  All biographical data on Matthew Boulton presented here is taken from Uglow (2002) and Tann (2004/2007a).



Referential terms and expressions 

Manufactory, where they manufactured artistic objects in metal, such as cut steel buttons and marcasite imitations of diamonds. Thirteen years later, Boulton and Watt formally entered into partnership, mostly owing to Boulton, who devoted all the capital he had or could borrow to the enterprise. Watt’s steam-engines for colliery owners proved to be excellent for pumping water out of mines. In thirty years’ time, the number of steam engines amounted to a total of 1,164. However, Boulton had not a proper agreement with his partner until Watt remarried. Soon after the wedding, Watt wrote to Boulton saying his new father-in-law wanted to see the business contract, which resulted in Boulton lying that his lawyer was in London and the deed could not be found anywhere. Boulton later outlined the terms of the business agreement in a letter (Uglow 2002: 257). Boulton himself was married twice: first to Mary Robinson, who was his distant cousin, and after Mary’s death to his former sister-in-law Anne, with whom he had two children, Anne and Matthew Jr. The second marriage, which was publicly considered incestuous, was another proof of his love of women. Boulton was charming and generous, and he liked to show off his success, which sometimes caused envy among his friends. Darwin, for example, wrote sarcastically: Dear Boulton As you are now a sober plodding Man of Business, I scarcely dare trouble you to do me a Favour in the nicknachatory, alias philosophical way: (Erasmus Darwin to Matthew Boulton, 1763; Darwin 16)

Boulton was impulsive in his business affairs, and he was good at balancing debts and swapping money around (Uglow 2002: 214). He did not sign formal contracts with his partners and so if his associate went bankrupt, Boulton himself stayed in the clear. Despite his personal spontaneity and love of independence, Boulton was keen on improving an early scheme of social insurance among his labourers, which was funded by workers’ contributions of 1/60th of their wages, and which paid benefits of up to 80% of wages to staff that were injured or killed. He also ensured that his employees’ work place was clean, well-lit, and well-ventilated, and he refused to employ young children. These conditions remained the same after 1800, when Boulton and Watt retired and handed the company over to their sons. 3.3  James Watt James Watt was born on January 19, 1736 in Greenock.8 His father was a shipwright, ship owner and contractor, while his well-educated mother came from a 8.  All biographical data on James Watt presented here is taken from Uglow (2002) and Tann (2004/2007b).

 Minna Nevala

distinguished family. Watt was mostly taught at home by his mother. He was gifted in mathematics, but Latin and Greek did not much interest him. His mother died when he was 17, and soon after he travelled to London to study instrument-making for a year, only to return to Glasgow trying to set up his own business. Watt was given the opportunity to set up his own workshop by three professors of the University of Glasgow. One of the professors, the physicist and chemist Joseph Black, became Watt’s friend. Watt finally had access to some of the best iron workers in the world, and the manufacture of a large cylinder with a tightly fitting piston begun. The first engines were installed and working in commercial enterprises, and Watt was soon busy installing more engines for pumping water out of Cornish mines. In 1764, Watt married his cousin Margaret Miller, with whom he had five children. After the death of his first wife, he married again, to Ann MacGregor, daughter of a Glasgow dye-maker. Around 1767, Watt was acquainted with Boulton, who needed to improve the power supply for his machinery. In 1772, Watt’s partner, Dr John Roebuck, got into financial difficulties. Boulton, to whom Roebuck owed over a thousand pounds, accepted his share in Watt’s patent to satisfy the debt. The two partners could not have been more different:  whereas Boulton was robust, loud, and extravagant, Watt was pale, anxious, cautious, and prone to depression (Uglow 2002: 294). He was easily frightened and timid, and immediately got depressed when he faced financial or professional setbacks. In his “memorial” to Watt, Joseph Black described his friend thus: Mr Watt was a valetudinarian more or less ever since I knew him, and his mind was liable to be too much depressed by little cross accidents or by the necessity of a greater expence than he had foreseen (Joseph Black’s memorial to James Watt, 1796; Watt & Black 255)

Watt was an enthusiastic inventor, who was sometimes torn between his rich imagination and his constant pedantry. John Robison acknowledged Watt’s serious approach to science in his memorial to Watt: Every thing became to him a subject of new and serious study. Every thing became Science in his hands, and I took every opportunity of offering my feeble aid, by presenting systematically, and by the help of mathematical discussion, thoughts which he was contented with having suggested or directed. (John Robison’s memorial to James Watt, 1796; Watt & Black 258)

Watt has been described a true gentleman, and he was greatly respected by other prominent men of the Industrial Revolution. During his membership in the Lunar Society, he was always interested in expanding his horizons and formulating new ideas. Watt continued to make inventions during his retirement: he invented, for



Referential terms and expressions 

example, a device for copying letters and made improvements to the oil lamp. Although his skills as a business man were lacking, his talents for maintaining personal relationships with his friends and partners were always excellent right until his death in 1819. 4.  The letters of Darwin, Boulton, and Watt The letter material I have taken from the Lunar men for this study includes, firstly, a selection of letters by Erasmus Darwin written between 1763 and 1797 to his colleagues and friends, such as Anna Seward, Charles Greville, Matthew Boulton, and James Watt. These letters have been included in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (CEECE). The corpus includes 41 letters of the total of 272 published in the edition.9 Concise information on the Darwin collection, as well as the other three collections used in the study, can be found in Table 1. The 52 letters from the Wedgwood collection included are, like the Darwin letters, from the CEECE, and they range in date from 1763 to 1793. Other writers and recipients besides Lunar man Josiah Wedgwood and his son include Wedgwood’s business partner Thomas Bentley, James Watt Sr and Jr, Erasmus Darwin, and Benjamin Franklin. Table 1.  The material. Source

Time span

Number of letters

Number of words

Darwin (CEECE) Wedgwood (CEECE) Watt & Black Boulton & Watt Total

1763–1797 1763–1793 1768–1815 1780–1803

41 52 250 1,149 1,492

18,362 35,232 c. 137,500 c. 402,000 c. 593,094

The Watt and Black correspondence comes from the reprinted edition by Lady Ferrar (1973), which consists of 250 letters dating from 1768 to 1815. The correspondents include Professor Joseph Black from the University of Glasgow, John Robison, Lunar man James Keir, Mrs Watt, and Mrs Robison. The letters contain a good deal of information about scientific and technical matters in Britain during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as well as frequent references to contacts with foreign scientists like Benjamin Franklin.

9.  For further details on the letter collections Darwin and Wedgwood see Appendix of this volume.

 Minna Nevala

The collection of the Boulton & Watt papers and letters is housed at Cornwall Record Office but can also be found on the Internet.10 The papers are dated between 1780 and 1803. Most of the letters are addressed to Thomas Wilson, who was Boulton and Watt’s primary agent and a family friend of both men. The collection contains information on aspects of Matthew Boulton and James Watt’s business activity and in particular the battle over the patent of the steam engine. Both the Watt & Black and the Boulton & Watt correspondences have been chosen to complement the material from the CEECE. All the referential terms relating to Darwin, Boulton, and Watt individually have been taken into account in the analysis. I have also included the referential terms used of Boulton and Watt together, which mostly appear in the Boulton & Watt business correspondence. Only instances which clearly refer to them as individual partners instead of a collective company have been chosen.11

5.  R  eferential terms: From our Birmingham friends to our friend of Lichfield I shall now introduce the terms used to refer to my three informants in the material. I will start with Matthew Boulton and James Watt, and then move onto Erasmus Darwin who, though one of the original founding members of the Lunar Society, is referred to less often than his two partners in science, Boulton and Watt. 5.1  Matthew Boulton Reference to Boulton in the material studied shows a great variety of terms and expressions. Table 2 contains all the different types of nominal reference terms of Boulton: the bulk of the cases is from the Boulton & Watt business correspondence, but there are also a number of instances in more personal letters.

10.  The collection is also available on the webpages of the Cornish Mining Organization (for further details, see Primary sources under References). 11.  This includes e.g., those cases in which the following verb or anaphoric pronoun is in the plural, as in “Boulton & Watt are in London”, or, as in “…so as to Prevent any further disputes for Messrs B & Watt to Say what they would take from the End of this Month…” (for anaphoric chains in reference, see e.g., Donnellan 1978: 51–52).



Referential terms and expressions 

Table 2.  Nominal reference to Matthew Boulton. Referential term Mr B Mr. Boulton MB Matthew Boulton my father our friend Boulton Boulton B his/her father our Mr Boulton good Mr Boulton our MB my friend Mr Boulton M Boulton Mr Boulton Sr Mr Matthew Boulton your worthy friend Mr Boulton poor Mr Boulton another most agreeable man and your very warm friend Mr Boulton Total

Darwin

Wedgwood

Watt & Black

Boulton & Watt

Total

10

3 1

13 101

266 146 11 7 7 5 4 4 2 3

1 1

282 (46.9%) 258 (41.9%) 11 (1.8%) 7 (1.2%) 7 (1.2%) 6 (0.9%) 5 (0.8%) 4 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%) 3 (0.5%) 3 (0.5%) 3 (0.5%) 2 (0.3%) 2 (0.3%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.2%)

1 1

1 (0.2%) 1 (0.2%)

1 1 1 3

3 2 2 1

12

4

126

459

601 (100%)

Different types of forms are listed in Table 2, as in Tables 3, 4 and 5, according to the frequency of instances. The most common terms of reference to Boulton are Mr Boulton and the abbreviated Mr B. These forms are used both by the writers who are close to Boulton and by those who have a more distant relationship with him. In example (1), a client of the Boulton & Watt company, Richard Trevithick, refers to Boulton in a letter to Boulton & Watt’s agent Wilson. Another example of a deferential type of reference (2) comes from a letter written by Black to Watt: when sending his compliments to Mrs Watt and Boulton, Black calls Boulton Watt’s “worthy friend”.12

12.  The references after each example show the year when the letter was written, the name of the letter collection in the corpus or the name of the printed edition/collection, and the exact reference to the page in the letter edition/the manuscript collection. In the examples, nominal referential terms are in italics and corresponding pronouns are underlined.

 Minna Nevala



(1) Sir/I am sorrey its not in my power to wait on Mr. Bolton either of the days you propos’d and as he intends leveing this County on Thursday hope you will be so good as to solicit him on my behalf to be on so easy a terms as posiable and as soon as I can get a few hours to spare will wait of you to know the terms fix’d on (Richard Trevithick to Thomas Wilson, 1800; Boulton & Watt AD1583/11/44)

(2) Present my Compliments to Mrs. Watt and Your Worthy Friend Mr. Bolton and believe always that I am  Yours faithfully, Joseph Black (Joseph Black to James Watt, 1786; Watt & Black 151)

Example 3 represents terms which are used of Boulton by his friends and close acquaintances. Whereas Watt mostly uses the term Mr B to refer to his friend, Darwin usually refers to Boulton with Mr Boulton. Darwin directly addresses Boulton by his plain last name, which is characteristic of early correspondence between close friends. The reference term used in the excerpt of example (3) may well derive from the direct address form: it is probable that the last name is commonly used between all Lunar men. In this case, both Boulton and the term our friend are used to emphasise in-group membership.

(3) I hope our friend Boulton has not much return of his gravelly complaint, somebody lately told me he was worse, which grieved me much. (Erasmus Darwin to James Watt, 1795; Darwin 289)

While there are plenty of examples of reference to Boulton in letters between friends, instances in which he is referred to by family members are relatively rare. In the business correspondence, Boulton’s son generally refers to their father as Mr Boulton. Example (4) shows one of the few cases where Matthew Robinson Boulton uses the term my father. The recipient is, not surprisingly, family friend Wilson.

(4) The absence of my father, who has been suddenly called to town, prevents us sending you the promised reply to Carne’s letter wishing previously to learn his sentiments upon the subject; (Matthew Robinson Boulton to Thomas Wilson, 1799; Boulton & Watt AD1583/11/25)

In general, proximity and in-group/out-group qualities are shown by the use of deictic personal pronouns, as in my father, our friend Boulton, his/her father, our Mr Boulton, our MB, my friend Mr Boulton, or your worthy friend Mr Boulton. Similarly, the writer’s range of different attitudes towards Boulton can be seen in the expressions good Mr Boulton (positive), poor Mr Boulton (commiserative) and another most agreeable man and your very warm friend Mr Boulton (complimenting). 5.2  James Watt Nominal reference to Watt is similar to the way in which Boulton is referred to in the material. Table 3 shows that Watt is most often referred to as Mr Watt by both



Referential terms and expressions 

close and distant writers. The kinship term my father is used by Watt’s sons, James Jr and Gregory. The number of the instances of Mr W is radically lower than that of Mr B, which is probably explained by Boulton not using the term of Watt as often as Watt does of Boulton. Most of the terms are only marginally used. Table 3.  Nominal reference to James Watt. Referential term Mr Watt my father Mr W the said JW JW Watt Mr Watt Sr our Mr Watt my (good/old) friend the complainant Mr James Watt your father James Watt the complainant JW my partner Mr Watt Mr J Watt the old gentleman my colleague your friend Mr Watt your father-in-law Jamy Watt Total

Darwin

Wedgwood

Watt & Black

Boulton & Watt

Total

3

1

82

208 35 9 6 5 4 5 4

294 (77%) 35 (9.2%) 9 (2.4%) 6 (1.6%) 5 (1.3%) 5 (1.3%) 5 (1.3%) 4 (1.0%) 4 (1.0%) 2 (0.5%) 2 (0.5%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 382 (100%)

1

4 1 2

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3

1

1 1 1 93

285

In example (5), Wedgwood writes to another Lunar man, Joseph Priestley, about the properties of certain chemical substances. Unlike in example (6), there is no need to specify the referent further or to mention the referent’s friendship with the recipient. In this case, Mr Watt is replaceable with Mr W or Watt, as in direct address between friends. The situation is, however, different in Alexander Black’s letter to his brother. Black has recommended his brother Alexander for a job at Boulton & Watt, but, unfortunately, there is no such position available. The term Alexander uses to refer to Watt highlights the fact that his brother is closer to Watt than to Boulton.

(5) Mr. Watt’s conjecture of nitrous acid being contained in inflammable air, as the vitriolic is in sulphur, pleases me much, though I confess there is one circumstance which appears rather unfavorable to it; (Josiah Wedgwood to Joseph Priestley, 1788; Wedgwood III, 76)

 Minna Nevala



(6) I flattered my self from the interview I had with Mr. Boulton, that your freind Mr. Watt and him would have made me some proposal for an employment, particularly as I had hinted to them that a large salary was not what I was in search after — (Alexander Black to Joseph Black, 1779; Watt & Black 54)

In letters, Black usually refers to Watt with the term Mr Watt, which appears to have differed from the forms that he used to address Watt directly. In example (7), Robison quotes what Black has said, repeating the more familiar term Jamy Watt. As we can see, the use of nicknames in reference is highly unusual in the material, and the instance no doubt appears only because it is included in a direct quote of Black’s actual speech.

(7) When I returned from London, at the account which I gave him [= Joseph Black] of your triumph over Hornblower and Co[mpany] he was delighted, even to tears. He said “it is very foolish, but I can’t help it, when I hear of any thing good to Jamy Watt” (John Robison to James Watt, 1799; Watt & Black 318)



(8) My father being absent and my Brother and Mr R Boulton being engaged with several other urgent affairs renders it impossible to reply immediately to the several points contained in your letters, but you may expect an answer in a few days. (Gregory Watt to Thomas Wilson, 1799; Boulton & Watt AD1683/11/25)

Example (8) from Gregory Watt’s letter to Wilson shows a referential term which is identical to that of Matthew Robinson Boulton in example (4). Gregory and James Jr refer to Watt as my father most often in their business letters to Wilson, but there are a number of instances in letters to more distant acquaintances and clients as well. In addition to singular reference, Boulton and Watt are often jointly referred to in the material (see Table 5 in the Appendix). Most of the examples appear in the Boulton & Watt company correspondence, but there are a few cases in other letters as well. Terms which are most often used include formal Messrs Boulton & Watt, Messrs B & W and plain Boulton & Watt or B&W. Example (9) from Darwin’s letter to Charles Greville shows how other, highly creative, nominal forms can be used to point to a member of the writer’s (and the referent’s) in-group. The term my mechanical friends is here used to refer to Boulton and Watt, pointing to their expertise in the field of engineering.

(9) My so long neglecting to send you the machine, I promised, can only be excused by my desire of making it better worth your attention — it remained many months at Birmingham before my mechanical friends [= Boulton & Watt] return’d from fire-engine building in Cornwall. (Erasmus Darwin to Charles F. Greville, 1779; Darwin 96)

Darwin proves to be the most imaginative in creating nominal forms not only relative to Boulton and Watt but also in reference to other Lunar men as a group. He calls his fellow Lunaticks by terms like all you great men at Soho, all you



Referential terms and expressions 

philosophers, you well-grown gigantic philosophers at Birmingham, your learned lunations and all the insane.13 5.3  Erasmus Darwin Reference to Darwin himself is scarce in the material: there are altogether only fourteen instances. It is not surprising that Darwin is not mentioned in the Boulton & Watt company correspondence, but, considering how central a figure he was among the Lunar men, one would expect to find a number of examples relating to Darwin in more personal letters.14 Table 4 shows all types of referential terms and expressions found in only two collections, i.e., Wedgwood and Watt & Black correspondences. Table 4.  Nominal reference to Erasmus Darwin. Referential term Dr Darwin our friend of Lichfield our good friend at your elbow Darwin Mr Darwin Total

Wedgwood

Watt & Black

Total

8 1 1

2

10 (71.4%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) 14 (100%)

10

1 1 4

Reference to Darwin is at this point mostly restricted to nominal terms Dr Darwin and Darwin. The first name is used neither by his closest colleagues nor friends. Darwin’s character and the writer’s relationship to him are more often described by other means. For instance, in example (10), Robison writes to Watt how he has been “charmed with the unaffected ease and Civility of darwin”. (10) dear Sir I write this principally to thank you for the favour you have done me in introducing me to the acquaintance of Dr. darwin and Dr. Small. I can’t tell how much I think myself obliged to you. I was quite charmed with the unaffected ease and Civility of darwin, and was particularly lucky in being introduced to him by one for whom he has so great a value. (John Robison to James Watt, 1768; Watt & Black 13)

13.  The last two referential terms here derive from the Lunar men’s habit of calling each other Lunaticks. 14.  Sairio (this volume) discusses, for one, the influence of domicile in building and maintaining social networks. Taking this into account, one might argue that although Darwin was a founding figure of the Lunar Society, the fact that Boulton and Watt spent most of their time in Cornwall had an effect on the reference patterns in the correspondences of the three men.

 Minna Nevala

As we shall also find out in Section 6, not everyone was impressed by Darwin’s charm. Example (11) concerns Thomas Bentley’s pamphlet on the Hull–Liverpool canal which Darwin has harshly criticised, because he has himself written a pamphlet on the same subject. Wedgwood’s style of writing is soothing, and it is obvious he does not agree with Darwin on the matter. (11) I am my good friend very sorry that this Pamphlet turns out so troublesome an affair to you who I am sure have full employmt. for every moment of your time. As to our friend of Lichfields remarks if you can avail yourself of them in the part not yet printd. I know you will, but the condemnation or postponing of the whole I can by no means agree to nor perswade myself that there is any necessity for it. (Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 1765; Wedgwood I, 62)

Wedgwood does not use a name but refers to Darwin with our friend of Lichfield. Both correspondents know, however, who the referent is, and it may well be that by using the term friend instead of Darwin’s name, Wedgwood tries to assure Bentley that, regardless of Darwin’s hostile remarks, he still belongs to the same inside group.

6.  O  ther expressions: Third-person reference to the writer and/or to the addressee The use of referential terms is not restricted to the function of referring to people outside the immediate context of the two correspondents. Third-person reference can also be used when pointing at the writer him/herself and the addressee. Example (12) shows an excerpt from a business letter on behalf of the Boulton & Watt company to their agent and family friend Wilson. It is interesting that the letter is written by Boulton, yet he refers both to himself and to the recipient in the third person. In the company correspondence, it is more usual to use direct address to the recipient. In this particular context, however, Boulton uses third-person reference when he wants to detach himself from the psychological proximity between himself and Wilson. He does so by boosting Wilson’s authority and asking for his help and expertise. (12) Mr Boulton begs Mr Wilson would advise him how he can get one or two Hundred Ton of tough Rolling Cake as he cant go on with his Coinage for want. The 10 Ton sent by Mr Edwards as all rolld so thin as to be of no use in B[oulton].s present orders. (Boulton & Watt (Boulton’s handwriting) to Thomas Wilson, 1791; Boulton & Watt AD1583/4/78)

This kind of avoidance of personal involvement appears also in other letters to Wilson, and is used by both Boulton and Watt. In example (13), Watt makes excuses



Referential terms and expressions 

for not supplying Wilson with comments on the drawings of “Hallamanin Beam and Poldice No 4 & 5” which he already promised to send in a previous letter.15 (13) J[ames] W[att] intended to have written in explanation of the drawings, but this & other similar matters have prevented him — (Boulton & Watt (Watt’s handwriting) to Thomas Wilson, 1786; Boulton & Watt AD1583/2/4)

The use of third-person reference of both the writer and the recipient involves the need to save face of either one or both of the participants. Showing respect towards a more distant addressee is a function often performed by using thirdperson reference of both correspondents. In examples (14) and (15), Wedgwood’s close business partner Bentley refers to himself and the recipient, Darwin, in the third person. Bentley is more distant to Darwin than Wedgwood himself, and it is obvious that he wants to promote Darwin’s authority and expertise as a published author. (14) D  r. Sir, Mr. Bentley never had the Pleasure of seeing Dr. Darwin, but shall think himself much honoured by his Friendship, & future Correspondence. I am extremely concerned that your Remarks did not come sooner […] & if Dr. Darwin, Mr. Wedgwood, & your humble Servant, cou’d have been altogether, I fancy they could have done it as well as anybody else. (Thomas Bentley to Erasmus Darwin, 1765; Wedgwood III, 253–255) (15) M  r. Bentley is not afraid the Pamphlet should be improved: he heartily wishes it was much more perfect than it is; & doubts not but Dr: Darwin could have finished it in better manner, if he wou’d have taken that Trouble upon himself which Mr: B understood he did not choose to do. (Thomas Bentley to Erasmus Darwin, 1765; Wedgwood III, 266)

In example (14), Bentley shifts between pronouns, using direct I and you right after referring to both himself and Darwin in the third person. The last sentence is a mixed bag: both the recipient and the writer are referred to with third-person nominal terms, while the pronoun Bentley uses of himself is I, changing then to they when referring to Darwin, Wedgwood and Bentley himself together. Such shifts in deictic focus are common in letters from a writer who is either socially or situationally inferior to the recipient.16 In a more apologetic example (15), Bentley shows consistency in his use of deictic pronouns.

15.  Watt refers here to the drawings of the beam engine for the Hallamanin and Poldice Mines in Cornwall. 16.  Similar examples can be found in the letters of an eighteenth-century governess, Agnes Porter, to her former pupils who were socially her superiors (see Nevala forthcoming).

 Minna Nevala

Third-person reference can also be used of the addressee alone. Example (16) continues the discussion about Bentley’s pamphlet. Darwin’s immense enthusiasm about the topic proves face-threatening:  his style of writing is dictative, and he refers to Bentley in the third person.17 (16) You will please to return me the Papers as I can not have Time to transcribe them. I can not but still wish, spite of the Expence of reprinting it, for Mr Bentley’s Character (who will be conjectured to be the writer), that this Pamphlet had a little more Time pass’d upon it, that it might not discredit the Gentlemen concerned in this affair. (Erasmus Darwin to Thomas Bentley, 1765; Darwin 32)18

Darwin’s tone is, however, completely different in example (17), which comes from a letter to Boulton. This time it is Darwin who needs a favour from his friend; he reminds Boulton of a promise by referring to him with formal Mr Boulton. Knowing Darwin’s sarcastic tendencies, it is possible that Darwin is giving hints about how irritated he is by Boulton’s slow reaction to his earlier request. (17) Meddleing with other People’s Affairs I had nearly forgot my own, viz to remind Mr Boulton of a promise He made me to send me a Piece or two of his Female-Chape-Pieces to make me a Fender with — but this not if it is any Trouble or Inconvenience at all. (Erasmus Darwin to Matthew Boulton, 1764; Darwin 32)

Mrs Robison’s attitude towards Watt in example (18) is clearly more submissive. She mixes forms of direct address (your, dear Sir) and reference (him/his, Mr Watt) in the same context. Her obvious aim to please is further emphasised by the way in which she compliments Watt on his good taste and generous nature. (18) I admire your Taste again d[ea]r Sir on a larger scale, I have seen no candlesticks I think so handsome and would return again my best thanks but I know Mr. Watt needs not many words to inform him of my feeling of his kindness (Mrs Robison to James Watt, 1797; Watt & Black 275)

Example (7) (Section 5.2) already showed how the writer refers to the recipient in a reported sequence of direct speech. Similar cases in which the writer quotes what a third person has said about the recipient can be found elsewhere in the material. In example (19), Mrs Robison repeats her daughter’s greetings to Boulton and Watt. The referential terms used here are the same which Euphemia has probably used herself in the original utterance: Mr Boulton, Mr Watt, and the pronoun their. 17.  It seems that Bentley’s courteous approach to Darwin’s impoliteness eventually calmed Darwin down and the argument soon subsided. 18.  This letter is not included in the CEECE but can be found in King-Hele’s edition of Darwin’s correspondence (see Appendix of this volume).



Referential terms and expressions 

(19) Euphemia also begs me to present her best Comp[limen]ts to Mr. Bolton and Mr. Watt with gratitude for their kind remembrance of her. (Mrs Robison to James Watt, 1797; Watt & Black 271)

The source reported in example (20) is not explicitly expressed by Darwin, although it might be argued that the source is Mr Barker himself. Also here the reported clause follows the formulation of the original words. Darwin foregrounds his own disbelief in the truth conditions of the utterance by admitting he does not believe it. In so doing he takes Boulton’s side in the matter and reinforces the fact that they both belong to the same in-group. (20) But I am also told, but observe I don’t believe it, that Mr Barker ask’d Mr Boulton how He did at the Play, and recived no Answer. (Erasmus Darwin to Matthew Boulton, 1764; Darwin 31) (21) He [= John Robison Jr] is so much habituated to think of Mr. Watt not only as eminent in his profession, but as wise any [and] worthy, that I am perfectly certain that your words and your opinions, as to life and behaviour, will make more impression on him than those of his father or any other Mortal — (John Robison to James Watt, 1798; Watt & Black 298)

Example (21), like examples (14) and (15), concerns recognition of the recipient’s authority and expertise. Robison uses indirect reporting to tell Watt how much his son respects and admires Watt’s opinion. Robison also situationally distances himself from his son and effaces the self by referring to himself in the third person, i.e., by using the term his father.

7.  Discussion 7.1  Some general observations The overall distribution of referential terms in the data is heavily biased to Matthew Boulton and James Watt. This is mainly because of the material itself, namely, the great number of letters in the Boulton & Watt company correspondence. Even after the total figures for each letter collection are normalised per 10,000 words, Boulton and Watt remain on average the ones most referred of the three Lunar men.19 I would have expected to find more references to Darwin, since he was, after all, considered the Lunar Society personified. In the material, even such Lunar men as William Small and Josiah Wedgwood are referred to much more often than Darwin. 19.  The estimated figures of total references are per letter collection:  Boulton:  Darwin 6.5, Wedgwood 1.1, Watt & Black 9.1, Boulton & Watt 11.4; Watt: Darwin 1.6, Wedgwood 0.3, Watt & Black 6.8, Boulton & Watt 7.1; Darwin: Wedgwood 2.8, Watt & Black 0.3.

 Minna Nevala

The variation in the form of the reference terms is similar to that of eighteenthcentury direct address. Title + last name, as in Mr Boulton and Dr Darwin, is mostly used by writers who are both close and distant to the addressee and/or the referent. There are also examples of terms consisting of first name + last name (Matthew Boulton), but this usage is restricted to cases in which either the writer or the addressee is distant to the referent. Plain last name (Boulton, Watt, Darwin) can be used when the writer refers to a person who is his intimate friend, as e.g., Darwin does in his letters when he refers to Boulton. Moreover, plain initials (JW, MB) or title + last name initial (Mr W, Mr B) appear most often in letters between correspondents who both are close to the referent. Reference to a friend of either the writer, the addressee, or both also includes the use of the personal pronouns my, your, and our. In this respect, the more strategic use of the term friend is interesting. As, for example, my earlier study (Nevala 2004) has shown, before the eighteenth century the term was directly used between social equals, most commonly in letters between members of the lower gentry, the lower clergy, and professionals. Friend might imply true friendship and intimacy, which was usually the case with gentry correspondents, or it could be used as an expression of solidarity, as occurs mostly in the early letters of the clergy. If friend was used from a superior in power to an inferior in direct address, it was most likely to appear in letters from a husband to a wife, or, if the social distance was greater, in cases where the relationship between the writer and the addressee was somehow closer than that between average strangers, or when the superior wanted to express goodwill to the addressee. When friend was used by an inferior of a superior, it often worked as a social “softener”, a booster of the recipient’s or the referent’s authority, or, in direct address, as a device to affirm the addressee of the writer’s loyalty. Later in the eighteenth century, the reasons for calling someone a friend somewhat changed, which affected the use of the term in certain contexts. As the structure of society was changing and a new middle class forming, it appears that friend became a more strategic tool for promoting the image of, if not the other, then oneself. As Del Lungo Camiciotti (2006: 164) states, the direct use of friend in Late Modern English business correspondence was one way of “promoting the encoder without imposing on the receiver”. Similarly in my material, the term is mostly used in reference when the writer has something to gain from it, whether it be an actual favour, a reciprocal act of solidarity, or an access to the addressee’s and/or the referent’s in-group.20

20.  The term friend does not appear in the ironic or generally negative sense in the current material, and is particularly linked to in-group membership.



Referential terms and expressions 

One underlying factor which has not yet been discussed when searching for reasons for the formulation and distribution of referential terms in the material is the variety of letter types (see e.g., Nurmi & Palander-Collin 2008 for a discussion on the interactional characteristics of letter types). As the bulk of the material comes from the Boulton & Watt business correspondence, the results obtained of the influence of the interactant’s proximity to the choice of a reference term are not conclusive. The use of direct address forms in the letters between intimates can, however, further indicate the range of possible referential terms and expressions. For example, gradual changes in the use of direct address forms, like that from Dear Sir to My dear Sir, have been found promoting psychological proximity and personalisation in business letters (Dossena 2006: 177). A similar difference can be found in the Boulton & Watt letters between the use of such referential terms as Mr Boulton and good Mr Boulton. 7.2  The functions of reference In the last section, I shall discuss the pragmatic functions of reference in the Lunar correspondence. I will make conclusions on the way in which the use of reference terms is related to the notions of in-group convergence and out-group divergence, concentrating on the concepts of face work and distance. Finally, I shall discuss the social and contextual aspects which determine the use of addressee- and self-oriented third-person reference in the material. 7.2.1  In-groups, out-groups, and mutual compromises The concepts of in-group convergence (identifying with one’s own group) and outgroup divergence (focusing towards a reference group) agree with the strategicness of language use and the speaker’s ability to perform acts which either save or threaten face. In the material, the use of reference terms is related to attending to the face of any of the three interactants, i.e., the writer, the recipient and the referent (see e.g., Section 7.2.2 below). Doing face work comprises altering distance, whether social or contextual, between the participants of a communicative situation. By using referential terms, the writer is able to influence the way in which the distance is understood in the writer– referent relations and, to some extent, in the recipient–referent relations. Nicknames, for example, are often used to indicate that the referent belongs to the writer’s ingroup, whereas titles may occur when the writer places the referent in the out-group. Similarly, personal pronouns can be used for altering distance: if the writer refers to a person as your very warm friend Mr Boulton, he expresses that he understands the recipient to be closer to the referent than he is himself. Yet he is not a total stranger to the referent, and, in this case, the phrase “very warm” may infer that he would like to belong to the same in-group. Proximity to the referent can also be expressed by a term

 Minna Nevala

like our Mr Boulton, which is used to decrease the distance between the writer and the referent, and to increase the distance between the referent and the recipient. The material also shows that reference is connected with the notion of shared knowledge. In cases where there is tension caused by the use of different referential expressions of the same referent, the writer can make a compromise between two expressions. For example, the writer may either use a term which he himself would use of the referent, e.g., my friend, or a term which he knows the recipient would use, e.g., Mr Boulton. As a result, the writer uses the term my friend Mr Boulton. By doing so, he avoids making the recipient feel unequal in relation to the referent: if the writer referred to Boulton only with the term he would use, he would not only risk the referent being unidentified but would also add to the discursive tension by further emphasising the in-group membership with the referent. Using a single referential term for different functions may not only reduce tension but also cause it. If the writer uses, for example, only the last name of the referent (e.g., Boulton), it may imply, as was already stated in Section 7.1, that he is a close friend to the referent. It may also mean that the referent is a close friend of both the writer and the recipient. Or alternatively, the use of plain last name may infer that neither the writer nor the recipient knows the referent very well, and that the referent is only referred to as a member of an out-group, “a Boulton”. Here the tension varies: if the writer refers to the refent by using the last name only, he either (1) knows that the recipient does not belong to the same in-group but does not care of possible impoliteness caused by the situation, or, he (2) knows the referent is also close to the recipient, in which case the tension is minimised between the two correspondents. Low tension is retained in a situation where the writer (3) knows the referent is as distant or personally unknown to the recipient as to himself. 7.2.2  The three A’s of addressee- and self-oriented reference in the third person The examples in Section 6 show that the writer’s third-person reference to the addressee or to him/herself can be strategically used to achieve certain communicative goals or, for example, to offer the writer a tool for expressing mood towards the addressee. Resulting from the analysis of the material, we can formulate three main groups of social and contextual aspects which determine the use of addressee- and self-oriented reference: appearance, attitude, and authority. Appearance is a mainly social aspect and concerns the writer’s or the addressee’s status or role as an inferior or superior participant in the interaction.21 Status also 21.  The notion “appearance” derives from Goffman (1959: 24) who understands appearance as a stimulus which tells us the speaker’s social status and position in the social hierarchy. Goffman relates appearance to manner, which may be understood as a stimulus which gives us information about the interactional role of the speaker in a particular situation.



Referential terms and expressions 

relates to the contextual aspect of the discussion topic. For example, a writer who is socially inferior to the addressee may feel the need to refer to both him/herself and the addressee in the third person when asking for a favour or expressing gratitude. This is the case with Mrs Robison in example (18), where she tries to enhance Watt’s generous image. The second aspect, attitude, can be either positive or negative. It relates to the contextual mood of the writer which may or may not be influenced by the addressee’s initiative or previous response. A good example of a negative attitude is Darwin’s reaction to Bentley’s pamphlet and his sarcastic use of reference in the third person (example 16). Both attitude and appearance are interchangeably related to each other and to the third aspect, authority. Darwin’s reaction might as well be an example of claiming his position, since by referring to the addressee in the third person he is also able to distinguish, and make Bentley distinguish, his professional superiority in the matter. Similarly, example (21), though reporting, shows an instance where the writer confirms the addressee’s authority by referring to himself in the third person, and thus effacing himself. The aspect of authority can also mean impersonalising and distancing. Examples (12) and (13) from the Boulton & Watt correspondence show avoidance of personal involvement. The writer refers to himself in the third person either in order to speak on behalf of the entire company or to detach himself from his contextual role as someone in need of advice. Interestingly, both Boulton and Watt resort to third-person reference when there is not a particular need for doing so: Wilson as the addressee is, after all, their close business partner. It is probable that the factor underlying the three aspects is the concept of face. All instances found are somehow related to either saving, enhancing, or attacking one’s own or the other participant’s face. In these cases, attending to one’s face overrides establishing the mutual distance.

8.  Conclusion The chief aim of my study was to explore how interpersonal relations and social roles influence the form and function of person-referential terms and expressions. Since the terms mostly used in the material show no great variation in form, the most substantial findings concern the different functional aspects of nominal reference. If all that has been coded in the reference term is the contextual status and role of the referent, does it mean referential terms cannot be used to indicate social deixis in its strictest sense? One of the core aspects in social deixis is, however, that it also comprises expressing what the actual social relationship between the interactants is. Since referential terms are often derived from direct address forms, which are socially deictic, they should be treated as equally important factors in

 Minna Nevala

building and indexing social networks and relationships. After all, the existence of social links and groups are the basic elements by which we learn to refer to other people. Like Jenny Uglow refers to the words of another Lunar man, Richard Lovell Edgeworth: “the knowledge of each member of such a society becomes in time disseminated through the whole body”.22

Appendix Table 5.  Joint nominal reference to Matthew Boulton and James Watt. Referential term Messrs Boulton & Watt Messrs B & W Boulton & Watt B&W the said Matthew Boulton & James Watt Mr Watt & (my)self the said (Messrs) Boulton & Watt the said JW & MB Mr B & myself Mr W & self Mr Watt & I the/those gentlemen B & Watt said gentlemen Mr Boulton & self W & self his said masters Mr Boulton & his father Mr Boulton & Watt the Adventurers Mr Boulton & Watt Mr Boulton & Watt our Birmingham friends the Messrs Boulton & my father our friends the old gentleman & my father the gentlemen interested in the sale or purchase of the fire engine my mechanical friends Total

Darwin

Watt & Black

3 1

1 1

4

Boulton & Watt

Total

84 28 17 15 13

84 (41.6%) 28 (13.9%) 20 (9.9%) 16 (7.9%) 13 (6.4%)

7 6 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 (3.5%) 6 (3%) 5 (2.5%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%)

197

1 (0.5%) 202 (100%)

22.  Uglow (2002: 125): Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth Esq. (1820).



Referential terms and expressions 

References Primary sources Boulton & Watt = The Boulton & Watt Papers. Available at . CEECE = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. Watt & Black = Robinson, Eric & McKie, Douglas (Eds). 1970. Partners in Science: Letters of James Watt and Joseph Black. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Other references Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language style as audience design.” Language in Society 13: 145–204. Bell, Allan. 2001. “Back in style:  Reworking audience design.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Penelope Eckert & John R.  Rickford (Eds), 139–169. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cecchetto, Vittorina & Stroińska, Magda. 1996. “Systems of self-reference and address forms in intellectual discourse.” Language Sciences 18 (3–4): 777–789. Chen, Rong. 2001. “Self-politeness: A proposal.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 87–106. Clark, Herbert H. & Marshall, Catherine R. 1981. “Definite descriptions and mutual knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber & Ivan A. Sag (Eds), 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Herbert H.  & Murphy, Gregory L. 1982. “Audience design in meaning and reference.” In Language and Comprehension, Jean-François Le Ny & Walter Kintsch (Eds), 287–299. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella. 2006. “‘Conduct yourself towards all persons on every occasion with civility and in a wise and prudent manner; this will render you esteemed’: Stance features in nineteenth-century business letters.” In Dossena & Fitzmaurice (Eds), 153–174. Donnellan, Keith S. 1978. “Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, Pragmatics, Peter Cole (Ed.), 47–68. New York: Academic Press. Dossena, Marina. 2006. “Stance and authority in nineteenth-century bank correspondence — a case study.” In Dossena & Fitzmaurice (Eds), 175–192. Dossena, Marina & Fitzmaurice, Susan M. (Eds). 2006. Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Bern: Peter Lang. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. Hanks, William F. 1992. “The indexical ground of deictic reference.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (Eds), 43–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haverkate, Henk. 1984. Speech Acts, Speakers and Hearers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. “Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns.” In Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person, Friedrich Lenz (Ed.), 185–202. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.

 Minna Nevala Krauss, Robert M. 1987. “The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6 (2): 81–98. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara & Kastovsky, Dieter. 1997. “How do you know what I’m talking about? On the semantics and pragmatics of referring.” In Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (Eds), 1665–1679. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: ‘Second person’ reference in multi-party conversation.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 281–294. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992/1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNeil, Maureen. 2004/2007. “Darwin, Erasmus (1731–1802).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7177, accessed 19 September 2007. Morita, Emi. 2003. “Children’s use of address and reference terms:  Language socialization in Japanese–English bilingual environment.” Multilingua 22: 367–395. Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and People:  The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Murphy, G.L. 1988. “Personal reference in English.” Language in Society 17: 317–349. Napoli, Ernesto. 1997. “Names, indexicals, and identity statements.” In Direct Reference, Indexicality, and Propositional Attitudes, Wolfgang Künne, Albert Newen & Martin Anduschus (Eds), 185–211. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevala, Minna. Forthcoming. “Altering distance and defining authority:  Person reference in Late Modern English.” In Historical Sociopragmatics, Jonathan Culpeper (Ed.), a special issue of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (2): 212–233. Nurmi, Arja & Nevala, Minna. Forthcoming. “The social space of an eighteenth-century governess: Epistemic modality and reference in the language of Agnes Porter.” In Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English, Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (Eds). Nurmi, Arja & Palander-Collin, Minna. 2008. “Letters as a text type: Interaction in writing.” In Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang. Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and Language Development:  Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Oxford: Blackwell. Ochs, Elinor. 2002. “Becoming a speaker of culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:  Ecological Perspectives, Claire Kramsch (Ed.), 99–120. London/New York: Continuum. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, Barbara Fox (Ed.), 437–485. Amsterdam/Atlanta: John Benjamins. Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tann, Jennifer. 2004/2007a. “Boulton, Matthew (1728–1809).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2983, accessed 19 September 2007. Tann, Jennifer. 2004/2007b. “Watt, James (1736–1819).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28880, accessed 19 September 2007.



Referential terms and expressions 

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uglow, Jenny. 2002. The Lunar Men:  The Friends who Made the Future 1730–1810. London:  Faber & Faber. Wilson, Andrew J. & Zeitlyn, David. 1995. “The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (1): 61–92. Yagisawa, Takashi. 1998. “Naming and its place in reference.” Lingua e Stile 33 (3): 445–458.

section 2

Methodological considerations in the study of change

Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysis A case study of the Bluestocking letters Anni Sairio

This paper presents the reconstruction and analysis of Elizabeth Montagu’s Bluestocking network, and proposes a network strength scale (NSS) for quantifying the strength of network ties in this eighteenth-century English social circle. The NSS scores are compared with the use of pied piping and preposition stranding in the network’s correspondence in order to see whether strong network ties correlate positively with the use of a familiar and stigmatised linguistic feature. Preposition stranding was more common in Elizabeth Montagu’s letters when the recipients were linked to her with strong ties and were socially below her. Preposition stranding was avoided and pied piping favoured when the recipients were her social superiors. The NSS analysis thus benefits from the inclusion of sociolinguistic variables.

1.  Introduction I begin this paper with a quote from Hannah More’s poem Bas Bleu; or Conversation (1786).1 More wrote Bas Bleu as a tribute to an eighteenth-century social circle known as the Bluestockings, and, like her earlier poem Sensibility (1782) which served a similar purpose, it was dedicated to a prominent hostess of the circle.

1.  The research for this paper was funded by the graduate studies network Meaning, Language and Cultural Change of Centres of Excellence in the Humanities, University of Helsinki, and the Socio-cultural Reality and Language Practices in Late Modern England (SoReaL) project, University of Helsinki. The author would also like to thank Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade for her comments on the NSS and preposition stranding.

 Anni Sairio

Long did Quadrille despotic sit, That Vandal of colloquial wit; And Conversation’s setting light Lay half-obscur’d in Gothic night; Till Leo’s triple crown, to you, Boscawen sage, bright Montagu, Divided, fell; — your cares in haste Rescued the ravag’d realms of Taste; And Lyttelton’s accomplish’d name, And witty Pulteney shar’d the fame; The Men not bound by pedant rules Nor Ladies’ precieuses ridicules; For polish’d Walpole show’d the way, How Wits may be both learn’d and gay; And Carter taught the female train, The deeply wise are never vain; And she, who Shakerpeare’s wrongs redrest, Prov’d that the brightest are the best. (Bas Bleu 1786: 70–71)

The poems celebrate the art of conversation and the various accomplishments of the group, and Clarke (2005:  23, 180) characterizes them as promotional literature through which More expressed her gratitude of being accepted in the circle. Originally written in 1782, Bas Bleu circulated in manuscript form until it was finally published four years later. Bas Bleu was dedicated to Elizabeth Vesey and Sensibility to Frances Boscawen (Clarke 2005: 23, 236, n. 21). Name-dropping is very prominent in both poems: Bas Bleu begins with the exclamation “Vesey! of Verse the judge and friend!” (1786: 70) and continues with a litany of praises of other prominent Blues. “With Carter trace the wit to Athens known, Or find in Montagu that wit our own”, writes More in Sensibility (1782: 271), urging then the reader to “attend Chapone’s instructive page” (1782: 272). These are references to central members in the Bluestocking circle and their accomplishments. These poems speak of a clearly defined social network, or a dynamic web of people who are connected to each other in various capacities. Social network analysis (SNA) studies those connections and their influence on individual behaviour. The value of social network analysis in linguistics derives from its focus on the structures of relationships that have potential to shed light on language change and linguistic influences. This paper discusses the process of analysing the Bluestocking network and proposes a tool for quantifying the strength of network ties in eighteenth-century English polite society. Elizabeth Montagu (c. 1718–1800, née Robinson) was chosen as the focus or ego of the study because of her long-term prominence in the circle and the significant number of her manuscript letters that have been preserved.



Historical network analysis 

Social network analysis has been applied in sociolinguistics since the Milroys conducted their studies on Belfast working class community in the 1960s, and has recently been extended to historical linguistics for example in Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Nevalainen and Caon (Eds) (2000); Fitzmaurice (2002), (2004), (2007a) and (2007b); Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2003) and (2006); Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Bax (2002); Bax (2000) and (2005); Bergs (2005) and Henstra (2008). The strength of network ties has been shown to have an effect on the diffusion of change. In a tight-knit network that consists mainly of strong ties, innovators are usually connected to the network through weak links, and innovations are generally more easily diffused in loose-knit networks (Milroy 2000: 218). However, strong ties may be more persuasive in the actual adoption of innovations during a later phase of linguistic change. Raumolin-Brunberg (2006) has shown that linguistic innovations originated in lower social classes during the late fifteenth century and the sixteenth century, while the second phase of leaders of linguistic change mostly represented the upper classes of London and the court. According to Milroy and Milroy (1985), tight-knit and multiplex networks do not promote and lead language change the way loose-knit, weak-linked networks do; this is in contrast with Labov (2001), who believes that leaders of change are central network members with high-frequency and multiplex connections both inside and outside their neighbourhood. Raumolin-Brunberg (2006) suggests that Milroy and Milroy (1985), who argue that weak ties in loose-knit networks promote the diffusion of linguistic changes, may be concentrating on the incipient phase (or the early stages of change), whereas Labov (2001: 325–263, 385), who argues that linguistic leaders are central figures in their tight-knit network, deals with the new and vigorous phase, during which the change is further on its way. Sections 2 and 3 present the network and the Bluestocking Corpus which has been compiled of their correspondence. The network strength scale (NSS) presented in Section 4 builds on previous network strength scale models by Milroy (1987), devised for a twentieth-century working-class community in Belfast, Bax (2000), designed on the basis of Milroy (1987) for eighteenth-century research, and Fitzmaurice (2007a). In Section 5, the NSS scores are tested against the frequencies of pied piping and preposition stranding in Elizabeth Montagu’s correspondence with her closest network members in order to see how strong network connections correlate with the use of recommended and stigmatised linguistic constructions.

2.  The Bluestockings and their letters The Bluestocking circle consisted of mid-eighteenth-century learned men and women of gentry and professional background, who gathered in pursuit of

 Anni Sairio

polite and scholarly entertainment (see Myers 1990; Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds) 2003). The first salons were established in the 1750s, and in the course of the years their assemblies grew both in size and social significance. “[E]arly in the ’seventies all literary London was clamouring to be invited […], as well as the more serious-minded of the beau-monde, who delighted in the opportunity of hearing the giants talk”, says Aspinall-Oglander (1942: 16). The names given in the extract of Bas Bleu (1786:  70) refer to prominent Bluestocking hostesses Elizabeth Vesey, Frances Boscawen, and Elizabeth Montagu; patrons of arts and former statesmen George, Lord Lyttelton and William Pulteney, Lord Bath; writer, patron and socialite Horace Walpole; and Elizabeth Carter, one of the most distinguished female scholars of the time. Hester Mulso Chapone, mentioned in Sensibility, was the author of the immensely popular Letters of the Improvement of the Mind (1773). The central and most visible figures of the Bluestocking network were women. The hostesses decided who would participate in the assemblies, and Elizabeth Carter was well-connected and widely respected for her learning; “[s]he read everything and knew everybody”, notes Clarke (2005: 26). The reference to Walpole in Bas Bleu indicates the changing and widening nature of the circle in the 1780s; he was not a particularly close friend of the most prominent Blues, but nevertheless a central figure in the upper echelons of London (literary) society and therefore qualified for a mention in More’s tribute. The London salons of Montagu, Vesey, and Boscawen were the most visible Bluestocking venues, but their geographical mobility required the friendships to be maintained also in extensive correspondence and via visits in the countryside and spa towns. The primary content of the network was friendship, which can be understood in an emotional as well as instrumental sense. Many of the Bluestockings were published writers, and so they discussed literature and scholarly works, exchanged books, poems and letters, and assisted each other in literary and scholarly ventures. As a considerable amount of their correspondence still remains, this network offers great potential for studying language change. I have transcribed a selection of autograph letters of Elizabeth Montagu’s correspondence with her Bluestocking friends and family members and compiled them into an electronic corpus. The Bluestocking Corpus spans from the late 1730s to late 1770s in four time periods (1738–1743, 1757–1762, 1766–1771, and 1775–1778), and it represents the language of educated middle and upper class people of the eighteenth century. Family correspondence provides comparison material against the Bluestocking letters. Altogether 203 letters have been transcribed from original manuscripts in the Montagu Collection (MO) at the Huntington Library and Add. 40663 in the British Library, and 24 letters have been included from the excellent Eger (1999) edition. The current size of the corpus is approximately 154,000 words. Tables 1 and 2 show its current contents.



Historical network analysis 

Table 1.  The writers and word counts per time period in the Bluestocking Corpus. Writers Elizabeth Montagu Edward Montagu Sarah Scott Eliz. D. Robinson Margaret Bentinck Frances Boscawen George Lyttelton William Pulteney Ben. Stillingfleet Elizabeth Vesey Total

1738–1743

1757–1762

1766–1771

1775–1778

Total

23,285 2,894 728 481 3,862

34,917

37,440 813 3,471

22,282

117,924 3,707 13,101 481 3,862 2,587 7,279 2,153 701 2,642 154,437

4,729

2,587 2,300 2,153 701 31,250

47,387

4,173

4,979

46,703

2,642 29,097

Table 2.  The recipients and word counts per time period of Elizabeth Montagu’s letters. Recipients Edward Montagu Sarah Scott Matthew Robinson (Sr.) Eliz. Drake Robinson Dss of Portland Anne Donnellan Frances Boscawen Lord Lyttelton Lord Bath Elizabeth Vesey Elizabeth Carter Benjamin Stillingfleet Mary Robinson Morris Robinson Matthew Robinson (Jr.) Total

1738–1743 1757–1762 3,442 2,618 2,777 3,077 5,980 5,391

23,285

1766–1771

1775–1778

2,206 6,690 893

3,525 5,067 4,419

3,360

474

614

1,488

251 5,932 3,651 1,058 10,102 3,660

1,265 3,864

34,917

4,979 7,401 850 5,456

37,440

4,734 4,000 6,942 461 1,297 22,282

Total 9,173 17,735 8,089 3,077 8,556 5,391 1,516 9,796 3,651 10,771 21,503 4,510 12,398 461 1,297 117,924

The first time period, 1738–1743, is set in Elizabeth Robinson Montagu’s youth. This is the only period in the study during which she did not have particular social influence. Of lower gentry background, Elizabeth Robinson was well educated within the family. She spent a great deal of time in the household of her friend Lady Margaret, the Duchess of Portland, whose friendships with accomplished women provided her with an example of a learned social hostess. In 1742 she married Edward Montagu, a wealthy MP and landowner and a grandson of the Earl of Sandwich. During the second time period, 1757–1762, connections

 Anni Sairio

between Montagu and other central Bluestockings were made, mostly originating from acquaintances made in spa towns (Myers 1990: 177). The salons were established in the 1750s, and in 1760 Montagu published for the first time with the assistance of her nearest Bluestocking contacts. In 1775 she was widowed and thereafter controlled alone the huge Montagu fortune, and her significance as a patron and hostess was more significant than before. Montagu’s perceived social influence is seen in Edmund Burke’s request in 1759 that she recommend him to Minister William Pitt regarding the consulship of Madrid (although via Pitt’s sister, who was her friend).2 Various publications were dedicated to her by Bluestockings and people who were or hoped to be patronised by her. Chapone dedicated her the Letters of the Improvement of the Mind (1773), and More the Essays on Various Subjects (1777) and The Works of Miss Hannah More on Prose and Verse (1777). Other dedications include Frances Reynolds’ (painter Joshua Reynolds’ sister) An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste […] (1785) and the humbly worded dedication by Mrs Cartwright in 1777; who was encouraged by Montagu’s “extreme condescension […] to lay this little volume at her feet”. To briefly comment on the backgrounds and domicile patterns of the Bluestockings, they were often spread across England, but had a common nominator in London, in Tunbridge Wells, and other popular spa resorts. Montagu was born in Yorkshire but raised in Kent, whereas Carter and Boscawen were born in Kent. Carter spent her winters in London and returned to Kent in the spring (Hampshire 2005: 19), while Montagu and Boscawen shared their time respectively between London, Sandleford, and Northumberland, and London and Hatchlands, Surrey. Elizabeth Vesey spent a lot of time in Dublin and the Vesey estate at Lucan when she was not in London. Lyttelton divided his time between London and his country estate of Hagley Hall, Worcestershire. Lord Bath was born in London, and lived at Bath House in Piccadilly.

3.  Network analysis of the Bluestocking circle in 1760 In order to demonstrate the process of social network analysis and to provide background for the NSS, I will now describe the network reconstruction for the

2.  Montagu declined to intervene on Burke’s behalf and appears to have explained to him that she did not have such influence (Climenson 1906: ii, 169–171, 173).



Historical network analysis 

year 1760. The network has been analysed for its density and multiplexity, and the frequency and content of interaction. Sociolinguistic variables (age, gender, education, geographical background, social status and mobility) have also been taken into account. The circle consisted of a large number of people, so only the easily recognizable group of network members in Montagu’s immediate vicinity has been included. If not otherwise stated, the analysis of 1760 is assumed to apply to the whole time period of 1757–1762. In this paper I focus on the density and multiplexity of the Bluestocking network. Montagu’s life and social contacts through time have been established with the help of contemporary documents and modern research (see also Sairio 2008a, 2008b and forthcoming). I have compiled a database of her most frequent contacts and geographical mobility on the basis of two early twentieth-century editions of Montagu’s correspondence (Climenson 1906 & Blunt 1923), Mary Delany’s edited correspondence (1861), Elizabeth Carter’s and Catherine Talbot’s edited correspondence (Pennington (Ed.) 1809), recent studies on Elizabeth Montagu and the Bluestockings (particularly Myers 1990; Eger (Ed.) 1999; Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds) 2003 and Clarke 2005), and the letters in the Bluestocking Corpus. Letters provide a good source for network reconstruction and analysis. Hannah More writes to her family in 1775:  “I have been at Mrs. Boscawen’s. Mrs. Montagu, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Chapone and myself only were admitted. We spent the time, not as wits, but as reasonable creatures; better characters, I trow” (Aspinall-Oglander 1942: 72). More’s wording indicates that this was a select group of women whose relationship with each other was familiar. In addition to being a good source for information on the contents and frequency of social contacts, letters also provide metatextual comments on relationships in the use of nicknames and friendship references.3 As a result of this investigation, I have created a database of what seem to have been Montagu’s most frequent contacts and her geographical mobility from 1738 to 1778; categorized into four time periods that correspond with the time scale of the Bluestocking Corpus. Also other information has been marked down, such as the books that people read and discussed and some main events of the time. This database enables me to keep track of time lines and contacts. Table 3 is an extract of the database, which presents an overview of one year in her life. The information is organized into five categories:  “Date”, “Place”, “Documented Letters”, “Contacts”, and “Other Events”.

3.  See also Nevala (2004) for address forms in Early Modern English letters.

 Anni Sairio

The Date and Place columns in Table 3 indicate that in 1760 Montagu resided mostly in London and spent her summer at least partly in the spa town of Tunbridge Wells and at the Montagu country house in Sandleford, Berkshire. She travelled to Newcastle on business for about two months in the autumn, and returned to London for the end of the year. The column of Documented Letters presents a rough overview of Montagu’s correspondence during that year; Bluestocking correspondents are underlined. As most women of her rank and social position, she was always engaged in massive correspondence, and this list of correspondence is merely a general overview of letters exchanged with family, friends, and acquaintances. A systematic record could be achieved by going through all possible manuscript catalogues in addition to the sources mentioned above, but as much of the correspondence can be considered to be lost, the effort would not yield an exhaustive result. However, even this patchy record suggests that the Bluestockings were strongly represented in Montagu’s correspondence. The columns Contacts and Other Events present a summary of how Montagu’s year generally progressed, the people she met, details of her visits and travels, and some main events of the year, such as the appearence of the Dialogues of the Dead in the spring of 1760 which made Montagu a published author. This was certainly among the most significant events in 1760 and probably in Montagu’s life so far. When we consider the overall frequency of interaction, Montagu dedicated a notable amount of time to her Bluestocking contacts. She met her friends regularly in London, and when she was in the north they exchanged letters. It also appears that Montagu and her husband were often separated from each other by great geographical distance. Dr John Gregory, a Scottish physician and philosopher, was a frequent contact of the Montagus while they were in the north, and he would later introduce Mrs Montagu to such important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment as Lord Kames, Hugh Blair, and William Robertson. The most important event of the year was the appearance of Lord Lyttelton’s Dialogues of the Dead in the spring, to which Montagu anonymously contributed three essays. Only a handful of people knew of her authorship. Edmund Burke had copied the texts so that her handwriting would not give her away in the printing process (Myers 1990: 192), but her old friend Anne Donnellan immediately asked whether it had been Mrs Montagu or Mrs Carter who had written them. Carter praised Montagu’s dialogues, and Montagu answered to her letter that “[w]ith [Dear Mrs Carter’s] encouragement I do not know but at last I may become an author in form” (MO 3034). Contemporaries often described Elizabeth Montagu as a vain woman who loved to hear herself talk and liked to show off her wit and wisdom (e.g., Rizzo 2003: 195–196), but Montagu looked up to Elizabeth Carter as a scholar, and she highly respected Lord Lyttelton, Dr Stillingfleet, and Lord Bath who all provided her with literary advice.

November to December 1760

October 1760

September 1760

Newcastle, North. to Mrs Carter; from Lyttelton at Hagley, from Dr Monsey, from Dean of Exeter; to Dean of Exeter; to Lyttelton; from Lyttelton in London, from Mrs Pitt Newcastle; trip from Lyttelton in London; to back to London Lyttelton, to Mr Montagu; from begins on Nov 10. Lady Frances Williams; to Mr Montagu, to Lord Bath; from Lord Bath, from Dr Monsey

to Mrs Carter, to Sarah Scott, to Mr Montagu, to Dr Stillingfleet; from Dr Stillingfleet, from Lady Frances Williams, from Lord Lyttelton Tunbridge Wells; from Mr Montagu, from the from London Bishop of London; to Lord to Newcastle on Lyttelton; from Allan Ramsay; Sept 19. A house to Dss of Portland (incl. Bishop on Pilgrim Street, of London’s letter); to Mr Newcastle, North. Montagu; from Lord Lyttelton; to Mr Robinson from Newcastle

London; Tunbridge Wells; at Sandleford, Berks. for a time.

to Mrs Carter

London

summer 1760

to Lord Lyttelton, to Lord Bath

London

January–March 1760 May 1760

Documented letters

Place

Date

Discussions of James Macpherson’s Fragments of Ancient Poetry and their possible unauthenticity. Mrs Montagu has invited Allan Ramsay and his wife to visit her at Tunbridge.

Mrs Montagu sends Diderot’s “new comedy” to Lord Bath. Lyttelton publishes Dialogues of the Dead. Anne Donnellan challenges Montagu and Carter as possible co-authors. In June, Montagu’s brother William Robinson marries Mary Richardson in London. Intimate friendship with Bath has begun.

Other events

Mrs Montagu and Lyttelton discuss Euripides’ and Sophocles’ plays, Shakespeare, and Highland poems. Dr and Mrs Delany visit Hagley. Lyttelton leaves Hagley for London on the King’s death. The coronation of George III. Mrs Montagu intends to be presented Mr Montagu remains in Newcastle, while at court when Mr Montagu arrives Mrs Montagu returns to London. London society. Mrs Montagu dines with Lord Bath. to London. Mr Lodomie examines Mrs Montagu dines at Mrs Vesey’s; Lyttelton her teeth. and Dr Monsey present. Meets Mrs Carter.

After her brother’s wedding Mrs Montagu goes to Tunbridge. Lord Bath and the Torrianos are also there, and Anne and Sarah Stanley join her. Meets Lady Sandwich. Mr Montagu is at Sandleford. Mr Montagu joins Mrs Montagu briefly at Tunbridge before going back to London. Dr Monsey visits her at Tunbridge. She returns to London on Sept 15. She then travels to Northumberland (with Mr Montagu?); visits Dr Edward Young at Welling on the way. Meets Thomas Clavering, who sends his regards to her father Mr Robinson. Dr John Gregory is staying with the Montagus. Newcastle society. Mrs Montagu meets David Hume. Anne Pitt is staying at the Montagus’ house in London.

Montagu visits Lady Hervey, sees Mrs Vesey. Friendship with Bath begins this year. Lady Frances Williams and Mrs Pitt visit Mrs Montagu.

Contacts

Table 3.  Elizabeth Montagu’s social contacts and mobility in 1760.

Historical network analysis 

 Anni Sairio

3.1  The structure and contents of the Bluestocking network in 1760 Social network analysis considers the structure and contents of a network, particularly by investigating the density and multiplexity of network ties. Density refers to the extent to which all the possible connections between network members are realized. A high degree of density generally leads to greater communication and the development of and exposure to group norms; this implies how quickly or slowly information can be expected to diffuse in the network. The Bluestocking network was a web of overlapping social contacts that connected eminent statesmen, poets and scholars, and gentry women of scholarly ambitions. It was a closed network in that new members were invited to join by the established members, but simultaneously widely connected to other social worlds. The network was based on providing its members a friendly environment for polite and scholarly entertainment, so new members were quickly introduced to old ones, and the people mostly knew each other and were also easily reached. This suggests that the Bluestocking network was very dense. Since the connections overlapped, the venues and activities varied and the number of members was large, the Bluestocking circle did not have one central member as its focus. This is not uncommon in a dense and clustered network in which practically everyone is connected to everyone else. This is demonstrated by Figure 1. Figure 1 presents the network ties between a group of people selected EB

EV

FB DG

BS EC

MM

SJ GL

EM

AD

WP JG

CT EdM

SS

Figure 1.  Elizabeth Montagu’s social network in 1760.



Historical network analysis 

on the basis of how they feature in the sources of my database of 1757–1762. Some connections have not been verified, so the network is probably even denser than appears here. Elizabeth Montagu (EM) is among the most widely connected network members. Montagu, Lyttelton (GL), Carter (EC), Stillingfleet (BS), Bath (WP), Boscawen (FB), Burke (EB), Vesey (EV), Messenger Monsey (MM), and David Garrick (DG) all knew each other personally and were also connected to who might be characterized as fringe members of the network. These people include Montagu’s sister Sarah Scott (SS), her husband Edward Montagu (EdM), Montagu’s friend Anne Donnellan (AD), John Gregory (JG), Carter’s friend Catherine Talbot (CT), and Samuel Johnson (SJ). The capacities and roles through which network members are connected to each other can be various, in which case the network ties are multiplex, or singular, which result in uniplex ties. These are not easy to define conclusively, and few relationships are purely uniplex. Montagu’s ties to the Bluestocking circle and the overall ties connecting Bluestockings to each other consisted primarily of friendship in emotional sense, but there were also elements of collaboration and patronage in their interaction. Some people would come to be part of the network initially in the sphere of patronage, like James Beattie in the 1770s, and would sometimes be accepted also into the private space of intimacy, which happened to Beattie. More’s Sensibility refers to friendship several times, and it comes up frequently in their correspondence and also in some dedications, which are considerably more public texts than letters are. By friendship I mean an essentially warm and affectionate but perhaps also an instrumental relationship; see also Nevala’s paper in this volume on the use of friendship terms and an eighteenthcentury network of friends. ‘One joined to another in mutual benevolence and intimacy’ is the foremost definition of friend in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), and ‘an attendant, a companion’ follows as the fourth meaning (1755). Johnson’s Dictionary defines friendship as 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The state of minds united by mutual benevolence. Highest degree of intimacy. Favour; personal kindness. Assistance; help. Conformity; affinity; correspondence; aptness to unite. (Johnson  1755 s.v. friendship)

Friendship as assistance can be considered as an instrumental relationship. Help and support, particularly in scholarly ventures, but also in other contexts (financial support, introductions in society), were prominent in the Bluestocking network.

 Anni Sairio

It has already been noted that there was a particular element of professional collaboration in the network. Montagu had kept her authorship of the dialogues secret from most of her friends except for Lyttelton, Bath, Burke, Stillingfleet and Carter; of her family members, Edward Montagu and Sarah Scott may have known about it. Burke re-wrote the manuscript. On the other hand Montagu had not confided in Anne Donnellan about the dialogues, but Donnellan clearly knew her and her connections well enough to have thought of her as their potential author. Carter, Lyttelton, and Bath all read Montagu’s writings and commented on them, and Carter and Stillingfleet would provide even more scholarly support later during the 1760s when Montagu worked on her Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear, the cornerstone of her literary accomplishments. Clarke (2005:  63) points out that Carter had not published poetry since her prodigious youth, and that it was Montagu who urged her to bring out a new volume of her poetry in 1762. Montagu thus encouraged Carter to publish Poems on Several Occasions (Hawley 1999: xxx), and perhaps read Lyttelton’s works before they were published. This is another element of friendship in the network, and various forms of influence were very likely to have come through these connections.

4.  A network strength scale (NSS) It is, thus, possible to reconstruct an eighteenth-century gentry woman’s social contacts to a great extent (see also Vickery 1998) and to draw conclusions of their respective significance. The network ties of the Bluestockings can overall be defined as strong because of the frequent interaction and different types of tie content, but network strength can also be quantified. It is commonly measured in terms of density and multiplexity, which indicate the likelihood of norm enforcement in a social network. This NSS has been designed for measuring the tie strengths of an eighteenth-century social network of the upper levels of society, in which literary and other joint projects were an essential factor. The specific component for the analysis of this network in particular is that of network collaboration; otherwise the parameters represent a selection of relatively basic criteria. Milroy (1987) was the first study to consider density and multiplexity of a social network for linguistic research. A network member’s NSS was calculated by assigning one point for each of five conditions, of which one indicates density and the other four indicate multiplexity (1987: 141–142). Milroy’s NSS is not intended for universal applicability, but it has been used as the basis of constructing new models. Bax (2000) presents a NSS for the study of eighteenth-century English on the basis of Milroy (1987), which has been devised for analysis of the Streatham circle centered around the Thrales (see Sairio 2005 for an analysis of Bax’s NSS



Historical network analysis 

scores and their correlation with Samuel Johnson’s language use). Bax’s proposed NSS combines functional components with emotional components and takes into account specific social elements of the period (2000: 279–282). Following Milroy (1987) quite closely, the functional components considered are A. B. C. D. E. F.

being family (kinship/marriage) living in the same household having a professional relationship interacting as members of the same formal club living in the same place and knowing each other spending voluntary leisure time together inside the context defining group membership G. spending voluntary leisure time together outside the context defining group membership. Two network contacts are assigned one point for each of these conditions that they fulfill with regard to each other. Bax avoids the problem of projecting the concept of twentieth-century worklife to eighteenth-century society by using the concept of professional relationship, which is a looser term allowing e.g., joint literary projects. The “group defining membership” is the notion of the Streatham circle formed around the salon of Hester Thrale: components F and G consider the Streathamites’ involvement with each other inside and outside the immediate group context. Some consideration of the frequency of interaction might have been a useful addition to this part of the NSS. The emotional components consider a network actor’s attitude towards a network contact, and points are assigned to the network contact according to relationship types ranging through five stages from close friends (3 pts) to enemies (–2 pts) (Bax 2000: 279–283). Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary has been used in defining these concepts in the eighteenth-century context. The emotional component is no doubt a useful complement to the functional analysis, but somewhat problematic from a practical point of view. Bax (2000) has devised a means to determine the reliability of different sources, but defining emotions requires extensive knowledge of relationships which may be impossible to retrieve, particularly as the boundaries between different types and levels of friendship are vague.4 Few kinds of data will allow for reliable quantitative classification of emotional components. Also, the emotional component does not take into consideration the fact that emotional distance does not rule out structural network influence: a contact classified as an “enemy” may be a powerful opinion leader or norm enforcer, whose general influence in a network is enough to pressure an individual to adapt. Nevertheless, the 4.  See Tadmor (2001) for a study on the concept of friendship in eighteenth-century England.

 Anni Sairio

NSS in Bax (2000) is a carefully devised model, and it has been shown to apply, to some extent, to actual language use in the Streatham circle (Sairio 2005). The NSS studies have also faced criticism. Milroy (1987: 214) concedes that a network strength score does not reflect personal affinities and attitudes in a consistent or reliable way, and Labov’s (2001:  332–333) reanalysis of Milroy’s (1987) figures shows that gender appears in fact to be more important than the network effect. Marshall’s (2004) and Milroy’s (1987) results seem to suggest that network analysis has not been able to “uncover all the complex factors involved in [present-day] dialect maintenance” (Marshall 2004: 232). Henstra (2008) applies Bax’s (2000) model to Horace Walpole’s family network with some adaptations, but the NSS scores do not readily explain the language use within the Walpole network. Henstra (2008:  66–67) therefore suggests the inclusion of hierarchical elements such as generation and gender in further studies.5 Also Bergs (2005) concludes that the proposed strength of network ties and network position in the fifteenth-century Paston family circle do not seem to correlate with the linguistic choices of the network members. However, Bergs’ network strength scale is not based on entirely valid historical arguments, and only one set of scores is compared with the results of several decades’ worth of letter material. It would appear that either the methods of measuring network tie strength have been somewhat inadequate, or that patterns of linguistic variation are so complex that they do not readily correspond with network structure or position. Hanneman and Riddle (2005, Chapter 2) point out that the description of even small social networks requires a great number of information, which is obviously a challenge when the network approach is adopted as one method of investigation along other theoretical frameworks, and particularly when the data is historical. Hansen and Macdonald (1995) describe the methodological challenges they have faced in quantifying nineteenthcentury activities (particularly visiting) on the basis of diaries, and conclude that people simply did not fit into neat categories (1995: 232, 233, 235). This could be one of the problems faced also in previous research. My proposed network strength scale consists of functional components and a broadly defined emotional component between two network contacts, and the scores apply only in a particular moment in time. Fitzmaurice (2007a) proposes that the strength of ties be measured in terms of four parameters that combine subjective and objective criteria: the longevity of relationship, geographical proximity, formal social relationship in terms of comparative rank (social equal/superior/inferior), and the type of relationship (intimates/equals/acquaintance; friendship/competition).

5.  In my Ph.D. thesis (Sairio forthcoming) I have included age and gender as additional parameters.



Historical network analysis 

Most of these have been used in previous studies, but their combination appears to be elegantly simple and generally applicable. The parameters that I have selected represent geographical proximity, type of relationship in terms of intimacy–distance, network connectedness, network collaboration, social rank, and the longevity of relationship (Table 4). These categories mainly convey multiplexity. As Figure 1 indicates, all the central Bluestockings knew each other, so it would be redundant to discuss density separately. The frequency of interaction is implied in some categories, but there is not enough reliable data to justify a separate category of frequency. Kinship is a common category in determining network strength, but not particularly relevant with the Bluestockings. None of them were related to Montagu, and assigning points for kinship inevitably emphasizes the significance of family ties. Membership in other networks could be a useful addition to the data in order to find sources for possible outside influences, but this would be difficult to track conclusively and is certainly beyond the scope of the present study. An ideal addition would be to study the intensity of a network connection by the amount and frequency of correspondence, but this would require a very thorough record of letters sent and received, and existing letters do not provide a reliable source for this kind of study. Table 4.  The NSS parameters. 1. Same domicile yes often (e.g., during the season) rarely (e.g., abroad) no 2. Type of relationship intimates acquaintances not acquainted 3. Same social circle yes: primary yes: secondary no 4. Professional collaboration yes: balanced/“giver” yes: “receiver” no 5. Social status equals superior inferior 6. Previous network connection yes no

2 points 1 point 0.5 points 0 points 2 points 1 point 0 points 2 points 1 point 0 points 2 points 1 point 0 points 2 points 1 point 0 points 1 points 0 points

 Anni Sairio

The components in Table 4 are considered between Elizabeth Montagu and her network contacts so that both actors are assigned points. The scores can be interpreted as the degree of integration and variation in contacts. The total scores are considered for Montagu and her network contacts separately, and as twoway totals combining those scores. The two-way totals facilitate the comparison between Elizabeth Montagu’s total scores and strength of ties in relation to all her network contacts. Same domicile is divided into four categories. Domicile refers to residing in an owned or rented property for a lengthy period of time:  the season brought basically all who could afford it to London for several months in the winter, while the summers were usually spent at country houses or spa towns. Two points are assigned to people who owned or rented a residence in the same place (usually London) also when they had a house in the counties, which was the case with Elizabeth Montagu and Lord Lyttelton. One point is assigned to people who mainly lived outside London and who perhaps rented an apartment there during the season, but had a primary residence somewhere else (not just a figurehead family estate). Elizabeth Carter, who lived permanently in Kent and visited London frequently, would be assigned one point with regard to Elizabeth Montagu, as would Elizabeth Vesey, who was often in Ireland. Type of relationship is considered in terms of intimacy and distance. Two points are assigned for a close and familiar relationship, and one point for a more distant and formal relationship. If the actors should not know each other personally, no points would be given. Same social circle is divided into two positive categories and one negative, which refers to lack of mutual acquaintances. If the shared circle is the primary social network into which the largest amount of time and effort were invested, two points are assigned. If not and the actors meet more in the activities of other circles, one point is assigned. The primary social circle is here considered to be the Bluestocking network. Professional collaboration considers the kind of support that was particularly prominent in the Bluestocking network: reading and commenting on each other’s writings, and assisting in the printing processes and other types of publishing (producing a play, for example). This kind of network collaboration resembles what Fitzmaurice (2000: 266, 273–274) terms a coalition in the early eighteenth-century network around Joseph Addison’s Spectator project, or an instrumental alliance purposefully formed for a particular goal (see also Fitzmaurice 2002). The coalition approach has particular advantages in that the complex questions of friendship and intimacy are avoided. Bluestocking collaboration nevertheless derived from existing ties that were at some point used for literary pursuits. In other words, it was not a conscious device to form alliances in the way coalition ties are generally created. If the collaboration was in balance and both parties contributed more or less equally,



Historical network analysis 

two points are assigned to both. If the collaboration was less symmetrical or reciprocal, two points are assigned to the so-called “mentor”, who read and commented on the “beneficiary’s” works, and the “beneficiary” receives one point. Traditional patronage can also be considered as part of professional collaboration. The Bluestocking assemblies were frequented by people on various levels of the social ladder, but regardless of the easy interaction between upper and lower gentry, wealth, status and power continued to determine social significance in eighteenth-century England (Black 2001: 93, 100). In the category of Social status, social superiors are awarded one point due to the greater social distance in a relationship in their benefit, whereas equals are awarded two points each. Social inferiors do not receive any points. Following Black (2001), social status is determined by rank, wealth, and power. Previous network connection relates to the significance of the longevity of relationships and the concept of scale-free networks. Scale-free networks have a small amount of highly connected nodes (or, in the terminology of social networks, network members) and a high amount of nodes with only a few network ties. Social networks belong to this category. Scale-free networks grow in time, and the appearance of new ties favours older network nodes that already have a high number of connections. These highly connected nodes continue to attract more ties following the “rich get richer” principle, which results in a network that includes some highly connected nodes among a majority of low degree network ties (Barabási, Réka & Hawoong 1999). Previous, well-connected ties are thus in a significant position as the network grows, and it is logical to note those network connections that derive from an earlier period. One point is assigned for such a connection. 4.1  The NSS applied to the Bluestocking network in 1760 The NSS scores of Elizabeth Montagu and a group of her closest network contacts in 1760 are discussed next. The full results are given in the Appendix in Table 5; Figure 2 illustrates the overall scores. The scores in Table 5 show, firstly, that Elizabeth Montagu and Lord Bath, Frances Boscawen, Edmund Burke, David Garrick, Lord Lyttelton, and Benjamin Stillingfleet receive two points in the category of domicile for their residences in London. Elizabeth and Edward Montagu did not live constantly in the same place, and Carter and Scott had their permanent homes outside London. John Gregory was a Scotsman, and Elizabeth Vesey spent long periods of time in her native Ireland. Carter, Vesey, Scott, and Edward Montagu receive one point for the frequently shared place of residence. Gregory did not frequent London, so he is left without a score. The type of relationship is considered to be intimate between Montagu and all the other contacts except for David Garrick and John Gregory. In terms of social circle, Bath,

 Anni Sairio

Boscawen, Burke, Carter, Lyttelton, Stillingfleet, and Vesey can be characterized as core Bluestockings who were involved with Montagu mostly in terms of this network. Gregory and Elizabeth Montagu knew each other outside the immediate circle of the Bluestocking activities: Montagu went to the north on business, and Gregory had his own close friends in Edinburgh. Montagu’s family members were not considerably involved in the Bluestocking activities. As has been shown, in terms of professional collaboration Montagu was involved with Lord Bath, Edmund Burke, Elizabeth Carter, John Gregory, Lord Lyttelton, and Benjamin Stillingfleet. Since they knew each other and spent time in same contexts, they can be considered to have formed a cluster within the network. Vesey is the only person of the core Bluestocking circle who seems not to have been involved in the collaboration in 1760, while Gregory participated from outside the immediate core. Gregory was most likely involved only with Montagu in this respect. When we consider the category of social status, noblemen Bath and Lyttelton were socially superior to Montagu, while Montagu’s status was equal to that of Boscawen and Vesey. Montagu had married into an aristocratic family, and she was already socially influential and considerably wealthy by this time. The others were socially inferior to her due to factors of rank, wealth, and influence. Clarke (2005:  28) describes Montagu as “of considerably higher social class” compared to Elizabeth Carter, an unmarried daughter of a Kentish clergyman. Previous network connection is not particularly relevant in this time period as it points to the years 1738–1743, the starting point of the study. The Bluestocking friendships were established from the 1750s onward, so only Montagu’s family members are assigned points in this category. When these scores are added together, we can consider the multiplexity of the ties. Figure 2 provides an overview of the total scores between Elizabeth Montagu and her network contacts. 20 18 16 14

7

12 10 8

8

7

8

9

8

8

7

2

7

7 6

6

6 4

8

7 4

4

9

8

7

4

7

5

D /E

/S S

EM

V

EM

/E

/B S

EM

L /G

EM

/JG

EM

/D G

EM

C

EM

/E

/E

B

EM

/F

B

EM

EM

EM

/W

P

0

Figure 2.  Total NSS scores in Elizabeth Montagu’s network in 1760.

Elizabeth Montagu Network contact



Historical network analysis 

Figure 2 shows that Bath (WP), Boscawen (FB), Burke (EB), Lyttelton (GL) and Stillingfleet (BS) have the highest NSS scores with Montagu (EM), and can be interpreted to have the most varied and multiplex network ties with Montagu. They are also the most central network members in Figure 1 above. Based on the NSS, these members and perhaps Carter (EC) and Vesey (EV) may have been in a position to act as norm-enforcers or sources of influence in the Bluestocking network. Bath and Lyttelton score higher points than Montagu, which results from their rank and the direction of collaboration. Montagu’s score with Elizabeth Carter, one of the key figures in the circle, is lower because of Carter’s residence in Kent and their unequal positions in society despite Carter’s role in the professional cluster. Also Vesey’s score is lower due to her frequent residence in Ireland and the fact that she was not involved in the Bluestocking collaboration at this time. Vesey would be more integrated in the following years, when Montagu was preparing her work on Shakespeare. The lowest scores are between Montagu and Gregory (JG) and Montagu and Garrick (DG). Compared with Montagu, these network members seem the least integrated into the Bluestocking circle.

5.  A case study: Preposition placement in the Bluestocking letters To test the overall accuracy of the NSS scores in actual language use, pied piping and preposition stranding in the 1757–1762 subsection of the Bluestocking Corpus are now considered with regard to possible network influence.6 Preposition stranding refers to a construction in which the preposition is separated from its complement, as in this zero relative clause:

(1) I dare say my Lord Pulteney has not intimated to your Lordship the share he has had in the conquest Ø we are so proud of; (Elizabeth Montagu to Lord Bath, c. 1761; MO 4508)

In example (2) the construction is used in a that relative clause, and in (3) in a zero relative clause.

(2) […] or would she have said he did well to apply to her in the way that he wanted her Help in, however ignoble? (Lord Lyttelton to Elizabeth Montagu, 1760; MO 1288)

6.  See Sairio (2008a) on Bluestockings as an audience for grammars and the overall frequencies of preposition stranding in the corpus.

 Anni Sairio



(3) […] but your letters. Which have more Witt and Spirit in them, than is on all the Shelves Ø I so ostentatiously boast of. (Lord Bath to Elizabeth Montagu, c. 1760; MO 4221)

In Present-day English, preposition stranding is obligatory in zero relative clauses, that clauses, passive clauses and certain other cases of less frequency, whereas whrelative clauses in theory allow the possibility for pied piping, or the preposition preceding its complement (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 627). Example (4) shows a case of pied piping in a wh-relative clause, and (5) a somewhat rarer case of preposed pied piping.

(4) I have bad accounts of Lady Frances health, & much fear the weight of this affliction, & the rapidity with which it came, will overwhelm her. (Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Carter, c. 1759; MO 3028)



(5) […]; upon this he seemd a little rebuked, but after a little pause, he asked me whether I found Lady Bute at home. (Lord Bath to Elizabeth Montagu, c. 1760; MO 4221)

Preposition stranding had been under increasing censure since the late seventeenth century, when John Dryden condemned it as “inadmissible” and corrected it in Shakespeare’s and Ben Jonson’s texts (Yáñez-Bouza 2006). Yáñez-Bouza (2007) has tracked the origins of the censureship to an even earlier phase of the seventeenth century. Regardless of the fact that preposition stranding is the only possibly choice in several contexts, many eighteenth-century grammarians attacked it as vulgar language use and a violation of logic. The latter argument may have resulted from the etymology of the term preposition and the influence of Latin syntax (Beal 2004:  110). Robert Lowth (1762:  128) and his followers preferred pied piping as a more “graceful [and] perspicuous” alternative which “agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style”. Lowth (1762:  127–128) nevertheless notes that preposition stranding “prevails in common conversation” and is suitable with “the familiar style in writing”. Yáñez-Bouza (2008) shows that while some grammarians acknowledged preposition stranding as part of English syntax and some even preferred it for the sake of style, some did not accept the construction at all. These self-appointed language authorities voiced their opinion of preposition stranding in no unclear terms, and it would appear that the adverse criticism had an effect on contemporary language use. In written standard usage, preposition stranding dropped from 12% in the Early Modern English period to 2% in Late Modern English, which may be a result of a “change in notions of stylistic appropriateness” (Bergh & Seppänen 2000:  312). Furthermore, Yáñez-Bouza (2006) shows that preposition stranding in the Century of Prose Corpus decreases from 23.3 (168) in 1680–1740 to 11.7 (56) in 1740–1780 (per 10,000 words).



Historical network analysis 

Yáñez-Bouza’s (2007) more extensive research on the Helsinki Corpus and ARCHER has shown a continuing increase of preposition stranding from 1500 onward up until the early eighteenth century, at which point the increase comes to a halt and is followed in the second half of the eighteenth century by a sharp decline (2007:  176–177). Auer (2006:  36) notes that for prescriptivism to have an effect, there must be a time gap between prescription and actual usage, and Yáñez-Bouza (2007:  236) observes that the effect of normative grammarians should be seen in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century usage. However, as preposition stranding had decreased already in the early part of the eighteenth century, which is considered by Yáñez-Bouza (2007: 207) to be “a period of ‘latent awareness’ of stigmatisation”, eighteenth-century prescriptivism cannot be fully responsible for the change (2007: 236). The early seventeenth-century criticism appears to be likely origins for the development. Eleven high-frequency prepositions (for, to, of, in, on, into, at, upon, from, by and with) were retrieved from the Bluestocking Corpus both in stranded and in fronted positions. Preposition stranding and pied piping in the Bluestocking Corpus for the whole time span have been discussed in Sairio (2008a) and (forthcoming).7 The results in Sairio (forthcoming) show that pied piping was increasingly favoured in these letters, whereas preposition stranding was clearly decreasing. Overall, 62% (220) of the prepositions in the Bluestocking Corpus were pied piped and 38% (135) were stranded. Preposition stranding decreased steadily from 53% (12.8 per 10,000 words) in the first time period to 31% (6.5) in 1775–1778, while pied piping increased from 47% (11.2) to 69% (14.8) in that same time span. Altogether 83% of preposition stranding appeared in syntactically required environments, of which zero relative clauses, passive clauses, and prepositional verbs were the most common. Table 6 presents the frequencies of preposition placement in the Bluestocking Corpus for 1757–1762. These are relatively infrequent constructions, so only those informants are included whose letters consist of at least 1,000 words; Stillingfleet with his zero instances of either pied piping or preposition stranding is excluded. Montagu’s own letters were written to a number of people (see Table 2), whereas she is the only recipient of the other letters.

7.  Sairio (forthcoming) includes the same set of prepositions, but also additional cases by way of searching through the wh-relative pronouns. Therefore the figures in this study do not entirely correspond with those in Sairio (2008a), although the differences are minor.

 Anni Sairio

Table 6.  Preposition placement in the 1757–1762 letters of the Bluestocking Corpus. Informants

Elizabeth Montagu Sarah Scott Lord Lyttelton Lord Bath Frances Boscawen Total

Pied piping

Preposition stranding

N

/10,000

%

N

/10,000

%

55 6 0 1 5 67

15.8 12.7 0 19.3 14.1

69% 46% 0% 50% 62.5% 64%

25 7 1 1 3 37

7.2 14.8 11.6 7.8

31% 54% 100% 50% 37.5% 36%

By 64%, pied piping is a significantly more common construction than preposition stranding (p<0.01). Both are low-frequency items, and preposition stranding particularly so; it can be fairly reliably concluded that Montagu used pied piping more than preposition stranding, but of the other individual informants not a lot can be said. However, it should be noted that these are not interchangeable constructions, as only wh-relative clauses provide the possibility to choose between the two. Both constructions are particularly infrequent in the letters of the nobility: in a total number of 4,453 words, there are only two tokens for preposition stranding (4.5 per 10,000 words), shown in examples (2) and (3), and one token for pied piping. The frequency of preposition stranding in the letters of the lower gentry writers amounts to 7.9 per 10,000 words (35 in absolute figures) and pied piping to 15.4 (66). The variable of social status correlates with the gender of the informants in that all the aristocrats were men, and the lower gentry writers (except for Stillingfleet) were women. However, these constructions are overall so rare that the influence of either rank or gender cannot be hypothesised further. It appears that pied piping and preposition stranding simply require more data in order to surface in larger numbers. Table 7 presents the frequencies of preposition placement in Montagu’s 1757–1762 letters, distributed according to the recipient. Letters with low word counts obviously contain very few or zero items. The highest number and the statistically most relevant frequencies of these constructions appear in Montagu’s letters to Lord Lyttelton and Elizabeth Carter. In the letters to Carter, 54% of the prepositions are in the stranded position. These letters would thus seem to be more casual and informal than in average. The construction was more frequent than pied piping also in her letters to Stillingfleet, and as common as pied piping in her letters to Edward Montagu, but these figures are very low, and, furthermore, the letters to Stillingfleet contain only types of grammatically required preposition stranding (three zero relative clauses and one passive clause).



Historical network analysis 

Table 7.  Pied piping and preposition stranding in Elizabeth Montagu’s letters. Recipients

Sarah Scott Dss of Portland Edward Montagu Ben. Stillingfleet Lord Lyttelton Elizabeth Carter Lord Bath Elizabeth Vesey Matthew Robinson (Sr.) Frances Boscawen Total

Pied piping

Preposition stranding

N

/10,000

%

N

/10,000

8 1 3 5 16 11 9 1 1 0 55

12.0 13.6 13.7 27.0 10.9 24.7 0 15.8

80% 100% 50% 55.5% 89% 46% 90% 100% 100% 0% 69%

2 0 3 4 2 13 1 0 0 0 25

0 13.6 10.9 12.9 0 0 0 7.2

% 20% 0% 50% 45.5% 11% 54% 1% 0% 0% 0% 31%

Examples (6) and (7) illustrate preposition stranding in letters to Stillingfleet and Carter. Carter’s Bluestocking letters have not been preserved in manuscript form and I have had access to only one letter from Stillingfleet to Montagu, so for now only Montagu’s letters are available for the analysis of this correspondence. Both cases are in zero relative clauses, the most common environment of this construction in Montagu’s letters.

(6) Now I have utter’d some of my miseries I must tell you I have some amusement in seeing a Country so different from any Ø I have ever been in. (Elizabeth Montagu to Benjamin Stillingfleet, c. 1758; Eger (Ed.) 1999: 146)



(7) You do not say a syllable of your health, as to mine it is now very good, I am weary of ye dissipation Ø I have lived in — (Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Carter, c. 1759; Eger (Ed.) 1999: 155)

Pied piping on the other hand was considerably more frequent in the letters to Lyttelton and to Bath than in average, and the chi-square test shows the difference between letters to Lyttelton and Carter to be statistically significant (p<0.025). Furthermore, Montagu seems to have avoided preposition stranding particularly in her letters to Bath and Lyttelton. To consider wh-relative clauses, which in principle can allow for variation between the two constructions, Montagu’s letters contain 36 tokens of pied piping but only five tokens of preposition stranding in this environment. 88% of the prepositions in wh-relative clauses are pied piped, whereas 12% are in a stranded position, and these figures suggest that preposition stranding was clearly avoided in this context. Three cases of preposition stranding in wh-relative clauses are found in Montagu’s letters to Elizabeth Carter, and the other two in letters to Sarah Scott

 Anni Sairio

and Edward Montagu. Examples (8) and (9) illustrate these occurrences. Note that in example (9), Montagu uses the subject form who in place of the object.

(8) My Brother Morris & his family are going to Sandleford, which I am very glad of, for I think it is a Good air for ye sweet little man. (Elizabeth Montagu to Sarah Scott, c. 1760; MO 5779)



(9) My Father who I was with this morning assures me he has orderd Mr Parker to charge his Tenants to [ask?] for Sir Thos Clavering. (Elizabeth Montagu to Edward Montagu, c. 1758; MO 2360)

When the figures in Table 6 and Table 7 are compared, it appears that Lord Lyttelton and Lord Bath do not use preposition stranding in their letters to Montagu, and neither does Montagu in her letters to them. This indicates that Montagu may have been particularly careful to avoid preposition stranding when she wrote to these older noblemen. However, the considerably high frequency of pied piping in Montagu’s letters to Lyttelton does not correspond with its absence in his letters; this may reflect the rather low word count (2,300) of material by Lyttelton. When we consider the results in terms of the NSS, some general observations can be made despite the low frequencies of these items. Preposition stranding had already begun to be a stigmatised construction. Lowth described it as a feature of spoken language and familiar style (1762: 127–128), so to use it might suggest a familiar relationship between the writer and a recipient. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006) in fact shows that Lowth himself used preposition stranding in his informal letters to friends of lower social status. As Section 3 shows, the NSS points to Lord Bath, Frances Boscawen, Lord Lyttelton and Benjamin Stillingfleet as having the strongest and most variable network ties to Montagu, and Montagu’s and Carter’s NSS score was also high. Preposition stranding appears most frequently in Montagu’s letters to Carter and Stillingfleet, but practically not at all in the letters to Bath and Lyttelton, which on the other hand contain the highest frequencies of pied piping. The network scores seem to correspond positively with Carter and Stillingfleet and suggest that a strong network connection may lead to more informal language use. However, as I do not have material from Carter and Stillingfleet against which to test these results, the analysis is not conclusive. High NSS scores alone do not seem to explain the results, but perhaps Bath’s and Lyttelton’s strong positions in the NSS can be reconciled with Montagu’s very infrequent use of preposition stranding when we consider the implications of social rank. Bath, Carter, Lyttelton, and Stillingfleet were all Montagu’s superiors in terms of the direction of professional collaboration, but Bath and Lyttelton were socially above her also in terms of rank (and gender, if you will). Montagu’s letters to Bath and Lyttelton suggest that a strong network tie may result in formal and particularly careful language use, when the recipient is socially superior to the



Historical network analysis 

writer and avoids the particular construction in their own writing. This hypothesis agrees with Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s (2006) findings and indicates that the higher social status of the recipient may be of particular importance in the use of preposition stranding. The Bluestocking ties were overall very strong with little in-group variation in the NSS scores, and yet there was a great deal of linguistic variation detected in their letters. Strength of network ties alone does not seem to suffice as an explanation. The relevance of social rank in explaining the variation indicates that social variables should be included in the linguistic analysis. In line with Labov (2001: 327), I suggest that social network analysis should be complemented with other frameworks to explain socially embedded language use. When social network analysis is accompanied by the sociolinguistic framework, the possibilities in explaining language variation seem very promising.

6.  Conclusion Social network analysis provides new perspectives in studying and explaining language use. This paper deals with the reconstruction and analysis of Elizabeth Montagu’s Bluestocking network and proposes a network strength scale for quantifying the strength of network ties of this eighteenth-century social circle. Letters provide solid material for documenting the quality and often the quantity of social contacts of the past. One of the main challenges in applying the network model to historical linguistics is, in fact, in finding material against which to test the network analysis. However, the Montagu Collection is an excellent source which contains approximately 7,000 letters, and my future aim is to extend the Bluestocking Corpus to better represent the other Bluestocking writers. The strength of ties was analysed on the basis of parameters that represent geographical proximity, the type of relationship in terms of intimacy or distance, network connectedness, network collaboration, social rank, and the longevity of relationship (see Fitzmaurice 2007a). The scores were compared with the frequencies of pied piping and preposition stranding in the network correspondence in order to see whether strong network ties correlate positively with the use of a familiar and somewhat stigmatised linguistic feature. The hypothesis applied when the recipients were below Elizabeth Montagu in terms of social rank. The results also indicate that preposition stranding was avoided and pied piping favoured considerably more when the recipients were her social superiors. As the linguistic variation was best explained by including the social variable of rank in the analysis, I suggest that (historical) network analysis, especially in terms of tie strength, be accompanied with the sociolinguistic framework.

2/2 2/2 2/2 1/2 0/1 0/0 7/9 16

Domicile Relationsh. type Social circle Collaboration Social status Prev. connection Total 2-Way Total

2/2 2/2 2/2 0/0 2/2 0/0 8/8 16

EM/FB 2/2 2/2 2/2 1/2 1/0 0/0 8/8 16

EM/EB 1/1 2/2 2/2 1/2 1/0 0/0 7/7 14

EM/EC 2/2 1/1 2/1 0/0 1/0 0/0 6/4 10

EM/DG 0/0 1/1 1/1 1/2 1/0 0/0 4/4 8

EM/JG 2/2 2/2 2/2 1/2 0/1 0/0 7/9 16

EM/GL 2/2 2/2 2/2 1/2 1/0 0/0 8/8 16

EM/BS

1/1 2/2 2/2 0/0 2/2 0/0 7/7 14

EM/EV

1/1 2/2 1/1 0/0 1/0 1/1 6/5 11

EM/SSF

1/1 2/2 1/1 0/0 2/2 1/1 7/7 14

EM/EDF

*EM=Elizabeth Montagu, WP=William Pulteney, Lord Bath, FB=Frances Boscawen, EB=Edmund Burke, EC=Elizabeth Carter, DG=David Garrick, JG=John Gregory, GL=George Lord Lyttelton, BS=Benjamin Stillingfleet, EV=Elizabeth Vesey, SS=Sarah Scott, ED=Edward Montagu. F = family members.

EM/WP

NSS components

Table 5.  Elizabeth Montagu’s network strength scale in 1760.*

Appendix

 Anni Sairio



Historical network analysis 

References Primary sources Aspinall-Oglander, Cecil. 1942. Admiral’s Widow. Being the Life and Letters of the Hon. Mrs. Edward Boscawen from 1761 to 1805. London: Hogarth Press. Blunt, Reginald (Ed.). 1923. Mrs. Montagu, “Queen of the Blues,” Her Letters and Friendships from 1762 to 1800. Edited by Reginald Blunt from Material Left to Him by Emily J. Climenson. 2 vols. London: Constable & Co. Climenson, Emily J. (Ed.). 1906. Elizabeth Montagu, the Queen of the Bluestockings:  Her Correspondence from 1720 to 1761 by Her Great-great-niece Emily J. Climenson, 2 vols. London: John Murray. Eger, Elizabeth (Ed.). 1999. Bluestocking Feminism: Writings of the Bluestocking Circle, 1738–1785, vol. 1, Elizabeth Montagu. General ed. Gary Kelly. London: Pickering & Chatto. Hampshire, Gwen (Ed.). 2005. Elizabeth Carter, 1717–1806:  An Edition of Some Unpublished Letters. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Lady Llanover (Ed.). 1861–1862. The Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville, Mrs. Delany: With Interesting Reminiscences of King George the Third and Queen Charlotte, 6 vols. London: Richard Bentley. Pennington, Matthew (Ed.). 1809. A Series of Letters between Mrs. Elizabeth Carter and Miss Catherine Talbot, from the Year 1741 to 1770: To Which Are Added, Letters from Mrs. Elizabeth Carter to Mrs. Vesey, between the Years 1763 and 1787. Published from the Original Manuscripts in the Possession of the Rev. Montagu Pennington, vol. 1. London: F.C. & J. Rivington.

Secondary sources Auer, Anita. 2006. “Precept and practice:  The influence of prescriptivism on the English subjunctive.” In Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms:  English from 1500 to 2000, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl & Dieter Kastovsky (Eds), 33–53. Bern: Peter Lang. Barabási, A.-L., Réka, Albert & Hawoong, Jeong. 1999. “Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks.” Physica A 272: 173–187. Bax, Randy C. 2000. “A network strength scale for the study of eighteenth-century English.” European Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 277–289. Bax, Randy C. 2005. “Traces of Johnson in the language of Fanny Burney.” International Journal of English Studies 5 (1): 159–181. Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in Modern Times. Oxford: Arnold. Bergh, Gunnar & Seppänen, Aimo. 2000. “Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey.” English Language and Linguistics 4 (2): 295–316. Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Black, Jeremy. 2001. Eighteenth-century Britain 1688–1783. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave. Clarke, Norma. 2005. Dr. Johnson’s Women. London: Pimlico. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. “Coalitions and the investigation of social influence in linguistic history.” European Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 264–276.

 Anni Sairio Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2002. “Politeness and modal meaning in the construction of humiliative discourse in an early eighteenth-century network of patron–client relationships.” English Language and Linguistics 6 (2): 239–265. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. “The meanings and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English network.” In Studies in the History of the English Language II, Anne Curzan and Kimberly Emmons (Eds), 131–174. Berlin/New York:  Mouton de Gruyter. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007a. “The world of the periodical essay: Social networks and discourse communities in eighteenth-century London.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007b. “Questions of standardization and representativeness in the development of social networks-based corpora: The story of the Network of Eighteenth-century English Texts.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, vol. 2, Diachronic Databases, Joan Beal, Karen P.  Corrigan & Hermann L.  Moisl (Eds), 49–81. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hanneman, Robert A. & Riddle, Mark. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Available at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/. Hansen, Karen V. & Macdonald, Cameron L. 1995. “Surveying the dead informant: Quantitative analysis and historical interpretation.” Qualitative Sociology 18 (2): 227–236. Hawley, Judith. 1999. “Introduction.” In Bluestocking Feminism: Writings of the Bluestocking Circle, 1738–1785, vol. 2, Elizabeth Carter, Judith Hawley (Ed.), ix–xix. London: Pickering & Chatto. Henstra, Froukje. 2008. “Social network analysis and the eighteenth-century family network: A case study of the Walpole family.” Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (1): 29–70. Huddleston, Rodney D.  & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, Samuel. 1755–1756. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd edition. London. Accessed at Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Labov,William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. II, Social Factors [Language in Society 29]. Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (US): Blackwell. Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London. Marshall, Jonathan. 2004. Language Change and Sociolinguistics:  Rethinking Social Networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. “Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.” Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384. Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, Lesley. 2000. “Social network analysis and language change:  Introduction.” European Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 217–223. More, Hannah. 1786. Florio: A Tale, for Fine Gentlemen and Fine Ladies: And, the Bas Bleu; or Conversation: Two Poems. London. Myers, Sylvia Harcstark. 1990. The Bluestocking Circle: Women, Friendship and the Life of the Mind in Eighteenth-century England. Oxford: Clarendon. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Pohl, Nicole & Schellenberg, Betty A. (Eds). 2003. Reconsidering the Bluestockings. San Marino: Huntington Library. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2006. “Leaders of linguistic change in Early Modern England.” In Corpus-based Studies of Diachronic English, Roberta Facchinetti & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 115–134. Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang.



Historical network analysis 

Rizzo, Betty. 2003. “Two versions of community: Montagu and Scott.” In Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds), 193–214. Sairio, Anni. 2005.“‘Sam of Streatham Park’: A linguistic study of Dr. Johnson’s membership in the Thrale family circle.” In Letters and Letter Writing, Minna Palander-Collin & Minna Nevala (Eds), special issue of European Journal of English Studies 9 (1): 21–35. Sairio, Anni. 2008a. “Bluestocking letters and the influence of eighteenth-century grammars.” In Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 137–162. Bern: Peter Lang. Sairio, Anni. 2008b. “A social network study of eighteenth-century Bluestockings: The progressive and preposition stranding in their letters.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/. Sairio, Anni. Forthcoming. The Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network. Submitted Ph.D. thesis. University of Helsinki. Tadmor, Naomi. 2001. Family and Friends in Eighteenth-century England. Household, Kinship, and Patronage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2003. “Lowth’s language.” In Insights into Late Modern English, Marina Dossena & Charles Jones (Eds), 241–264. Bern: Peter Lang. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006. “Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the norm of correctness.” In Blackwell Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (Eds), 539–557. Oxford: Blackwell. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. (Ed). 2008. Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin: Mouton. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid & Bax, Randy C. 2002. “Of Dodsley’s projects and linguistic influence: The language of Johnson and Lowth.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 2. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl.htm. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Nevalainen, Terttu & Caon, Luisella. (Eds). 2000. Social Network Analysis and the History of English. Special issue of the European Journal of English Studies (EJES) 4 (3). Vickery, Amanda. 1998. The Gentleman’s Daughter. Women’s Lives in Georgian England. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2006. “Prescriptivism and preposition stranding in eighteenth-century prose.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6. Available at http://www. let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2007. Preposition Stranding and Prescriptivism in English from 1500 to 1900: A Corpus-Based Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Manchester. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2008. “Preposition stranding in eighteenth-century grammars by eighteenth-century grammarians:  Something to talk about.” In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Ed.), 251–278.

Grasshoppers and blind beetles Caregiver language in Early Modern English correspondence Terttu Nevalainen This case study examines caregiver language in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century letters. It addresses the general issue of how parents and other caregivers talked about and communicated with children and adolescents in their personal correspondence, and, more specifically, to what extent it is possible to reconstruct patterns of child-directed language using personal letters as data. The study analyses the patterns of discourse and linguistic models that Lady Katherine Paston transmitted in her letters to her teenage son. Her usage is also compared with interadult communication. The results obtained indicate that the caregiver language of the past can be characterized at various levels: speech activity and politeness phenomena, lexical content, and even ongoing processes of language change.   

I doe like that thow doest inditt thy owne letters thy selfe. for thow weart wont to know how to speake to me. and euen so wold I haue the wright. (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1624; PastonK 73)

1.  Introduction This chapter studies the ways in which parents and other caregivers communicated with children in the past.1 I will be looking at the evidence we have for discussion about children and child-directed language from the sixteenth and seventeenth

1.  This study was supported by the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence funding for the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG) at the Department of English, University of Helsinki, and by my Leverhulme Trust Visiting Professorship at the University of Sheffield, UK, in the autumn of 2007. My principal data source is the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), which is discussed in the introduction to this volume; see also Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003, Chapter 3), and Raumolin-Brunberg and Nevalainen (2007). For details of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HC), cited in examples (1) and (9), see the Corpus Resource Database (CoRD) at http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/.

 Terttu Nevalainen

centuries. My interest in this topic was kindled by the recent sociolinguistic literature on caregiver language and the development of children’s sociolinguistic competence. One of the challenges for sociolinguistic research is the development of social practice in children and adolescents. In modern societies, adults provide the major source of influence on child-language variation in infancy, while peer-group impact is more decisive in adolescence. Tracking these sources of influence is empirically demanding. With young children, this research requires information about caregiver input and, as the child is growing up, information about family and peer usage (Hazen 2002; Roberts 2002). Labov (2001: 437) suggests that “[l]inguistic variation is transmitted to children as stylistic differentiation on the formal/informal dimension”, and maintains that “formal speech variants are associated by children with instruction and punishment, informal speech with intimacy and fun”. The extent to which this generalization applies to a given situation is, of course, an empirical issue. However, any patterns of register acquisition are obviously complicated by the transmission of ongoing language change, the fact that “children must learn to talk differently from their mothers” (Labov 2001:  416–417). To study these issues, the language of both the caregiver and the child must be investigated. This chapter is an exploratory study of caregiver language as evidenced in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century letters. I will discuss how parents and other caregivers talked about and communicated with children in their personal correspondence. The specific issue addressed is the extent to which it is possible to reconstruct patterns of child-directed language with personal letters as the source data. I will not restrict this term to the language used by caregivers when addressing infants or very young children, but will include their communication directed to both children and adolescents. Earlier studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC; 1410–1681) indicate that these letters display register variation, understood in terms of social relations between correspondents. Nuclear family members, for example, show more personal involvement in their mutual correspondence than do more distant correspondents (Palander-Collin 1999). We therefore have grounds for assuming that child-directed language could be identified in this material as a register of its own. However, when it comes to the ranking of external variables in ongoing language change in the period covered by the CEEC, register variation has proved less salient than factors such as regional and gender variation (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003; Chapter 9). Moreover, the CEEC evidence reveals that members of one and the same family could vary in their participation in ongoing processes of language change — something that is also common today (Hazen 2002: 518). In order to be able to assess the linguistic models that parents



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

transmitted to their children, their usage should be compared with that of their contemporaries in adult-to-adult communication. A related issue, but one that is much harder for a historical sociolinguist to investigate, is the extent to which children respond by using linguistic forms and patterns similar to those of their caregivers. Perhaps an even more intriguing question to do with ongoing linguistic change is whether it is possible to find evidence of systematic intergenerational variation between children and caregivers. However, as a historical sociolinguist working with written data cannot access first language acquisition before children are exposed to formal schooling, these questions may remain unanswerable. A more realistic goal is therefore to look for the evidence we have for the evolution of the sociolinguistic competence of children and adolescents in their early stages of literacy. I shall begin by discussing some recent findings on caregiver influence on children’s acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in Section 2. Section 3 takes a closer look at social relations between sixteenth- and seventeenth-century parents and children, which conditioned the children’s sociolinguistic competence. The ways in which children were discussed by their parents and other caregivers in their personal letters suggest a broad scope of caregiver language. As a case study, Section 4 analyses the patterns of discourse and linguistic models that Lady Katherine Paston, a Norfolk gentlewoman, transmitted in her letters to her teenage son in the mid-1620s. In Sections 5 and 6, I will evaluate my findings and discuss prospects for a more systematic contribution to the study of child-directed language in the past.

2.  Acquisition of sociolinguistic competence It is a common sociolinguistic assumption that speakers modify their language to converge on the usage of their interlocutors (Giles, Coupland & Coupland 1991). Even language acquisition may be approached in terms of accommodation. A number of empirical studies demonstrate how young children acquire the foundations of their sociolinguistic competence from their caregivers. These studies stress that language acquisition does not take place in a sociolinguistic vacuum but in social interaction (Kerswill & Williams 2000, 2005; Roberts 2002; Foulkes, Docherty & Watt 2005; Smith, Durham & Fortune 2007). Smith et al. (2007: 91) highlight the interdependence of community, caregiver and child in the acquisition process. Their findings corroborate Labov’s (2001) claims about early stylistic differentiation. Distinguishing between play and routine as opposed to discipline and teaching, they find that children can acquire the stylistic constraints that regulate the use of variant forms well before the age of four.

 Terttu Nevalainen

They (2007: 89) point out, however, that the caregivers themselves must be aware of these register distinctions and make them when talking to their children. Caregiver input and its impact on children varies considerably. Child-directed speech does not always differ from standard language. Parents have even been found to use more standard forms when talking to their children, especially daughters, than when talking to adults (Foulkes et al. 2005: 179–180). Several studies indicate that the assimilation of linguistic variability associated with a given regional feature remains incomplete unless it is learned in infancy from parents (Roberts 2002). Studying the formation of a new dialect in a community, Kerswill and Williams (2005: 1031) observe that caregiver influence is greater for children under four than for older children, who are the innovative force in the process of new dialect formation. All these studies identify the linguistic variability found in pre-school children as a form of social practice, not chance variation. Acquisition of sociolinguistic competence naturally continues well into adolescence. By secondary school, the major linguistic influence comes from peers rather than adults. While children first acquire the language variation patterns of their immediate caregivers, these patterns will only survive if reinforced by the variation patterns of the children’s peer groups. On the other hand, family variation patterns will be noticeable only to the extent that they differ from community norms (Hazen 2002: 518; Roberts 2002: 344). Studies of caregiver language also show that, as their children get older, caregivers gradually move on to an “interadult mode” when talking to them (Foulkes et al. 2005:  179–180, 201). However, as noted above, when children get older, they tend to dissociate themselves from adult norms. This process culminates with teenagers, who distinguish themselves from the older generation, particularly their parents, not only in terms of how they look but also linguistically. Eckert (2000) describes the linguistic variation of teenagers in an American high school, showing how groups of students also markedly differ from each other. She (2000: 4) points out that adolescence is a crucial life stage for the study of linguistic variation: adolescents are found to be the leaders of sound change and major users of vernacular forms. It will not be possible for a historical sociolinguist working with written data to gain access to the caregiver, child and community data needed to study the entire acquisition process. What can be studied is the language of caregivers in letters addressed to children and adolescents. Their usage can also be compared with that of the language community. Similarly, although to a much more limited extent, it will be possible to observe the sociolinguistic competence of children and adolescents writing to their parents. As a result of the education received by many of these young people, their written communication can, to some extent, be expected to reflect adult norms. However, their sociolinguistic competence can



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

also be expected to reflect the social norms associated with the social roles and relations of children and adults in the period under study. Let us first turn to these relations — and historians’ varying conceptions of them.

3.  Changing relations of parents and children? 3.1  Arguments for and against childhood Our current western conceptions about family and relationships between family members do not necessarily hold for earlier periods. The views of historians on these topics have also undergone revisions, and changed over the years. Following the influential work of Philippe Ariès (1962), historians have argued that the concept of childhood itself is a relatively recent one in Europe, only going back to the upper social ranks in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the Middle Ages and long after that, so the argument goes, children were treated, and depicted, as small adults. It is also argued that, because of the high rate of child mortality, parents were not emotionally attached to their young children. According to one estimate, one in seven babies born in England died in their first year of life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the name of a dead infant could even be passed on to its younger sibling (Houlbrooke 1984: 138).2 However, some historians who put forward these arguments (notably Stone 1990) go on to suggest that the relations between parents and children grew gradually less formal and more affectionate between 1500 and 1800. Many subsequent studies, by contrast, do not lend support to the idea of this kind of evolution from the sixteenth century onwards. Rather, the personal records Abbott (1993), O’Day (1994), Daybell (2006) and others draw on — letters, journals and diaries — provide equal testimonies of parents’ care and affection for their children throughout the early modern period. Historians seem to agree, however, that for the early modern youth life was different from what it is for modern teenagers. In the lower and middling ranks, both boys and girls were accustomed to work from a very early age. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, most young people normally left home when they were in their early or mid teens: they went into service or, among the higher ranks, continued their education away from home. Ben-Amos (1994:  175–182)

2.  This evidence is not straightforward, however. Even in the late Middle Ages, children were often named after their parents and godparents — a practice which resulted, for example, in the two Paston brothers, born to John Paston two years apart (1442 and 1444), both being called John (cf. Smith-Bannister 1997: 135–144).

 Terttu Nevalainen

shows how little time young people, in fact, spent in the company of their peers. Her study suggests that there was no distinct youth culture at the time, and that young people to a large extent shared the values of the older generations. A highly versatile data source, early English correspondence could, in principle, be used to support any of the positions about childhood and adolescence outlined above. Human experience was no less variable in the past than it is today, and this variation is naturally reflected in the data. However, as personal letters were produced by the literate section of the society, we cannot make generalizations across the whole social spectrum on the basis of this material. But it can be profitably used to illustrate the many similarities and differences manifest in parent–child relations between the present day and the early modern period in that section of society. What is also relevant for my topic, letters show that parents were by no means the only caregivers to influence the linguistic development of young children. 3.2  Evidence from letter-writing In the early modern era, written communication between nuclear family members to a certain extent reflected children’s inferior social status in relation to their parents, particularly their father (see Palander-Collin in this volume). As one of their first writing exercises in classical rhetoric, upper-ranking boys were taught to write duty letters to their parents. The earliest English models for such letters go back to the fifteenth century (Voigts 1981). In this tradition, Gregory Cromwell (c. 1514–1551) wrote the undated letter reproduced in example (1) to his father Sir Thomas Cromwell when he was in his teens.

(1) Most dere father, I humbly recomend me unto you, and hertily beseche you of yowr dayly blessyng, naturally bownden thayreunto; for the wiche, and other yowr manifowld benefittes to me colatyt, I am and schalbe yowr daly bedman, interely desyryng the contineweans of the same; trustyng soo to accomplysse and fulfyll yowr parentall commandments in the passage of myne erudicion, that yow, my good father, schall tharewith be ryght welcontentyd by Gods helpe, the wiche with hys grace hee send hus. Amen.  Frome the howse of yowr bedman Mr. Doctor Lee thys Ester day in the mornyng. By yowr vigelante sone Gregori Cromewell. (Gregory Cromwell toThomas Cromwell; HC I, 338)

The “low” or “humble” style was the writing norm observed by social inferiors addressing their superiors, including children writing to their parents (Nevalainen 2001). This norm is embedded in the rhetorical formulae Gregory Cromwell employs in example (1), such as the stock phrase I humbly recomend me unto you. One of the essential elements of the child–parent relationship was parental blessing,



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

which the child sought of the parent (I … beseche you of yowr dayly blessyng). It may have been these conventional formalities that prevented writers like Stone (1990) from seeing the wood for the trees. However, the forms of address used by Gregory, most dere father and my good father, indicate that a son was also at liberty to address his father in less formal terms in the early sixteenth century, even in a letter that was composed merely to fulfil his filial duty.3 The letter in example (2) contains many of the same formal elements as example (1), but suggests a more precarious situation than a simple duty letter. Dorothy Plumpton wrote the letter to her father, Robert Plumpton, a Yorkshire gentleman, in 1506. Growing up in the household of Lady Darcy, she is entreating him to let her return home (to send for me to come home to you). Her case is not, however, likely to be the result of gross parental neglect but rather a common practice throughout the sixteenth century, when spending some time in the household of a social superior was part of the education of the upper social ranks. For girls, this in-house education constituted a form of social apprenticeship as they served as damsels and companions while acquiring social skills (Jewell 1998: 52–55).

(2) Ryght worshipfull father, in the most humble manner that I can I recommend me to you, and to my lady my mother, and to all my brethren and sistren, whom I besech almyghtie God to mayntayne and preserve in prosperus health and encrese of worship, entyerly requiering you of your daly blessing; letting you wyt that I send to you mesuage, be Wryghame of Knarsbrugh, of my mynd, and how that he should desire you in my name to send for me to come home to you, and as yet I had no answere agane […] And therfore, I besech you to send a servant of yours to my lady and to me, and shew now by your fatherly kyndnesse that I am your child; for I have sent you dyverse messuages and wryttings, and I had never answere againe. Wherfore, yt is thought in this parties, by those persones that list better to say ill than good, that ye have litle favor unto me; the which error ye may now quench, yf yt will like you to be so good and kynd father unto me. Also I besech you to send me a fine hatt and some good cloth to make me some kevercheffes.  And thus I besech Jesu to have you in his blessed keeping to his pleasure, and your harts desire and comforth. Wryten at the Hirste, the xviii day of Maye.  By your loving daughter,  Dorythe Plompton. (Dorothy Plumpton to Sir Robert Plumpton, 1506; Plumpton 202–203)

3.  For changes that took place in the forms of address in letters between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, see Nevala (2004).

 Terttu Nevalainen

Dorothy Plumpton’s letter shows that a young person would sometimes have preferred to stay at home — and, to get her way, could go so far as to make the neighbours aware of her plight. In order to persuade her father to change his mind, she openly refers to what others think of his failure to fulfil his duties to his daughter. Almost as an afterthought, she requests her father to despatch her a fine hatt and some good cloth. This suggests that she could routinely rely on him supplying her with such necessities. As pointed out by Houlbrooke (1984), O’Day (1994), and other family historians, there is a good deal of evidence in private writings, such as letters and diaries, which testifies to the love parents showed to their children, and the delight they took in following the daily lives of their little ones. Children were thought of as a gift of God. In example (3), the London merchant Otwell Johnson congratulates his brother John and sister-in-law Sabine on the birth of their daughter in 1544. Otwell correctly guesses the baby’s name, Rachel, the messenger having only been able to remember its biblical association.

(3) Brother,

I comend me veray hartely unto you, and to my syster your wiff, beyng veray gladde that she haeth spedde so well, albeit it is moche besides my conjecture: but the Lorde’s gyftes ar to be receyved with moche joye, as I doubt not but that you take this. This berar was told the childe’s name for to have shewed me, but it fell besides his hoerse or owte of his pannyardes by the way. Onely he doeth remembre (as he sayeth) that Jacob’s wiff was so named in th’Old Testament, which I knowe not but if it wer Rachel. Ther is no great force in the mater, considering that all thing is to Gode’s glory and my syster’s comfort and youres, with all your frendes hier. (Otwell Johnson to John Johnson, 1544; Johnson 170)

Children are mentioned in the health news of letters even when they are well, as in the extracts in example (4) from the letters sent by Sabine Johnson to her husband John, who was away on business in Calais and London in the 1540s and 1550s. Sabine refers to their children lovingly as “jewels” in (4a), informally or perhaps irritably after her own illness as “brats” in (4b), and neutrally as “children” in (4c). In (4c), she asks John to bring for their son not only a pair of shoes (swes) but also a puppet (som babe). (4a) My brother Villares is vaerye seyke and not lyke to csape, Our Lord comfart hym. I and your ij jewelles be in helthe, thankeis be to the Lord. (Sabine Johnson to John Johnson, 1545; Johnson 266) (4b) This inclosed was wryten iiij dayes past whan I was not so well in helthe as I am nowe, the Lorde be presed. Our brattes be well, thanckes be to God. (Sabine Johnson to John Johnson, 1551; Johnson 1176)



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

(4c) All your cheldrene be in helthe, the Lord be prased. A pare of swes for Evangelest bryng with you, and I pray you cast away a lytell mony of som babe for him:  my syster Gere can do this thynges well. (Sabine Johnson to John Johnson, 1552; Johnson 1554)

Thanks to the increase in the number and scope of extant letters, parents’ accounts of their small children become more numerous in the CEEC from the late sixteenth century onwards. Writing to his wife Lady Bacon in the early 1620s, Nathaniel Bacon not only gives her the news about their children’s health but includes vignettes describing their daily adventures. They are referred to by their nicknames, Nick and Mistress Mop. In example (5), Lady Bacon learns about a major transformation in Nick’s life when he “cast his coat”, a long garment worn by little children, boys and girls alike, and began to wear a hose. Now with his legs visible, his father compares him to a grasshopper. In the Stuart era, boys were “breeched” between six and seven years of age (Abbott 1993:  49; Vincent 2003: 59).4 Little Jane is described as a very modest mayden, whose learning to walk impressed her father — according to him, she could do it hansomely.

(5) Oe childeren ar well; & little Nick hath cast his cote, and seemeth metamorphosed into a grasshopper. Jane is a very modest mayden, & is wholely taken vpp wth trauailinge by her self, wch she perfourmeth very hansomely, & wil be ready to runn at yoe comand when you retourne. (Nathaniel Bacon2 to Jane Lady Bacon, 1622–1623; Cornwallis 84)

Well over a year later, Nathaniel Bacon reports Nick’s news in the boy’s own words, so allowing his mother to learn first hand about the disaster he escaped (6).

(6) For ye childeren, they ar in very good health. Nick sends you word of a brood of young chickens, & of a disaster he escaped at my beinge wth him; for he eate so much milk porrage at supper that he cryed out, (O Lord!) I think I haue almost broake myne guutt; & I was fayne to walk him a turne or ij about the chamber to digest yt. (Nathaniel Bacon2 to Jane Lady Bacon, 1624; Cornwallis 99)

In yet another letter, cited in example (7), the father praises his daughter as a much fyner girle than euer, and is delighted that she returns his affection.

4.  The history of children’s dress in this period makes it clear that small children were not dressed as small adults: a long dresslike coat was worn by boys and girls, and boys were only breeched when they were between six and eight years of age (Vincent 2003). The modern christening gown is reminiscent of this tradition.

 Terttu Nevalainen



(7) Oe childeren also ar all in good health: Nick hath well recouered his ague; & Mrs Mop is a much fyner girle than euer, & more familliar wth me, & I hope before strawberyes go out I shall win her hart for euer. (Nathaniel Bacon2 to Jane Lady Bacon, 1624; Cornwallis 105)

The examples discussed in this section illustrate the reciprocal duties and mutual affection between parents and children and the presence of parents in the lives of their children in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. However, these examples also allude to a situation typical of the higher ranks at the time: parents were not their children’s sole caregivers. 3.3  Other caregivers Although there is plenty of evidence to show deep emotional attachment between parents and children in the early modern period, the practices of child-rearing varied according to the family’s social rank and even domicile. Mothers were basically in charge of the upbringing of young children in most social ranks with the exception of the lowest, where children started to work very early on, and the highest, where they were taken care of by nurses and servants (Houlbrooke 1984; Abbott 1993: 49). In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, wet-nursing of infants was common throughout the country but especially in the London area, where infants from wealthier parishes were sent out to be nursed in the country. Fildes (1988: 169) emphasizes that “any discussion of infant and child care must include the important role of surrogate mother which was played by wet-nurses during the impressionable years of early infancy”. There is some evidence in the CEEC against the prolonged nursing of a child. In example (8), Bridget Long contrasts the care that a nurse could give to a little boy with “some better keeping”, and remarks on the rapid change that she could see in his development — including his language — as he was removed from his nurse to Bridget’s own household for a fortnight.

(8) … butt truely itt is high tyme the childe were nowe taken into some better keepinge, for albeitt the nurse doth her parte to the vttmost, yett he nowe beginnes to growe, and will looke for better co�ons then her wages will beare. I sente for him and he was wth me a fortnight att Whitsontyde last, and I perceiued how well a little tyme of chaunge did alter him: he is very well (I thanke God) and comes on apace; he can goe and prattle a little, and is very pretty companye, (Bridget Long to Jane Lady Bacon, 1629; Cornwallis 202–203)

Overall, we can assume the language of caregivers other than parents must have played a role in early language acquisition in this period. The undesirable



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

impact of nurses on the language of their charges is referred to in the educational literature of the day. Addressing the nobility in a famous passage of his Gouernour (1531), Thomas Elyot cautions that women in general, and nurses in particular, do not necessarily provide suitable linguistic models for a noblemen’s son to follow — either in Latin or in English (9).

(9) … hit shall be expedient that a noble mannes sonne, in his infancie, haue with hym continually onely suche as may accustome hym by litle and litle to speake pure and elegant latin. Semblably the nourises and other women aboute hym, if it be possible, to do the same: or, at the leste way, that they speke none englisshe but that which is cleane, polite, perfectly and articulately pronounced, omittinge no lettre or sillable, as folisshe women often times do of a wantonnesse, wherby diuers noble men and gentilmennes chyldren, (as I do at this daye knowe), haue attained corrupte and foule pronuntiation. (Thomas Elyot, 1531; HC 22–23)

The passage in example (9) makes it clear that the caregivers in an upper-ranking household were not limited to nurses. In practice, the other women Elyot refers to also included relatives and “cousins” in the broad sense of the term understood at the time. The excerpt in (10), dated 1580, comes from Jane Tuttoft’s letter to Nathaniel Bacon, a Norfolk gentleman (related to his namesake cited in examples (5) to (7)). Jane Tuttoft appears to have been either a friend or a relative who served as a governess to little Betty. Teacher and pupil got on well, and the little girl had many nicknames for Jane, among them “you blind beetle”, which she used as she discovered Jane’s failing eyesight. Betty is praised as a great scoller — better at reading than at needlework. This excerpt also shows that Betty’s parents shared their daughter’s work and play. (10) Good cosen have me have me [sic] hartely commendid to my good cosen Wyndam & to my cosen Wodhous & tel hur that letel Bety is a great scoller & doth larn as fast as I can tech hur. For sum time I am veri much trobled wyth my nyes that I cannot se the letters & than she sayth “A you blynd betel can you not se?” & she hath many other prety names for me which Sur Harry & my Lady have teched hur. And my Lady doth make hur a letel wanton but she is very womanly whan she list & she wyl many times drinke to hur lady mother & to hur aunt Wyndon & to hur syster all in French & she hath sum French for me but it is not veri good.  And now I larn hur to sow & she doth lose al my nedels but she sayth whan the pedler com she wyl by me sum mor & so I trust hur of hur word. (Jane Tuttoft to Nathaniel Bacon, 1580; Bacon II, 125)

Even if recordings of discussions between caregivers and children had been made in the early modern period, it would probably be difficult to separate parental influence on a child’s early linguistic development from that of other caregivers,

 Terttu Nevalainen

at least in the upper ranks. We get glimpses of this development and quotations of child language in letters and diaries, but it is only when children get beyond the duty-letter stage that we can say something more systematic about their sociolinguistic competence.

4.  Case study: Lady Katherine Paston’s child-directed language 4.1  Material and methods Personal letters tell us much more about parents’ child-directed language than their children’s parent-directed communication. The extant materials enable us to study the kinds of discourse parents engaged in and the linguistic choices they made when corresponding with their young or adolescent children. It is also possible to compare their caregiver usage with their adult-to-adult communication. Fewer letters written by young people have been preserved, but those that have provide some evidence for their linguistic and sociolinguistic variation. The material of my case study consists of the letters that Lady Katherine Paston (née Knyvett), a Norfolk gentlewoman, wrote to her son William Paston when he was a student at Cambridge in 1624–1627.5 Mother and son exchanged letters almost every week; 43 of Katherine’s letters survive (c. 15,500 words), but only two of William’s (450 words). I will compare Katherine’s letters to Sir John Heveningham (1577–1633), the trustee of the Paston estate, to assess the range of register variation to be found in her writings. The two letters by William to his mother that have survived will be compared with those she wrote to him in order to explore the extent to which his usage matched hers in terms of both discourse and language variation. The editor of Katherine Paston’s letters, Ruth Hughey, leaves open her year of birth. The parish register of Ashwellthorpe records two baptisms of a daughter of Thomas Knyvett by the same first name, the first in 1578 and the second in 1584 (Hughey 1941: 16). We may here witness a case of the same name being given to two children in the same family (cf. the three William Pastons in the fifteenth century), or the name of a deceased child being given to a younger sibling. Be that as it may, Katherine Knyvett married Edmund Paston in 1603, and they had two sons, William (b. 1610) and Thomas (b. 1614). Katherine Paston died in 1629.

5.  For details of the PastonK letter collection see the Appendix of this volume.



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

William Paston was not exceptionally young when he went to study at Cambridge at the age of fourteen. In those days, students were admitted to university in their mid- to late teens (Jewell 1998: 110). Being closer to home, Cambridge was an obvious choice for the Norfolk gentry. William obtained his B.A. in 1626, but stayed in Cambridge until the summer of 1627 on account of a serious epidemic in his home town. We know about his later life that he married twice, and fathered six children. He took the royalist side in the Civil War and was created a baronet in 1641. He travelled widely in Europe, Asia and Africa, and died in 1663 (Hugley 1941: 34). The more specific questions that I will address using this material include the following: 1. what features characterize the mother’s caregiver discourse in the data? How does it differ from her adult-to-adult discourse? 2. how does the mother relate to the rest of the language community with respect to ongoing linguistic changes? As a caregiver, is she transmitting innovative or conservative linguistic models? 3. to the extent that it is possible to ascertain, does the son’s usage follow that of his mother or that of the community? Different methods can be used to access and assess this information. I will first contextualize my material by evaluating some parental discourse strategies with reference to their politeness implications (Brown & Levinson 1987). Keyword analysis will then be applied to throw more light on the similarities and differences to be found in this case study between child-directed and adult-directed communication. Finally, I will make a quantitative analysis of certain linguistic variables in order to compare the mother’s usage with that of the larger community, on the one hand, and that of her male relatives, on the other. The variables that I will look at are all ongoing changes in the language community at large in the seventeenth century, and have been studied in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003). 4.2  My good child As William was only fourteen when he went to Cambridge, his mother gave him all the spiritual, moral, and practical advice she found necessary to help him cope. Consequently, her written communication with her son abounds with directives. Katherine’s concerns range from William setting up a daily schedule and not forgetting his prayers to obeying his tutor and avoiding mingling with townsmen. She advises moderation in everything from diet to sports. When William gets a new satin suit of clothing, it comes with motherly advice on the importance of neatness (11).

 Terttu Nevalainen

(11) I doe send the a new sute of sattine to weare this comencment as allso a payer of silke stokins poynts garters and shoe strings and a siluer girdell, — sutable to weare with those things that are siluered good boy haue a great care to wear thy Clothes neat and Clean it is a great Comendation to se a yonge man spincs and neat. without spots and durtines vpon his clothes: I must confes I haue not heard to the contrary, but that thow hast bine a good and well gouerned chilld. (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1624; PastonK 74)

If directives can be viewed as acts of negative politeness, restraining William’s personal freedom, Lady Paston’s letters counterbalance them by a variety of elements that, in terms of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness model, convey positive politeness:  approval, belonging and sharing. These include terms of endearment (my good will, my good child, my sweet will, sweet heart), frequent use of second-person singular pronouns (thou, thee), gift-giving, praise, and humour. Family ties are enacted by voicing, reporting the discourse of other family members in various ways (Goffman 1974, 1981). A case in point is greetings, some of them routine, others more special, transmitted through Katherine’s letters. Some examples of messages from William’s father and little brother are given in example (12). They also include references to the little gifts and tokens William sends to and receives from his family. (12a) Your father comende him to the and doe acsepet kindly of the token you sent him, he sends you this 10 s for a remembranc of his Love: and acsept of this other from me till a better com: your brother is very well, and have sent you a letter of his own indittinge as you may se. but mr brend was his clarke: he tells you all the newes is sturinge: (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1624?; PastonK 65–66) (12b) thy father remembers his best loue to the and he did take thy token very kindly, thy brother remembers his best loue allso. to his good brother ther is no meal sinc you went but he drinke to the: I thanke the for my token too:/ I will not be vnmindfull of thy loue: (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 87) (12c) thy father remembers his loue to the and and take thy wrightinge to him very kindly: thy brother remember his louingest loue to the and is very glade of the fine kniffe thow dideste send him: the which he will weare on high dayes:/ (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626?; PastonK 90)

William is missed and greeted by a wide circle of relatives and friends, including the servants of the family, all recorded in Katherine’s letters. She also reports an incident with William’s “servant”, little Philip, whose hands were bitten by his master’s [William’s] three puppies:  his Nastas goggs did dite ha hans; see (13). Katherine reproduces the words as she heard them, thus transmitting to William a close imitation of the child’s speech (e.g., eliding the /d/ in hands and /t/ in little). She might have found the child’s new englishe amusing and therefore worth



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

reporting, but she may also have wished to include a mention of William’s puppies in her letter. (13) your sceruante Phillupe wold goe neer to pose you with his new englishe: he cam with tears in his eies to me and sayd: his Nastas goggs did dite ha hans: I was desirous onc more to heer his pretty playnt: he cried nasta lillo goggs did dite his hans: your 3. pupis weare so bowld with him: (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1627?; PastonK 99)

William is praised in (11) for being a good and well gouerned chilld. In (14), his mother expresses her satisfaction that he is composing his own letters, because by doing so he could continue to speak to his mother, as he was used to — and be able to practise his handwriting. The letters in (11) and (14) were both written during William’s first year at Cambridge. (14) I doe like that thow doest inditt thy owne letters thy selfe. for thow weart wont to know how to speake to me. and euen so wold I haue the wright. and hetherto I doe like exedingly of them and of the well wrightinge of them: the vse of wrightinge will perfict your hand very much: (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1624; PastonK 73)

Katherine has a sense of humour which she shares with her son as he is growing up. In (15), she thanks William for having sent her a book and a candle, but goes on to say, tongue in cheek, that he could have added a bell to the bargain by persuading his cousin Edmund (Mun) Bell to come to visit her; this would have completed the well-known phrase “bell, book and candle”. (15) I thanke the for thy many letters. thay can neuer be too many:/ Now least I shold forget to be thankefull for a sorte of tokens. bothe for booke and candell: ther want but a bell; coold you not haue parswaded your Cosine mun bell. to haue com this way: then I shold haue bine fully suplyed of bell booke and candell:/ (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1627?; PastonK 98)

The phrase was associated with an old ritual of excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. After an oath was recited, “[t]he bishop would ring a bell to evoke a death toll, close a holy book to symbolize the excommunicant’s separation from the church, and snuff out a candle or candles, knocking them to the floor to represent the target’s soul being extinguished and removed from the light of God” (Wikipedia, OED s.v. bell, n. 8). William was 16 or 17 at the time when Katherine wrote this letter. In his two short letters to Katherine Paston dated early 1624 and 1625, William returns his mother’s terms of endearment by calling her not only my dear and honoured mother but also, in the body of his letters, dear mother and good mother. However, acting according to his social role in the family, and thus out of filial respect, he never uses the second-person singular pronoun when writing to his mother.

 Terttu Nevalainen

William’s letters contain college news, any immediate business at hand, assurances of obedience, and his love to the rest of the family. They also convey some aspects of his new learning: the short “Compendium” into which he has “Epitomised” one of his letters is reproduced in (16). The use of such Latinate terms in a letter to his mother may be interpreted as his way of constructing his identity as a university student — and thus as negative politeness. However, this reference to writing a summary may also be intended as a humorous excuse for writing a short letter. (16) Most deare and honored mother, you must giue me leaue To Epitomise my letter into A short Compendium for mr Dikes. hast will not Suffer me To Doe Anie otherwise. good mother my Tutor and I were att the courtt at newe markett yesterday wher we saw the prince the Duke and mane other noble men, But not, the Kinge By Reson he was not well. God’s name Be praysed we are all verie well. onely Tom: Hartston contineweth after the olde sorte hauinge no vse of his hande. He is still in the Towne. mr Dike is the Lord Lepingtons chaplen Good mother I Remember my humles Dutie to my father your selfe my loue to my Brother my Chozen Abigail mrs Wilson prayinge to god almitie to protecte you now and euer and Reste if ther be no oranges att Norwich if your Ladiship will sende in your next letter we will sende some by Iohnson: Cambridge Corpus Christi College xxii feb 1624–5 your filliallay obediente sonne  William Paston (William Paston to Katherine Paston, 1625; PastonK 76)

Had more of William’s letters, especially later ones, been preserved, we would have a better understanding of the ways in which he had learnt to speak to his mother (cf. her letter in (14)). It can, however, be deduced from Katherine’s letters that mother and son could share verbal jokes. The case reported in (17) involves a wordplay with the name of the old man, Nipps, who was to deliver Katherine’s letter to William together with some partridges. As Nipps had not kept his word about the date of his return, Katherine suspects he may have “nipped” into a tavern (17a). She is pleased to have William’s reply that Nipps had managed to deliver the partridges without “nipping them away” from their recipient (17b). (17a) My good child the mercy of Christ Ihesus be ever more vpon the:/ I haue much longed to heer of my foot post. by whom I did send my letter to the with a lease of pateridges: his nam was nipps. if he did not giue the child a wronge nam: but I feare he is nipt in the Crowne that he is not yett returned. he haue fayled of his promis to me. for he sayd he wold bring a letter from the as wedensday the 22. but he is not com this thursday 23 at noon (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 96)



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

(17b) I am glad as you say that owld father nipps did not nip away the pateridgis from the:/ but yett he is not com: farwell to thy own selfe my good will: writen as fast as I can driue: by thy most louinge mother Katherine Paston (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 97)

4.3  Key differences Katherine Paston’s letters to William show many features that one would not expect to find in her adult-directed language. To put her caregiver language in a broader perspective, I compared her letters to William, on the one hand, and her letters to Sir John Heveningham, on the other, with the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler, Part 2 (CEECS2; Nurmi 1999). This c. 213,000-word corpus is roughly contemporaneous with the study material, which is not included in it. CEECS2 provides a fair sample of interadult discourse of various kinds, with a sprinkling of letters from parents to their mostly grown-up children and vice versa. As proper nouns typically identify individual texts, not registers, they will be excluded from the discussion. As we can see from the above illustrations, the spelling in Katherine and William Paston’s letters is not fully standardized. This is common at the time in private writings, and particularly in women’s private writings, due to their general lack of formal education (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003, Chapter 3). Non-standard spellings complicate the application of corpus linguistic tools such as keyword analysis:  both the spelling variants found in the study material and those in the reference corpus are reflected in the results (cf. Culpeper 2002: 14).6 On the other hand, as the program takes account of the frequency of what it suggests as keywords typical of the study material, single deviant spellings do not surface as significant if the minimum frequency is set, say, at three occurrences, as I have done here. Nevertheless, because of considerable spelling variation, the results I will discuss below should only be taken as provisional indicators of discourse distinctions. My interpretation of them will be based on reading the texts. The positive keywords that characterize Lady Katherine Paston’s caregiver discourse in comparison with personal correspondence in general include, most significantly, her use of the second-person singular pronoun thou (thy, thow), with

6.  The KeyWords facility in the WordSmith Tools program suite was used to retrieve keywords from the data (Scott 2004). Only positive keywords were considered, i.e., those word-forms that show a higher frequency of the given item in the study corpus than would be expected on the basis of the reference corpus. In non-lemmatized corpora such as the ones used here, keywords are word-form tokens rather than lexeme-tokens.

 Terttu Nevalainen

over 400 instances in her letters.7 In view of what we know about the choice of second-person pronouns in personal letters at the time, this is a highly plausible finding: the use of the pronoun thou became restricted both regionally and in terms of register in the course of the seventeenth century (see Nevala 2004; Walker 2007). Other significant clusters of words that can be reconstructed on the basis of the keyword listings include the high-frequency notions of blessing and prayer: bless (blese), blessing (blesinge) and pray. The adjectives and adverbs that describe Katherine’s child-directed discourse are all positive: good, loving (louinge), dearest (deerest), glad and kindly. Parenthood emerges in the keyness of son (sonne) and child, in both of Katherine’s spellings, chilld and child. Home (hom) and health (healthe) are obvious concerns in her letters, as is writing (wrightinge, wrighte). The frequency of the items in these clusters varies from 235 (good) to 15 (deerest). Katherine’s frequent use of directives may to some extent be reflected in the keyness of the auxiliaries should (shold), would (wold), and shouldst (sholdest), although these also assume other modal functions. However, here Katherine’s systematically idiosyncratic spelling of the forms is no doubt partly responsible for their keyword status. Although have (haue), both lexical verb and auxiliary, might also be typical of her usage, its keyness is more likely to arise from its spelling, which was common at the time but is often normalized in published editions of letter collections. The keyword profile of Katherine Paston’s adult-directed communication looks quite different from her child-directed discourse. A comparison of her letters to Sir John Heveningham with the reference corpus, CEECS2, yielded a much shorter keyword list, primarily because there was less material to analyse (c. 1,850 words). The keywords are mostly auxiliary verbs: to the extent they do not arise from spelling variation, have (haue) and hath (hathe) indicate the perfective aspect of the activity reported, while doth (dothe), would (wold), and should (shold) record its modality, and showed (shewed) its evidentiality. The participle form purchased (purchised) and the nouns estates (estats) and penny (peny) are related to the negotiations at hand. Here again, the spelling of these words may be largely responsible for their keyword status. If this is the case, we may assume Katherine’s

7.  When Katherine’s actual spellings deviate from the modern standard, I give them in brackets in the form they appear in the keyword listing. She has a number of idiosyncratic spellings, but she tends to adhere to them quite consistently. In order to be able to assess the effect of this spelling variation on keywords, I also compared her usage with the main variants of the given items in CEECS2. These comparisons are taken into account in the interpretation of the keyness of the items returned by the program.



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

adult-directed discourse need not be vastly different from the adult-directed discourse expressed by the reference corpus. To assess the extent to which Sir John Heveningham’s communication with Lady Paston resembled hers, I ran another keyword analysis for his letters using CEEC2 as the reference corpus. They consisted of c. 3,600 words, and returned more items than Katherine’s letters to him. The only match was in the keyness and spelling of the verb have (haue). A cluster that relates to the content of the letters appears in money, farm (ffarme), and accounts (accompts), their key status no doubt partly arising from their spellings. John Heveningham’s less spelling-prone keywords are kinship terms, titles and their attributes:  sister, lady, children, brother, wife, wife’s (wifes), as well as loving (louinge) and right. The great majority of these come from the salutations and subscriptions of the letters, as Sir John calls Lady Katherine Paston his sister, and himself her brother (they were in-laws). He is also in the habit of giving her and her children the greetings of his wife, Bridget, for whose right to the Paston estate he was campaigning (Hughey 1941: 30). If these contextualizing elements were omitted from the analysis in the same way as proper names, few content words would characterize his adult-directed discourse in this comparison. To complete the analysis, the two letters we have from William Paston to his mother return only two keywords compared with CEECS2: ladyship (ladiship) and mother. They are both used with reference to Lady Paston. 4.4  Changing language We have already seen that one of the features that characterize Katherine Paston’s child-directed discourse is her frequent use of the second-person pronoun thou. This is not reciprocated by her male relatives. Although singular you had been generalized in most varieties and contexts by this time, thou was still available. In personal letters, it could be triggered by the positive politeness associated with intimacy between parent and child, or lovers and spouses (Nevala 2004). The complete avoidance of thou by Katherine’s distant relatives and William alike indicates the degree to which its use was socially and situationally circumscribed at the time. The English language was also undergoing other morphological and syntactic changes at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They include the generalisation of -s as the third-person present-tense singular ending, the replacement of the possessive forms mine and thine by my and thy before vowels, the demise of the relative pronoun the which, the decline of multiple negation, and the shift from of-phrase to direct object in the gerund phrase (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003, Chapter 4). Having the baseline

 Terttu Nevalainen

data provided by the CEEC, we can say something about the linguistic models Katherine Paston was passing on to her children. In the following, I will compare her participation in these linguistic processes with the information provided by her contemporaries.8 As Katherine Paston was from Norfolk, it will be interesting to compare her usage with that of her Norfolk male relatives, notably of her brother-in-law Sir John Heveningham and her husband’s cousin once removed, Edward Paston (1570–1630). All three were close contemporaries. With respect to most of the processes listed above, Katherine Paston’s usage is variable, showing that changes in progress are observable at the level of the individual (see also Raumolin-Brunberg in this volume). One of the exceptions is the choice between the third-person forms of have (has vs hath), a change that was in its initial stages at the time. Katherine does not have any instances of the incoming has. However, with other verbs, she mostly prefers the incoming suffix -s to the recessive -th. The examples in (18) and (19) illustrate these choices in the letters Katherine addressed to her son. The cases in (18b) and (19b), moreover, indicate that Katherine also used suffixless forms in the third-person singular, which is a characteristic of Northern and East Anglian English (Nevalainen, Raumolin-Brunberg & Trudgill 2001). On the basis of evidence like this we can assume that the linguistic model that she was transmitting included regional variants. (18a) my Neec Knyvett hathe a yonge soone and is very well:/ (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625; PastonK 77) (18b) we haue had many in our howse down of it, but I thank god soon vp agayne, and now thy brother I thinke haue gott on, for he haue bine but ill this seuennight; (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625; PastonK 77) (19a) I reioyce at the many testimonys of the thy Giuell and good demenur; which thy good tutor afforedethe the, I pray the still haue a Care, still to give him all satisfaction, for I know he studieth thy welfare every way. (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625; PastonK 80)

8.  Katherine’s relative innovativeness/conservativeness is extracted from a database created by Heikki Mannila from figures originally produced for Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003). A sliding 40-year window has been used in this estimate, i.e., 1580–1619, 1600–1639, 1620–1659. The figures for 1620–1659 are cited here, except for Edward Paston and John Heveningham’s possessive forms, which cluster in 1600–1639. Bootstrap and Bayesian methods are combined to estimate frequencies from small samples, using the techniques developed for this material in Hinneburg, Mannila, Kaislaniemi, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2007). I would like to thank Heikki Mannila and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg for making this project a source of inspiration for us all.



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

(19b) your kinde ante Bell remembers her loue to you and send you a boxe of Iuse of likorous. it will stay the ruhum. when tobaka will not:/ I hop to heer you still hate the very smell of tobaca: (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1624; PastonK 74)

Katherine Paston’s usage was also variable with respect to the first- and second-person singular possessive forms, but in this case the incoming forms without -n- formed a large majority and also appeared before own; see the examples in (20). (20a) I pray the meditate of all those thinges which maye inlighten thine vnderstandinge in the knowledge of the right receiueinge of that blesed sacrament. (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 91) (20b) and Lett me putt the in minde of his great and tender loue shewed to the in time of thy last Ague: and of thy vnfaynd promises to him; (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 96) (20c) I pray the remember me very kindly to mr Roberts: and thy owne selfe:/ in great hast this friday before Hollwmas (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626; PastonK 93)

The passage in example (21) shows that Katherine could use the relative pronouns which and the which in the same paragraph. Here again, it is the incoming form which that she chooses in the overwhelming majority of cases. (21) I pray the Commend me very kindly to the most worthy docter; and to good mr Roberts: and thy owne self, though last of all yett not least of all, to me; espetially heeringe of thy well doinge, which dothe so much comfort me, as I will not hide from the, the content I take in it: the which I am parswaded, will rayther incouredge the to goe on in vertuous courses, then be any Cawse to procure neglect to the; (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625; PastonK 78)

The same pattern is repeated with the object of the gerund: Katherine prefers the innovative variant without the preposition of shown in (22b). (22a) I send your quarters, rent 40 s due at our Lady next your tamell gowne and damask sute, for that I know not what warme wether it maye be at easter. but be as sparinge of the wearinge of it as maye be;/ (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625?; PastonK 78–79) (22b) lett me intreat the to be very Carfull of thy self for over heatinge thy blud:  (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1626?; PastonK 87)

Finally, Katherine has no instances of multiple negation, but in analytic negation uses the non-assertive form instead, as in (23). She is, however, a frequent user of synthetic or no-negation, something that may also count as a regional preference at the time.

 Terttu Nevalainen

(23) a Cake and Cheese a fewepudinges and linkes: a turkey pie pasty: a pot of Quinces and sume marmelate wishinge all maye Come saffe hom to the, and Asure thy self thow shallt not want any good that I cane doe for the but to my vtermost will seeke to procure thy best welfare, (Katherine Paston to William Paston, 1625?; PastonK 78)

On the basis of this survey, one might be tempted to say that Katherine Paston was linguistically progressive with respect to ongoing syntactic and morphological changes. However, comparing her usage with the language community at large, we find that she provides her son with a linguistic model that does not significantly deviate from the average usage of the rest of the literate language community at the time.9 What data we have from William Paston suggests that he follows his mother’s mainstream usage, for instance, in his choice of which over the which, and avoidance of multiple negation (hast will not Suffer me To Doe Anie otherwise in (16), above). However, William does not have any instances of the third-person verbal -s but, in the two cases that he uses a form requiring a suffix, he prefers the recessive -th, as in Hartston contineweth in (16), above. This evidence is, of course, not much to go by, and may be partly accidental — after all, his mother also makes use of the recessive form. Comparing Katherine’s middle-of-the-road usage with her male relatives is, however, interesting. All three show no deviation from average use in the case of the has/hath variation; none of them has any instances of has. The two men, however, prove conservative when it comes to the use of the third-person singular -s. The two pronominal changes reveal no differences between the three writers; all prefer the incoming form within the limits of expected variation. Edward Paston’s use of the direct object of the gerund, however, is conservative, while Katherine Paston and John Heveningham’s figures fall within the mainstream pattern.10 These findings are summarized in Table 1. Table 1.  Three Norfolk writers’ participation in ongoing linguistic changes. Variant form frequencies are shown in brackets (= average use; – conservative use). Writer

has/hath -(e)s/-(e)th

Katherine Paston = (0/6) John Heveningham = (0/10) Edward Paston = (0/6)

= (26/14) – (2/21) – (0/3)

my, thy/mine, thine

which/the which

direct/of object of gerund

= (27/2) = (2/1) = (6/0)

= (85/6) = (16/0) = (18/0)

= (14/7) = (4/0) – (0/3)

9.  Because of their relative rareness in the baseline data, regional features such as the thirdperson zero forms were not recorded in this comparison. 10.  The total use of the multiple negative variable of the three writers does not reach the minimum of three instances, which was set as the individual cut-off point for this analysis.



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

We could speculate about the male writers’ avoidance of -s, and say that this conservatism might reflect either regional or educated usage. A look at the regional variation of third-person forms confirms the first assumption: East Anglia is slower in adopting the feature than London (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003, Chapter 8). At the same time, the recessive form -th is associated with more formal written and religious usage. William’s preference for it in his mid-teens could therefore stem from either regional influence or his exposure to formal education, which in this case converge, possibly reinforcing each other.

5.  Discussion For obvious reasons, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century spoken vernaculars are not accessible to historical sociolinguists. What can be studied are forms of writing, but little has so far been done to chart the territory of child- and parent-directed registers of the past. In this pilot study, I have used the term child-directed language (communication, discourse) because my principal informant, Lady Katherine Paston, systematically addressed her teenage son as a “child”. Regardless of its spelling, this word turned out to be one of the keywords that characterized her communication with her son. If this is the case with other seventeenth-century parents as well, the use of the term is warranted on contemporary grounds, despite the arguments of those historians who suggest that childhood is a much later concept (for counterarguments, see Section 3). In her study of Lady Katherine Paston’s correspondence with different recipients, Tanskanen (2004) discovers a cline of intertextuality. Certain types of reference can only be found in letters between correspondents who are in close and frequent contact with each other. They include the acknowledgement of receipt of a previous letter, as well as references to previous and future letters. However, references to letters planned but not written only occur in letters written by Katherine Paston to her son. It remains to be seen whether this degree of “horizontal” intertextuality is unique to Lady Paston’s communication with her son or whether it forms part of child-directed writing more generally in the history of English. Features of child-directed language emerge in various linguistic domains in my data. I assume that many of them must be a direct continuation of the caregiver language Katherine Paston used when her son was young. We find, for example, that her speech activity in the letters she wrote to William is characterized by frequent use of directives, both direct and indirect (cf. Kohnen 2002). This is predictable on the basis of her social role as his primary caregiver during his father’s prolonged illness. A mother’s authority to give orders, issue commands, and teach values to her children derives from the asymmetrical power relation between

 Terttu Nevalainen

parents and children. These can be seen as a continuation of the activities that caregivers (then and now) engage in with small children: discipline and teaching as opposed to intimacy and fun (Labov 2001: 437; Smith et al. 2007). Katherine’s letters to William also contain a variety of practices that I approached under the umbrella term of positive politeness. They include delivering praise, showing appreciation, references to gifts, and greetings from other family members. Especially the latter two are apt to reinforce a family identity. Her letters also contain verbal humour which may be identified as characteristic of discourse directed at an older child. Here again, future work will tell how common humour is in the communication that takes place between parents and their adolescent children in the past. The aim of the keyword analyses I carried out on Katherine Paston’s letters to her son and brother-in-law was to find a principled method of comparing one and the same person’s child- and adult-directed discourse. However, some of the differences suggested by the keyword analysis are clearly an artefact arising from spelling variation, which was pervasive not only in Katherine’s letters but also in the reference corpus. For the analyst to be able to make full use of the keyword facility available in software packages such as WordSmith Tools, the spelling of the texts ought to be standardized, and any metadata they contain removed. This could be worth the effort, as is suggested, for instance, by the analysis of Romeo and Juliet in Culpeper (2002). One of the key differences between Katherine Paston’s child-  and adultdirected discourse that even spelling variation could not obliterate was the use of second-person pronouns. The singular pronoun thou provided her with a resource that she had presumably used to address her son when he was young, and she continued to use it when William was in his teens. Child and son emerged as other key terms she used. He reciprocated: in his two short letters to Katherine, mother was selected as significant. Interestingly, kinship terms do not mark Katherine Paston’s letters to Sir John Heveningham. In fact, her adult-directed language fails to provide much reliable keyword evidence in comparison with the reference corpus. Sir John’s letters to Katherine, by contrast, return a number of kinship terms, notably, sister, lady, children, brother and wife. These differences between the correspondents may have risen from the way in which they framed their discourses, largely dealing with their disagreement about the inheritance of the Paston estate. Apart from the characterization of child-directed written discourse in the past, the other question addressed in this paper concerned the linguistic models transmitted by the parent. An analysis of six ongoing processes of language change showed that, compared with the language community at large, Katherine Paston provided her son with rather average input: she was not ahead of her contemporaries



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

but neither did she lag behind them. It is also noteworthy that in most cases her usage was variable. Locally, she may, however, have been ahead of her cohort at least in some of these processes. This is suggested by the fact that her two male relatives, about the same age as she, proved to be conservative with respect to processes such as the verbal -s. The evidence we have from William shows that he had mastered the use of the conservative form, -th. However, Katherine Paston did reveal some more local features as well, such as the use of the suffixless form in the third-person singular. In this respect, she was not reinforcing only current supralocal usages when she was writing to her son — unlike those modern parents who are found to use more standard forms when talking to their children (Foulkes et al. 2005). Katherine Paston rather resembled those modern Scottish mothers whose caregiver language showed the local pattern of linguistic variation in the use of verbal -s. The investigators suggest that these caregivers were not consciously aware of the social impact of this pattern (Smith et al. 2007: 91). Although Katherine Paston’s usage of the majority variants studied did not deviate from the contemporary average, her use of local, minority variants suggests that they must have fallen below the level of her conscious awareness.

6.  Concluding remarks Information about present-day patterns of child-directed language is only building up, and shows a good deal of variation. Past usage must have been equally variable. The results of my study are encouraging in that they suggest that child-directed language can be traced back to earlier centuries. Significantly, it can also be characterised at various levels — in terms of speech activity and politeness phenomena, lexical content, and even at the level of ongoing processes of language change. Where we have access to child language, it is usually the formal end of a child’s repertoire that has been preserved in the written medium. A case in point is the duty letter to parents, a product of discipline and teaching, which rarely leaves much room for the youngest writer’s self-expression. The actual processes as a result of which children acquired their range of linguistic variation in the more distant past therefore mostly lie beyond the historical sociolinguist’s reach. The commonest kind of child-related language that has come down to us is talk about children in adult-to-adult communication. This is a rich and variable source of information about the social roles and practices of parents and children in earlier speech communities. In some cases, it can also give a voice to children, recording anything from tearful cries about puppies biting their hands to comparing an aging adult to the proverbial blind beetle.

 Terttu Nevalainen

References Corpora CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. CEECS = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler. 1998. Compiled by Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. HC = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Department of English, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English).

Other references Abbott, Mary. 1993. Family Ties: English Families, 1540–1920. London: Routledge. Ariès, Philippe. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. New York: Vintage Books. Ben-Amos, Ilona Krausman. 1994. Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2002. “Computers, language and characterisation:  An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet.” In Conversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium [Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquée 15], Ulla Melander-Marttala, Carin Östman & Merja Kytö (Eds), 11–30. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet. Daybell, James. 2006. Women Letter Writers in Tudor England. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Fildes, Valerie. 1988. “The English wet-nurse and her role in infant care 1538–1800.” Medical History 32: 142–173. Foulkes, Paul, Docherty, Gerard & Watt, Dominic. 2005. “Phonological variation in child-directed speech.” Language 81 (1): 177–206. Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine & Coupland, Nikolas. (Eds). 1991. Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis:  An Essay in the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern Press. Goffman, Erving. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of Talk, Erving Goffman (Ed.), 124–159. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press. Hazen, Kirk. 2002. “The family.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds), 500–525. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hinneburg, Alexander, Mannila, Heikki, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2007. “How to handle small samples:  Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 22: 137–150.



Caregiver language in EModE correspondence 

Houlbrooke, Ralph A. 1984. The English Family 1450–1700. London/New York: Longman. Hughey, Ruth. (Ed.). 1941. The Correspondence of Lady Katherine Paston, 1603–1627 [Norfolk Record Society 14]. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. Jewell, Helen M. 1998. Education in Early Modern England. Houndmills/London: Macmillan. Kerswill, Paul & Williams, Ann. 2000. “Creating a new town koiné:  Children and language change in Milton Keynes.” Language in Society 29: 65–115. Kerswill, Paul & Williams, Ann. 2005. “New towns and koineization:  Linguistic and social correlates.” Linguistics 43 (5): 1023–1048. Kohnen, Thomas. 2002. “Towards a history of English directives.” In Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honour of Udo Fries, Andreas Fischer, Gunnel Tottie & Hans Martin Lehmann (Eds), 165–175. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2, Social Factors. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell. Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence. Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 64]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, Terttu. 2001. “Continental conventions in early English correspondence.” In Towards a History of English as a History of Genres [Anglistische Forschungen 298], Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (Eds), 203–224. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education. Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Trudgill, Peter. 2001. “Chapters in the social history of East Anglian English: The case of third person singular.” In East Anglian English, Jacek Fisiak & Peter Trudgill (Eds), 187–204. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Nurmi, Arja. 1999. “The Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS).” ICAME Journal 23: 53–64. O’Day, Rosemary. 1994. The Family and Family Relationships, 1500–1900: England, France and the United States of America. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I think and methinks in Middle and Early Modern English [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 55]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nevalainen, Terttu. 2007. “Historical sociolinguistics:  The Corpus of Early English Correspondence.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, vol. 2, Diachronic Databases, Joan C.  Beal, Karen P.  Corrigan & Hermann L.  Moisl (Eds), 148–171. Houndsmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. Roberts, Julie. 2002. “Child language variation.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds), 333–348. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Scott, Mike. 2004. WordSmith Tools. Version 4. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www. lexically.net/wordsmith/index.html, accessed 3 October 2007. Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes & Fortune, Liane. 2007. “‘Mam, my trousers is fa’ in doon!’:  Community, caregiver, and child in the acquisition of variation in a Scottish dialect.” Language Variation and Change 19 (1): 63–99. Smith-Bannister, Scott. 1997. Names and Naming Patterns in England, 1538–1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stone, Lawrence. 1990. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

 Terttu Nevalainen Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2004. “Intertextual networks in the correspondence of Lady Katherine Paston.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2): 255–269. The Oxford English Dictionary: OED Online. 1989. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com, accessed 4 April 2008. Vincent, Susan. 2003. Dressing the Elite:  Clothes in Early Modern England. Oxford:  Berg Publishers. Online extract at http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=185973751X, accessed 23 September 2007. Voigts, Linda E. 1981. “A letter from a Middle English dictaminal formulary in Harvard Library MS 43.” Speculum 56 (3): 575–581. Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 158]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wikipedia contributors. 2007. “Bell, book and candle.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_Book,_and_Candle, accessed 5 October 2007.

Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen Helena Raumolin-Brunberg This article examines the participation of three English gentlemen in ongoing grammatical changes across their lifespans. Based on personal letters from several decades, the study shows that Sir Walter Ralegh (1554–1618), Philip Gawdy (1562–1617) and John Chamberlain (1553–1628) changed their language in adulthood. The findings question the view that an adult’s grammar, once acquired, would be fixed. However, there is significant divergence between the informants, Chamberlain being the most stable, and the other two participating in the changes to a greater degree. Age, ambitions, and geographical and social migration are considered as possible reasons for their behaviour. The changes studied include possessives my/thy vs mine/thine, third-person suffix -s vs -th, affirmative and negative do and subject relativiser who.

1.  Introduction The turn of the seventeenth century witnessed many changes in the English morphology and syntax.1 The indicative third-person singular suffix -th was largely replaced by the sibilant -s, the use of the affirmative periphrastic do reached its peak, and the auxiliary do in negative statements was also on the increase. The subject relative pronoun who found its way into restrictive relative clauses at the same time as which gradually lost its ability to refer to human beings. Furthermore, the possessives mine and thine, which in general had lost the battle against their shorter variants my and thy in the sixteenth century, eventually also dropped their -n- before the word own and some other specific lexemes.

1.  The research reported here was supported in part by the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence funding for the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English at the Department of English, University of Helsinki.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

This article examines the participation of three English gentlemen in the above changes. My aim is to look at individual linguistic behaviour against the background of the overall diffusion of the changes among the English people. The main focus is on idiolectal stability as compared with instability, and my findings will include both. They will also show that there is considerable individual variation in the adoption of innovative forms but the same linguistic trajectory seems to channel the adoption. My three informants are Sir Walter Ralegh (1554–1618), Philip Gawdy (1562–1617), and John Chamberlain (1553–1628). The material used consists of personal letters included in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) and its Supplement (CEECSU). The letters written by the three informants span the period 1579–1625. It is also mostly the CEEC that has provided the data for the background charts (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2002, 2003). I would like to argue that, beside the progression of changes within groups and communities, the understanding of the diffusion of linguistic changes requires research on the behaviour of individuals. In the end, it is the speakers that change the language in their everyday choices between alternative ways of saying the same thing.

2.  The data The material for this investigation has been taken from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) and its Supplement (CEECSU) (see e.g., Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 1996, 2003:  43–52; Raumolin-Brunberg & Nevalainen 2007b). The size of the personal files of the three correspondents is as follows: Sir Walter Ralegh c. 40,000 words, Philip Gawdy c. 58,000 words, and John Chamberlain c. 69,000 words.2 All Ralegh’s letters and half of Gawdy’s material stem from the Supplement, whereas Chamberlain’s correspondence and half of Gawdy’s data go back to the original CEEC, i.e., its 1998 version.3

2.  The following letter collections from the CEEC and CEECSU have been used: Chamberlain, Gawdy, Gawdy2, Ralegh, Ralegh2. (See Appendix of this volume for details.) 3.  This information is of significance, as the material included in the 1998 version of the CEEC has been used for the general background analyses, whereas the Supplement data have had no influence on them. This means, for instance, that Chamberlain has made a contribution to the general graphs introduced in this article, against which I now compare his individual scores. Nevertheless, as the CEEC contains a large number of other informants from the same period, this should not skew the findings to any significant degree.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

The reason for selecting just these three informants was the availability of a sufficient amount of contemporaneous material. Moreover, the social rank of the three men was the same as they all belonged to the gentry, although Ralegh rose to a higher position than the others. All spent most of the time under scrutiny in London and/or at the Royal Court. Migration is an issue in which they differed; while Chamberlain was a native of London, the other two moved to London, Ralegh from Devon and Gawdy from Norfolk. Ralegh’s letters, mostly written to various administrators, are somewhat more formal than the newsletters the other two sent to their families and close friends. Sir Walter Ralegh (1554–1618), courtier, explorer, writer, is the best known of my three informants.4 He was born in Devon to an old-established county family. He studied in Oxford and in the Middle Temple, and was knighted in 1585. During early adulthood he participated in military operations in France and Ireland. After 1581 Ralegh was often found at Court and was one of Queen Elizabeth’s favourites. In addition to several high administrative positions, the favours he received included a palace, Durham Place, in London, and an estate, Sherborne Castle, in Dorset. In the 1580s, Ralegh was actively involved in the colonization of North America. After 1591 Ralegh had a roller-coaster relationship with the monarch. His first disgrace, in 1591–1595, was caused by a secret marriage to one of the Queen’s maids of honour. In 1595–1596 Ralegh was given an opportunity to explore Guiana, and during the next few years he participated in military campaigns against the Spanish. Elizabeth’s death and James’s accession in 1603 led to a new disgrace with long imprisonment in the Tower for alleged treason. After release in 1615 and a subsequent unsuccessful expedition to South America, Ralegh was executed in 1618. Ralegh wrote court poetry and reports of his trips and descriptions of the new colonies. His major work during the years in the Tower was The History of theWorld, which became popular, with several editions in the following centuries. His letters, spanning 1581–1618, were mostly addressed to high administrative officers but some were written to his nephew. It is not often one finds contemporary or nearly contemporary comments on a historical person’s accent or dialect, but Ralegh is a fortunate exception, albeit the comment was written on hearsay. The private notes about the lives of a large number of Englishmen written by the antiquarian John Aubrey

4.  The personal data in this section stem from the digital Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Ralegh by Mark Nicholls and Penry Williams, Gawdy by Joe Rowe, and Chamberlain by P.J. Finkelpearl.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

(1626–1697) and published as Brief Lives in 1975 contain the following passage on Sir Walter Ralegh: Old Sir Thomas Malet, one of the Justices of the King’s Bench in the time of Charles I and II, knew Sir Walter; and I have heard him say that, notwithstanding his so great mastership in style and his conversation with the learnedst and politest persons, yet he spoke broad Devonshire to his dying day (Aubrey 1993/1982: 267)5

We should probably be careful in interpreting this comment, but it seems to argue that Ralegh retained his childhood accent in adulthood. On the other hand, it also indicates that, apparently, it was uncommon for courtiers to have strong rural accents, as this was a matter worth mentioning. The position of a younger son set limits to the career opportunities for Philip Gawdy (1562–1617), who was born to a Norfolk gentry family. He was educated at Clifford’s Inn, and spent most of his life in London and on the fringe of the Court, promoting his family’s interests. The only exception took place in 1591 when he went to sea to fight the Spanish. He was captured and imprisoned in the castle at Lisbon but was able to return home after his brother sent a sufficient ransom. Later on, Gawdy served as an MP for various constituencies. Gawdy’s letters, spanning 1579–1616, addressed to his family members, i.e., father, mother, brother, nephew and sister-in-law at home in West Harling, can best be characterized as newsletters. The events at Court, Parliament, London and in the world, general gossip, shopping and money matters fill their pages. The letters of our third informant, John Chamberlain (1553–1628), belong to the standard sources of early modern historians, providing a vivid picture of Jacobean life in London and England. Chamberlain, a native of London, wrote newsletters to his close friend Dudley Carleton in 1597–1625. Chamberlain’s father, an alderman and sheriff, gave his son John the opportunity of studying in Cambridge and Gray’s Inn, making it possible for him to rise socially so that he could lead a gentleman’s life without needing to earn a living. The letters abound with the names of contemporary celebrities, including Sir Walter Ralegh. They contain the latest gossip and eye-witness accounts of important events. Table 1.  The age of the writers.

Sir Walter Ralegh Philip Gawdy John Chamberlain

Lifespan

Letters

Age

1554–1618 1562–1617 1553–1628

1581–1618 1579–1616 1597–1625

27–64 17–54 44–72

5.  The spelling has been modernized by the editor Richard Barberg.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

The age of the three writers at the time of writing the letters varies as shown in Table 1. We can see that they were all adults, although the youngest, Philip Gawdy, started writing when he was just 17 years old, which, according to Labov (2001: 447), is the age of phonological stabilization. Chamberlain’s first letters, on the other hand, stem from his middle age.

3.  Idiolectal change Most sociolinguistic research concerning language change and the diffusion of new linguistic elements has concentrated on groups of people or sections of society. These studies provide the general picture we today have about the progress of linguistic change, and, moreover, they offer the necessary baseline data against which individual behaviour can be analysed. So far, the behaviour of individuals has not belonged to the core interests of sociolinguists, although this situation seems to be changing, as is testified, for instance, by William Labov’s recent words (2003: 21), “we need to know how adults can influence the speech of others and shift their own practices”. Labov himself devoted a significant part of his monumental Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors (2001: 323–411) to the leaders of linguistic change in Philadelphia and included portraits of the most influential leaders. In historical linguistics, research has been carried out into the language of individuals, in particular well-known literary persons like Chaucer and Shakespeare. Some studies have reported changes over time; Stein (1987), for instance, shows that around 1600 there was a major shift from the third-person suffix -th to -s in Shakespeare’s plays. As in present-day studies, it is only recently that the behaviour of the individual under ongoing linguistic change has become the object of study in historical sociolinguistics (e.g., Raumolin-Brunberg 2005, 2006). 3.1  Idiolectal stability vs instability It has not been easy to carry out longitudinal panel studies of individual usage in present-day sociolinguistics, because there has rarely been sufficient linguistic material by the same individuals over longer periods of time. However, this area is not totally uncharted, as Sankoff’s (2005) excellent overview testifies. Recent publications include Paunonen (1996), Blondeau (2001), Siebenhaar (2002), Nahkola and Saanilahti (2001, 2004), Sundgren (2002, 2004), Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 83–109), Kurki (2005), Raumolin-Brunberg (2005, 2006) and Sankoff and Blondeau (2007).6 Idiolectal change has occasionally also received 6.  These publications include three interesting studies of the spreading of standard forms among dialect speakers in Finland and Sweden (Nahkola and Saanilahti and Kurki on Finnish

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

attention outside linguistics, e.g., changes in Queen Elizabeth II’s pronunciation have been discussed in Nature (Harrington, Palethorpe & Watson 2000), and Margaret Thatcher’s change of accent has been mentioned in several sources, e.g., by John Mullan in The Guardian (1999).7 Table 2 is a schematic presentation of the patterns of change in the individual and the community, originally created by Labov (1994: 83), and later developed by Sankoff and Blondeau (2007: 563). This table serves as a good starting point for the discussion of “lifespan changes”, a term that Sankoff (2005: 1011) suggests we should use in reference to changes over individuals’ lifespans in the direction of ongoing changes in the rest of the community. The first line in Table 2 depicts stable variation from the viewpoint of both the individual and the community. The second line, 2a, describes stable linguistic variation in the speech community but instability in the individual’s linguistic behaviour, with a pattern of age-grading. The third line, lifespan change, Sankoff and Blondeau’s addition, forms the focus of this article. The last two lines in Table 2 also refer to the conditions I am concerned with in this study, in other words, community-level instability based on linguistic change in progress. Table 2.  Patterns of change in the individual and the community.*

1. Stability 2a. Age-grading 2b. Lifespan change 3. Generational change 4. Communal change

Individual

Community

Stable Unstable Unstable Stable Unstable

Stable Stable Unstable Unstable Unstable

*After Labov (1994: 83) and Sankoff and Blondeau (2007: 563).

and Sundgren on Swedish). All three are combinations of trend and panel studies, in other words, different groups of speakers have been compared at two points in time, on the one hand, and the same speakers have been reinterviewed, on the other (Labov 1994: 76–77). The phenomena studied are phonological, morphophonological and morphological. The results of the longitudinal panel studies testify to a great deal of stability but also report idiolectal changes, which are most frequent in youth but also occur later in life, even in old age. 7.  Mullan (1999) interestingly lists British people who have been “proud of their accents” and others who have not been so proud. Apart from Ralegh, the former group includes, for example, Sir Robert Walpole, William Wordsworth and Harold Wilson, who retained their childhood accents. In addition to Margaret Thatcher, whose accent underwent changes after elocution lessons, the second group contains names such as William Shakespeare and James Boswell. I would like to thank Dr. Mark Shackleton for drawing my attention to this article.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

According to Table 2, generational change refers to a situation in which there is idiolectal stability despite ongoing change in the community. In communal change, in turn, people change their language over their lifespans, altering their language in the same direction. It is noteworthy that both lifespan change and communal change involve instability in the individual and the community. These concepts have different perspectives: lifespan change looks at the individual and communal change at the community. The pattern of generational change entails that the linguistic forms acquired in childhood remain unchanged. This approach singles out language acquisition and the earliest linguistic development as the phase at which linguistic changes occur if they are to take place at all. The generational pattern of change also forms the basis for the apparent-time method of looking at the progress of linguistic change. According to this model, the diffusion of ongoing linguistic changes is examined by comparing the usage across generations in order to identify the direction and rate of change. In a diachronic study like mine, it is natural to look at the linguistic change in real time, but in investigations without real-time data, the apparent-time method often gives correct indications of the development. In the general discussion of language change, the role of children and adolescents has been a popular topic over the years (e.g., Anttila 1972: 196–200; Bybee & Slobin 1982; Lightfoot 2002; Louden 2003). Croft (2000: 45–55) gives a general overview of the child-based model of language change as opposed to what he calls the utterancebased one, and argues that the former is based on empirical predictions which have been proved false. Despite these empirical counter-arguments, there are many who believe that an adult’s grammar, once acquired, is fixed. In the sociolinguistically oriented discussion of language change, Labov (1994: 83–84) claims that there is divergence among the linguistic components so that sound change and morphological change typically follow the pattern of generational change, while lexical and syntactic changes represent the converse pattern, communal change. Sankoff’s survey (2005) lends tentative support for this generalization, as in several studies phonological features appear to be less susceptible to changes over individual lifetimes than lexical and discourse-level features and more lexical aspects of morphology. Based on a large number of previous studies, Kerswill (1996: 200) provides an interesting table on the ages at which different linguistic features can be acquired. He argues that lifespan changes include not only lexical changes such as borrowing but also certain types of morphological and phonological shifts. In a recent article, Labov (2007) argues that children and adults participate in linguistic changes in different ways because of their diverging language-learning abilities. Adults have problems in adopting abstract features of language structure, while children learn them at the time of language acquisition or at least before the age of seventeen (Labov 2007: 349). According to Labov (2007: 346), the changes

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

children make proceed by incrementation “in which successive cohorts and generations of children advance the change beyond the level of their caretakers and role models, and in the same direction over many generations”. On the other hand, the changes adults make go back to contacts across speech communities, and the new variants are usually learnt in a somewhat diluted form. Labov uses the term linguistic transmission for the unbroken sequence of native-language acquisition of children, while changes by adults in language-contact situations are termed diffusion. In a study of quotative be like in Toronto English, Tagliamonte and D’Arcy (2007) provide an exciting observation on generational differences. According to them, speakers enhance their use of be like when they grow older without changing their grammatical patterns, analysed with varying constraint rankings. These findings “suggest that adult frequencies of linguistic forms are labile … , but the grammar underlying them is not” (2007: 213). In a very carefully documented article, Sankoff and Blondeau (2007) investigate the change from apical to dorsal /r/ in Montreal French. They make use of trend and panel studies of informants between 1971 and 1984. The somewhat unexpected finding of this study is that as many as 9 out of 32 panel informants increased their use of [R]. Sankoff and Blondeau note that their results raise three important issues for discussion, (1) the role of trend and panel studies in the assessment of change in progress, (2) implications for the use of the apparent-time construct, and (3) implications for the relevance of the critical period to language change. They claim that “to understand the dynamics of change in the speech community, we must follow language across the lifespan” (2007: 584). The above arguments are based on studies of present-day languages. Diachronic research on historical letters claims that at least in some morphological changes, both generational and communal types of change are operative at the same time (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003:  86–92; Raumolin-Brunberg 2005), but here we must remember that the results concern frequencies and only in a few cases have changes in grammar been taken into account. In the historical studies of idiolects, the language-acquisition phase is automatically out of reach for the researcher, but there are people who have left written material from several decades of adulthood, which can serve as relevant research material. Although age-grading also involves linguistic change in an individual’s language, its occurrence is very difficult to trace in historical data. This concept refers to changes in which the use of a variant or variants recurs or increases at a particular age in successive generations (Labov 2001: 76). It seems to be the case that adults use standard forms more than the young and old members of a speech community and that teenagers’ language contains slang and nonstandard forms. The situation was different in early modern England, because no codified standard existed yet, but it is clear that my material stems from people who used the highly valued London/Court variety, in other words the incipient standard language.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

A further factor worth considering is the variability of grammar at the acquisition phase. According to Nahkola and Saanilahti (2004), categorical linguistic features are inclined to remain categorical in idiolects, whereas features that are acquired as variable tend to change in individual life spans. They also claim that “[t]he more equal the proportions of the rivalling variants are, the more likely it is that one of the variants will increase its proportion and gain dominancy during the speaker’s life” (2004: 90). Some support for this observation can be found in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 92–98), which shows that, as far as two very rapid early modern changes are concerned, viz. subject you replacing ye and third-person -s replacing -th, about 60% of the informants had a variable grammar when the increase of the new form was at its most rapid. Perhaps the rapidity of the progression of these changes can be explained by the fact that individuals, who as children had acquired the elements as variable, simultaneously increased their use of the new variants. This does not seem very different from the observations of Sankoff and Blondeau (2007: 573), whose panel informants mostly changed their language from variable to categorical. Furthermore, it is probably important to take into consideration the direction of change in Labovian terms (1994: 78). It may be a different matter to adopt changes from below, i.e., shifts that emanate from below the level of social awareness, and changes from above, i.e., shifts that stem from prestigious sources, often acquired with full public awareness (cf. Laitinen in this volume). The changes discussed in this study can mostly be characterized as changes from below, except the relative pronoun who, which was introduced according to a Romance model and can thus be regarded as a change from above.8 3.2  Inter-individual variation It is well known that there is considerable variation in the linguistic usage among contemporaries. The standard list of the determinants of variation includes at least gender, socioeconomic class, status, region, age, migration history, register, style and genre. For a study of language change in progress it is, of course, most important to identify the relevant external constraints and try to keep them under control as far as possible. It is also known that, despite similarities in the above external constraints, there can be considerable differences between individuals’ use of innovative linguistic forms. For instance, Raumolin-Brunberg and Nevalainen (1997) found

8.  As regards the auxiliary do, its development after 1600 may be taken to be a change from above, if Nurmi’s argument (1999a: 179–182) about the influence of the Scottish nobility at Court holds. The Scots used do much less than the English.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

great divergence between two early sixteenth-century merchant brothers, John and Otwell Johnson, in their participation in several ongoing linguistic changes. The reasons for this variation could not be pinpointed, but some speculations could be suggested concerning their different social networks. As already mentioned, it has been possible to single out speakers who are so far ahead of other contemporaries that they can aptly be called the leaders of a particular linguistic change (Labov 2001: 323–411). These people are often looked at in terms of the social networks through which the change diffuses in a speech community. According to Milroy (e.g., 1987), the innovators, i.e., the people who introduce a new form into a network, tend to be marginal members in networks. Labov, in turn, argues that the linguistic leaders in Philadelphia were central members in their respective networks. I have made a suggestion (Raumolin-Brunberg 2005: 69; 2006) that the diverging viewpoints may be caused by difference in focus. While Milroy has looked at the very early incipient stage, Labov has examined the people who lead the changes at a later phase which he characterizes as new and vigorous. Whatever the reason for the divergence, it is most likely that the membership in social networks and the type of these networks are factors that correlate with individuals’ participation in ongoing linguistic changes. As argued in the previous section, the phase of a change at the time of acquisition may also determine an individual’s participation in a change in progress. In addition to possibly accounting for the rapidity of many linguistic changes during the time when the S-curve is at its steepest, the phase may well explain some of the variation between individuals. It seems that during a very rapid change in progress, the spectrum of variation between individuals is the broadest (e.g., Kurki 2005: 239–240).

4.  The results In the following sections, I shall examine the linguistic behaviour of the three informants against the findings obtained from the CEEC. All the changes under scrutiny have been investigated in a large number of previous studies, many of them excellent, and I regret that for reasons of space I cannot do them justice in this article. In this investigation my methods are the same as have been applied to the studies of the same changes in the whole corpus. Most of these studies have been published before, but in some cases I have used temporal and linguistic divisions that are more delicate than the ones in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003) and other publications. I shall discuss the changes according to the type of change, from the more phonological to the more morphological and syntactic.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

4.1  My and thy versus mine and thine In linguistic terms, the loss of the original nasal element from the possessives mine and thine was phonologically conditioned. The change was first completed before words with an initial consonant, followed by words with an initial vowel, and one specific lexeme, own, was the last that retained the long form in the preceding possessive. According to Schendl (1997), this phonological conditioning was clearly observable during the first half of the sixteenth century, but the role of the nonlinguistic factors, such as register variation, grew with time. Examples (1)–(4) illustrate the uses in my data.

(1) I have not been eyther with myne oncle or my cosin Woolner (Philip Gawdy, 1587; Gawdy 18)



(2) My uncle told me of that night (Philip Gawdy, 1587; Gawdy 25)



(3) For mine owne part I am sure I have geven no cause of venting any peice of that desseign (John Chamberlain, 1612; Chamberlain I, 395)



(4) Your ever as my owne (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1591; Ralegh 59)

Figure 1 shows the general trend observed in the CEEC from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards. During 1580–1619, from which period most of my material stems, the corpus average was above 90% for the short forms with words with initial vowels and grew from 40% to 75% for determiners preceding the word own. 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 1560– 1579

Vowel 

1580– 1599

1600– 1619

1620– 1639

Figure 1.  First- and second-person possessive determiners in the CEEC, 1560–1639. The percentages of my and thy compared with mine and thine: forms preceding word-initial vowels and the lexeme own.

According to Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 119–120, 142–143, 199), during the period in question here, this change seemed to diffuse from lower social ranks upwards and be led by women. The most significant external factor

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

appears to have been region, at first the northern origin, and later London and, during the period in Figure 1, it was the Court that led the development.9 Table 3 gives the figures for my three informants. There is a great difference between the overall frequencies of the possessives. While Gawdy’s letters contain as many as 115 occurrences, Chamberlain’s larger material only yields twenty. A comparison with Figure 1 reveals that both Ralegh’s and Gawdy’s use of the short forms before initial vowels corresponds to the corpus average, whereas Chamberlain’s use is lower. It seems that the higher percentages of the first two gentlemen follow the pattern found in the CEEC for the usage in the Royal Court, with which both were affiliated, Ralegh at times as a core member and Gawdy on the fringe. Chamberlain’s figure is also in harmony with the CEEC findings, since the score for London was about 10 percentage points lower than that of the Court. The figures testify to considerable idiolectal stability, which has also been attested in Raumolin-Brunberg and Nevalainen (2007a). Table 3.  My and thy vs mine and thine. Preceding words with an initial vowel

Preceding the word own

Age

-N-

0

%

Tot

-N-

0

%

Tot

27–45 46–64

1 2 3

23 31 54

96 94 95

24 33 57

8 14 22

1 0 1

11 4

9 14 23

17–27 28–37 38–54

6 0 3 9

40 27 39 106

87 100 93 92

46 27 42 115

16 10 16 42

0 0 2 2

11 5

16 10 18 44

44–56 57–72

2 3 5

7 8 15

78 73 75

9 11 20

4 3 7

0 0 0

0

4 3 7

Walter Ralegh 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total* Philip Gawdy 1579–1589 1590–1599 1600–1616 Total* John Chamberlain 1597–1609 1610–1625 Total*

*Comparison of the totals: Chi-square 7.52; p<0.025.

9.  The regional division here follows the system used in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003). We have concentrated on four broad areas on the basis of availability of material: the Court, London, East Anglia, and the North (i.e., counties north of Lincolnshire). The areas are self-explanatory except for the Court, by which we refer to the royal family, their courtiers as well as diplomats and high administrative officers, many of whom lived in Westminster.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

As regards the frequencies of the n-less forms before own, all three men lag far behind the corpus average. What is interesting, however, is that both Ralegh and Gawdy, with over 90% of short forms before vowels, have also started to use the short form before the word own. Chamberlain seems not to have done so, but his occurrences are so few that this result may just be a coincidence. 4.2  Third-person singular suffix -s versus -th (have and do excluded) In broad terms, the replacement of the indicative third-person singular suffix -th by -s began in the North in the tenth century and ended in the most resistant forms hath and doth in Late Modern English (Holmqvist 1922). In addition to the shift from -th to -s, a third variant, zero, also has a long history. Owing to the difficulties in tracing zeros in the corpus and knowing that their proportion in Early Modern English did not exceed two percent (Kytö 1993: 118), I have concentrated only on the two consonantal variants, as was done in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003) and Raumolin-Brunberg (2005). Previous research has pointed out two important constraints. A stem-final sibilant had a deterring effect, and the frequency of the verb played a role when the change spread according to the pattern of lexical diffusion (Ogura & Wang 1996). Examples (5)–(8) illustrate variation between -s and -th in verbs with a final non-sibilant and (9)–(10) with a final sibilant, and this division is also kept in the personal profiles.10

(5) the good wooman hath so many patrons as the one referreth her cherishinge to anothers trust, and in the mean while shee liveth baren and frutless. (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1593; Ralegh2 94)



(6) Kelloway lives that murderd the brother of Horsay (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1600?; Ralegh2 186)



(7) The Quene commethe to Somersett House vppon fryday (Philip Gawdy, 1588?; Gawdy2 42)



(8) And yet I fynde by this an old proverbe veryfyed ther never comes more hurte then commes of fooling. (Philip Gawdy, 1587; Gawdy2 23)



(9) the account of his yearly revenwes riseth to 57000li. (John Chamberlain, 1613; Chamberlain I, 405)

(10) He raises forces in Fraunce and in the State of Milan: (John Chamberlain, 1611; Chamberlain I, 303)

10.  Although the consonantal variation is considered the main issue of this change, the shift appears to be part of the long-lasting morphophonemic drift by which English lost the unstressed preconsonantal vowel /e/ in inflectional endings. The writings of early modern orthoepists suggest that the form with -s was thought to be a contracted form of the syllabic -eth (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2000b).

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

It is often argued in the literature that -s was used in spoken language and -th in writing. This claim goes back to Holmqvist (1922: 185) and Wyld (1936: 336), who found it difficult to explain why the northern sibilant, despite not being attested in the Midlands, was found in London as early as the fifteenth century. This finding was not in harmony with the prevailing theory that contact between adjacent dialect areas was needed for the spreading of linguistic changes. It seems likely that Holmqvist’s suggestion (1922: 185) that “-s attained general currency in the spoken language … probably as early as about 1500” was his way to solve this theory-induced problem. Today it is well known that changes may spread from one urban area to another, bypassing the countryside in between (Trudgill 1986), and it is likely that the sibilant came to London with the extensive migration from the North that took place in the Late Middle Ages (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 38–40). It is difficult for me to understand how semiliterate people could have made the difference between nouns, in which the -s suffix could be written as spoken, and verbs, in which the spoken -s should be replaced by -th in writing. On the other hand, in the seventeenth century, when the change had diffused to over 70% of the cases (see Figure 2), there is evidence that literary genres preferred the conservative -th and oral genres often used -s (e.g., Kytö 1993). This, of course, corroborates the idea of -s occurring in the spoken language, but this development does not differ from the diffusion of most other changes coming from below.11 (For further discussion, see Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2000a, 2003: 81; Raumolin-Brunberg 2005). 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 1560–1579

1580–1599

1600–1619

1620–1639

Figure 2.  The diffusion of third-person singular -s in the CEEC, 1560–1639. Adapted from Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 215).

11.  The idea that -s emanates from below, in other words, from informal language, is nicely corroborated by the fact that the early occurrences of -s in Ralegh’s letters are found in family



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

Figure 2 shows the increasing share of -s in the CEEC at twenty-year intervals. This graph corroborates the timing of the change suggested in previous research on genre variation (e.g., Stein 1987), and indicates that the period of this study coincides with the decisive turning point around 1600, after which the former minority variant -s became the majority variant. As regards external conditioning, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003) have shown that after 1500 women were ahead of men in the diffusion of -s. It was first the North and then London that led the change. London’s role cannot be underestimated since, as mentioned above, -s appeared in merchants’ letters there as early as the fifteenth century. Until the 1580s, -th was the dominant suffix in the language of the upper ranks, professionals and wealthy merchants, whereas -s was used by lower social ranks. Around 1600 the use of -s rapidly grew among the upper echelons, and this endorsement guaranteed its rather rapid adoption by the majority of the English people. Table 4.  Third-person singular suffix. Stem-final non-sibilant Age

Stem-final sibilant

-s

%

Tot

-th

-s

3 26 54 83

23 48 59 52

13 54 92 159

1 0 4 5

0 0 0 0

-th

%

Tot

0

1 0 4 5

0

4 10 1 15

60 75 64

0 0 10 4 14

Walter Ralegh (Chi-square 6.33; p<0.05) 1581–1589 1590–1599 1600–1618 Total*

27–35 36–45 46–64

10 28 38 76

Philip Gawdy (Chi-square 23.69; p<0.001) 1579–1589 1590–1599 1600–1616 Total*

17–27 28–37 38–54

61 62 55 178

26 17 58 101

30 22 51 36

87 79 113 279

4 10 1 15

0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0 3

21 54 322 76 473

100 100 99 100 99

21 54 325 76 476

0 0 4 1 5

0 0 6 3 9

John Chamberlain 1597–1599 1600–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total

44–46 47–56 57–66 67–72

*Comparison of the totals Ralegh/Gawdy: Chi-square 10.643; p<0.01.

letters. Ralegh is the only informant whose letters can be divided into two groups according to the recipient, family and nonfamily, but the number of family letters is unfortunately very low, only 11 out of 120 letters.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

Table 4 gives the diverging profiles of the three men. Chamberlain’s only choice was -s in nonsibilant verbs, and he is the only one who has begun to insert -es onto verbs with a stem-final sibilant (see example 10 above). In the first category of verbs, Gawdy’s total score of -s was only 36% and Ralegh’s 52%, and neither of them used -s in the second. A comparison with the curve in Figure 2 shows that Chamberlain was far ahead of the average but Gawdy and Ralegh lagged somewhat behind. Chamberlain’s leadership is not unexpected, as according to the CEEC, London was in the lead compared with the other three regions, the North, East Anglia, and the Court. He is actually one of the most advanced users of -s in the whole corpus (Raumolin-Brunberg 2006), perhaps reflecting the usage in his nongentry family. Both Ralegh and Gawdy changed their usage over time, as did five other early modern informants studied in Raumolin-Brunberg (2005).12 Ralegh’s steady increase might be explained by the growing use of -s at Court, in other words, by his increasing exposition and accommodation to the new suffix. Gawdy’s fall-rise-fall pattern is more difficult to understand. Perhaps it is a question of a young migrant’s mixed identity and varying pattern of accommodation, as we know that -s was still rare in his home region of East Anglia during this period (Nevalainen, Raumolin-Brunberg & Trudgill 2001). However, what is interesting is the obvious convergence, since after 1600 both Gawdy’s and Ralegh’s scores exceed 50 per cent. Table 5.  Third-person singular suffix in frequent verbs. Frequent verbs

Ralegh Gawdy Chamberlain

Other verbs

-th

-s

%

Total

-th

-s

%

Total

27 82 2

46 56 267

63 41 99

73 138 269

49 96 1

37 45 206

43 32 100

86 141 207

Ogura and Wang’s (1996) claim that -s was first introduced into the most frequent verbs was also tested. Their article, based on the Early Modern Section of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, divided verbs into groups according to frequency. 12.  The other five were Queen Elizabeth I, Sir John Harington, John Holles, Earl of Clare, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and Henry Oxinden (Raumolin-Brunberg 2005). Three of the ten people studied did not change their usage:  Sir Francis Hastings, John Chamberlain and Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia. In my previous studies, the material by Sir Walter Ralegh and Philip Gawdy was more limited than in the present one. It may be worth mentioning that Philip Gawdy is the only informant whose curve forms a zig-zag pattern.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

I decided to look only at nonsibilant verbs, and used Ogura and Wang’s division into 33 frequent and 438 less frequent lexemes as the basis of my study. Excluding have and do, Table 5 gives the statistics of the percentages of the two suffixes in my informants’ language.13 Among the frequent verbs, the proportion of -s is larger than in the other verbs in Ralegh’s and Gawdy’s material, but the difference between the two categories is statistically significant only in Ralegh (p<0.025). This result is in harmony with Ogura and Wang’s argument. 4.3  Auxiliary do 4.3.1  Affirmative periphrastic do One of the peculiarities of Early Modern English was the use of the auxiliary do in affirmative statements. According to the vast amount of research on this subject, the most famous being Ellegård (1953), certain linguistic environments promoted the use of do, such as second-person singular subject, past tense and preverbal adverbial. On the basis of the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS), Nurmi (1999b) finds it difficult to see how these features could play a major role. Her more extensive study on the whole of the CEEC (Nurmi 1999a: 23–27) claims that the function of do in the sixteenth century was not grammatical but rather belonged to the fields of discourse and style. Only later did do acquire the NICE (Negation, Inversion, Code, Emphasis) qualities it has today. Examples (11)–(15) illustrate the use of affirmative do in my data. (11) his adventurers have taken away their parts and brought it to Lundun. I do therfore humble pray yow to deale withe my Lord Admirall (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1602; Ralegh 240) (12) The greatest lovers do feede on the leaste favors (Philip Gawdy, 1581; Gawdy 9) (13) Betwene Sylla and Ushin wher we did endure very sore weather as might be abiden at the sea (Philip Gawdy, 1591; Gawdy 57) (14) Sir Thomas Bodley doth rather empaire then amend, for all the help that phisicke can affoord (John Chamberlain, 1612; Chamberlain I, 386) (15) Yesterday was our Lord Maiors feast and solemnitie, which most of the counsaile and great Lords did honor with theyre presence (John Chamberlain, 1619; Chamberlain II, 188)

13.  Unlike other scholars, Ogura and Wang (1996) argue that have and do need not be treated differently from other verbs. I disagree as, for instance, the S-curve for have forms a pattern different from the other verbs, rising upwards only in the last few decades of the seventeenth century.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

To be able to compare my data with the general figures on the CEEC presented by Nurmi, I have counted the occurrences of affirmative do per 10,000 running words. The results of this method may not be as accurate as they would have been if the linguistic variable had been the basis. The variable count would have been a laborious task, as it would have been necessary to include all the cases where do might have been used. A methodology test in Nurmi (1999a: 67–69) shows, however, that a frequency count placed twelve CEEC informants practically in the same order as the corresponding variable count did and, consequently, the frequency count seems to draw a picture that is sufficiently accurate for the description of the general development, although comparability with other changes and statistical testing suffer from this solution. As Figure 3 shows, this is in fact a rather unusual shift for students of language change, as we examine the loss of a syntactic element rather than the adoption of a new one. The curve has a considerable dip after the turn of the century, which is interesting for this study, as Nurmi (1999a: 175) claims that “all but the oldest (generation) drop their use of do at the same time”, a finding that clearly signals communal change. Nurmi also shows that a crossover took place in gender relations in 1600–1619, so that women, who had only had about half of men’s frequencies (21.2 to 38.1) in 1580–1599, diminished their usage less than men in 1600–1619 (women 14.0, men 12.7), and increased it again to 28 against men’s 16.0 in 1620–1639 (Nurmi 1999a: 165–182). As far as regional variation is concerned, the Court and London seem to be leading the change, which according to Nurmi (1999a: 180), might be connected with the arrival of the influential Scots into the Court. This argument is based on the fact that the use of affirmative periphrastic do was much rarer in Scotland than in the south of England (Meurman-Solin 1993: 263). 40 35 30 25 Occurences 20 per 10,000w 15 10 5 0 1580– 1589

1590– 1599

1600– 1609

1610– 1619

1620– 1629

Figure 3.  Periphrastic do in affirmative statements, 1580–1629. Frequency of do per 10,000 words. Based on Nurmi (1999a: 169).



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

Furthermore, regarding register variation, Nurmi’s research shows that during the last few decades of the sixteenth century, do was more frequent in informal letters than in formal ones (Nurmi 1999a: 101–109). A further important finding is that social aspirers used affirmative do less than other groups, although their scores were on the increase in 1580–1599. Table 6.  Periphrastic affirmative do. Age

N

Word count

Occurrences per 10,000 words

27–45 46–62

28 46 74

19,037 20,572 39,609

14.7 22.4 18.6

17–27 28–37 38–54

49 17 49 115

16,632 13,625 27,747 58,004

29.5 12.5 17.7 19.8

44–46 47–56 57–66 67–72

0 1 23 3 27

3,545 10,970 43,268 11,566 69,349

0.0 0.9 5.3 2.6 3.9

Walter Ralegh 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total Philip Gawdy 1579–1589 1590–1599 1600–1616 Total John Chamberlain 1597–1599 1600–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total

As Table 6 indicates, none of our three informants participated in the dip just after 1600, so the pattern of communal change which Nurmi observed for whole generations does not seem to hold here. On the whole, none used do to the extent that we find in the corpus averages, and the early low figures of Ralegh and Chamberlain may be explained by their being social aspirers, who perhaps resorted to the avoidance strategy when they were uncertain of the social value of the use of do. Gawdy may have had his aspirations, too, although his social rise was not marked. As regards idiolectal change, Ralegh’s employment of do grew even during the time when other courtiers were using it less frequently. His disregard of Court preferences can perhaps be explained by his imprisonment in the Tower, which must have severed his ties with the Court and its language. Interestingly, Gawdy’s pattern is again fall-rise. The early high frequency may reflect his East Anglian origin, and his dip seems to take place earlier than the general one in Figure 3. Chamberlain’s level is extremely low even for a Londoner.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

4.3.2  Do in negative statements Another development of do-periphrasis is its use in negative sentences, in other words one of the above-mentioned NICE qualities, which are part and parcel of English grammar today. As examples (16)–(17) show for the indicative and (18)– (19) for the subjunctive, negative statements with the negator not could be produced with or without resorting to auxiliary do. Examples (20)–(21) show that this was also true with the so-called know group of verbs that were later in their adoption of do (e.g., Nurmi 1999a). In this study, this group includes the verbs know and doubt. (16) I here not from any part of the world as yet (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1602; Ralegh2 237) (17) I do not here how yow like the white stonn. (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1595; Ralegh 133) (18) and Sir H. N. was never neerer the marke, which yf he hit not how I will beleve no more secret assurances. (John Chamberlain, 1612; Chamberlain I, 397) (19) Yf the Princes sicknes do not hinder, the King meanes to go toward Roiston on Friday (John Chamberlain, 1612; Chamberlain I, 384) (20) I know not whether any miscreant gready companion hath brought any thing to yowr handes agaynst me. (Philip Gawdy, 1602; Gawdy2 118) (21) And now agaynst Christmas we thinke yow sholde remember olde Peter the tothe drawer for a Christmas man in the Chimneye corner but I do not knowe that euer he trauyled withe any mystris. (Philip Gawdy, 1600; Gawdy2 111).

Figure 4 shows the percentages of do counted from all negated sentences that could have used do. Clauses with another auxiliary as well as the main verb be have been excluded as well as some other verbs that never appeared with do in the CEEC (for details, see Nurmi 1999a: 143). For this study, I have followed the 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 1560– 1579

Main group Know group

1580– 1599

1600– 1619

1620– 1639

Figure 4.  Periphrastic do in negative statements, 1560–1539. Percentage of do from the negated sentences where do could be used. Based on Nurmi (1999a: 151).



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

model of previous studies and also excluded need, dare and ought, which were never negated with do. In Figure 4, the know group with fewer occurrences of do has been separated from the main group of verbs. The growth of the negative do-periphrasis began in the first half of the sixteenth century (Nurmi 1999a: 149), but its proportion stayed below 40% in its second half and at the beginning of the next century. With a dip after 1600; the curve in Figure 4 resembles that of affirmative do, although the method of counting is different. Nurmi (1999a: 141–162) shows that at first men were in the lead but after a crossover in 1600–1619, women were ahead of men. There is also some evidence that social aspirers avoided negative do before 1640, which might have been induced by their linguistic insecurity under ongoing change. Table 7.  Do in negative statements (auxiliaries, have, be, need, dare and ought excluded). Main group Age

zero

do

Know & doubt

%

Tot.

zero

do

%

Tot

18 13

15 9 24

21 13

10 10 28 48

0

13 48 8 69

Walter Ralegh (Chi-square 6.40; p<0.025) 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total*

13 23 36

3 28 31

19 55 46

16 51 67

12 9 21

3 0 3

17–27 28–37 38–54

27 16 27 70

14 7 12 33

34 30 31 32

41 23 39 103

10 10 22 42

0 0 6 6

44–56 57–66 67–72

12 33 12 57

4 12 2 18

25 27 14 24

16 45 14 75

13 48 8 69

0 0 0 0

27–45 46–64

Philip Gawdy 1579–1589 1590–1599 1600–1616 Total* John Chamberlain 1597–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total*

*Comparison of the three totals: Chi-square 8.04; p<0.025.

Here again, the differences in the use of do between the three men are clear and statistically significant (p<0.025). Chamberlain’s score is the lowest, and Ralegh’s use after 1600 (55%) is significantly above the corpus average. In this case, Ralegh’s behaviour is not in agreement with Nurmi’s findings about the avoidance strategy in social aspirers’ letters. One can, of course, speculate about his being hypercorrect when he wrote long appeals to his superiors from the Tower. In any case, his increase in the use of do is statistically significant (p<0.025). In contrast, Table 7 witnesses relative stability in Gawdy’s correspondence, except for the use of do in the know group after 1600. Chamberlain’s drop appears later than in the general trend in Figure 4.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

4.4  Relative pronoun who The subject relative pronoun who was introduced into English later than the corresponding oblique forms whom and whose. According to the literature (e.g., Rydén 1983), who was first found in closing formulae in letters during the first half of the fifteenth century. In these cases its antecedent was the deity, as in “that knoweth God, who have you in his blessed kepyng” (Stonor letters, I, 47, before 1431). From this position the use of who spread to employment with proper name antecedents, then to common noun antecedents, and finally to pronoun antecedents. The early cases comprise only nonrestrictive relative clauses, but later who also found its way into restrictive clauses. Examples (22)–(27) illustrate the use of the three alternative subject relative markers who, which and that in nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses. (22) He was on Tewsday with the Quene who used him extraordinarilie well (John Chamberlain, 1612; Chamberlain I, 368) (23) For wheras Your Majestye hath reason to reckon mee among thos who have foolishly imagined meischeif, who have wickedly intended the greatest ill towards the greatest goodnes (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1603?; Ralegh 269) (24) My lady Skott whiche was sometymes my Lady Heyward lately deade (Philip Gawdy, 1603; Gawdy 126) (25) by that humbell vassall which yet breatheth by your Majesties permission and meere mercy (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1603?; Ralegh 260) (26) Capt: Chute (that shold or wold have ben knight in Fraunce) is in likewise about some such matter. (John Chamberlain, 1599; Chamberlain I, 85) (27) not dryven farther to complain against them in a mater so injustly begon and prosecuted by them that ar, or shold be, protectors and not opresers off poor pepll. (Sir Walter Ralegh, 1594?; Ralegh2 111)

There is no study of who based on the whole of the CEEC, but Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2002) have looked at who as opposed to subject (the) which and that with human reference in 1460–1499 and 1560–1599 in four regions. Table 8 gives the results of the latter period, which in part coincides with the period in this study. The fourth alternative, zero, is missing from the material, because tracing its occurrences in the untagged corpus would have been too laborious. The use of zero subject was not common, but sometimes it appeared in existential clauses, e.g., “ther is nor king nor queen nor generall nor any elce can take more care then I do … ” (1596; Ralegh 141). The table contains sufficient material from all regions except for the North. According to Table 8, who was most popular in East Anglia, which was also the last stronghold of which, the relative pronoun that was about to lose its capacity



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

Table 8.  Subject relative markers with human reference, 1560–1599.* who

Court London North East Anglia

which

Total

that

N

%

N

%

N

%

152 31 3 167

41 31 33 50

35 6

10 6

72

21

180 63 6 96

49 63 67 29

367 100 9 335

*Table 8 also contains relative markers with the deity as antecedent. In Tables 8 and 9 which covers both which and the which.

to refer to human antecedents. Taking these two together, East Anglia seems to have favoured wh-pronouns, whereas Londoners preferred the th-strategy. Although, unfortunately, we have no direct information about the sociolinguistics of who in the CEEC, something can be inferred from Table 8. Because we believe that Londoners were from lower ranks than the Court, it is likely that the whstrategy was favoured by the upper ranks, while the lower strata preferred that. This finding is in line with arguments that the introduction of wh-pronouns was a change from above, in other words, a learned change, although the use in East Anglia can hardly be accounted for by this argument. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2002: 117–119) argue that in 1560–1599, who had come to be used in connection with proper name antecedents (c. 80% of the cases), common noun antecedents (c. 40%) and pronoun antecedents (c. 20%). Table 9 testifies to the spreading of who even into restrictive relative clauses. Table 9.  Subject relative markers with human reference, 1560–1599, nonrestrictive and restrictive relative clauses. who N

which %

Total

that

N

%

N

%

18 5

9 10

34

20

33 15 1 5

17 30 33 3

196 50 3 172

17 1

10 2

38

23

147 48 5 91

86 96 83 56

171 50 6 163

Nonrestictive relative clauses Court London North East Anglia

145 30 2 133

74 60 67 77

Restrictive relative clauses Court London North East Anglia

7 1 1 34

4 2 17 21

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

Table 10.  Subject relative markers (human and deity antecedents). who Age

which

Total

that

N

%

N

%

N

%

27–35 36–64

27 46 73

44 51 51

5 9 14

8 11 10

30 26 56

48 32 39

62 81 143

17–27 28–37 38–54

5 18 25 48

12 45 33 30

0 3 10 13

0 7 13 8

38 19 40 97

88 48 53 61

43 40 75 158

44–46 47–56 57–66 67–72

6 12 65 31 114

30 48 42 62 45

1 1 9 1 12

5 4 6 2 5

13 12 82 18 125

65 48 53 36 50

20 25 156 50 251

Walter Ralegh 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total* Philip Gawdy 1579–1589 1590–1599 1600–1618 Total* John Chamberlain 1597–1599 1600–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total*

*Comparison of the totals: Chi-square 19.46; p<0.001.

London seems to be the region that was most reluctant to use who in this context, but the Court, too, was very much behind the East Anglian usage. Table 10 gives the figures for all occurrences of subject relativizers who, which and that in my data. Again, the differences between the three informant totals are statistically highly significant (p<0.001). Ralegh’s and Chamberlain’s use of who is above the regional scores of the Court and London given in Table 8, while Gawdy’s figures are near the Court/London averages. His East Anglian background is not discernible, especially when we see his high proportion of that, which is also Chamberlain’s first choice. The statistical testing of the longitudinal development of the language of the three informants requires conflation of columns. A look at the newcomer who against the older variants which and that gives statistically significant differences in the case of Gawdy and Chamberlain but not for Ralegh. The alternative test, posing wh-pronouns against that gives a different picture:  Chamberlain’s and Ralegh’s figures are not significant and, with Gawdy, only the difference between the first decade and the next is significant. In Gawdy’s case, we might think that the choice was between wh- and th-strategies, and once the wh-strategy had been chosen, there was variation between the wh-pronouns.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

The patterns that emerge from the first part of Table 11 are not unexpected. The proportion of who is high in all, and the figures correspond quite neatly with those for the Court and London in Table 9. It is obvious that Ralegh does not make any changes across his writing period. Table 11.  Nonrestrictive and restrictive relative clauses. who Age

which

Total

that

N

%

N

%

N

%

27–45 46–64

25 34 59

71 72 72

2 3 5

6 6 6

8 10 18

23 21 22

35 47 82

17–37 38–54

23 24 47

70 57 63

2 8 10

6 19 13

8 10 18

24 24 24

33 42 75

44–46 47–56 57–66 67–72

6 12 65 31 114

43 57 55 79 59

1 1 9 1 12

6 5 8 3 6

7 8 45 7 67

50 38 38 18 35

14 21 119 38 193

Nonrestrictive relative clauses Walter Ralegh 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total* Philip Gawdy 1579–1599 1600–1616 Total* John Chamberlain 1597–1599 1600–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total*

Restrictive relative clauses Walter Ralegh (Chi-square 7.59; p<0.01) 1581–1599 1600–1618 Total

27–45 46–64

2 12 14

7 35 23

3 6 9

11 18 15

22 16 38

81 47 62

27 34 61

17–37 38–54

0 1 1

3 1

1 2 3

2 6 4

49 30 79

98 91 95

50 33 83

44–56 57–66 67–72

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0

0

10 37 11 58

100 100 100 100

10 37 11 58

Philip Gawdy 1579–1599 1600–1618 Total John Chamberlain 1597–1609 1610–1619 1620–1625 Total

*Comparison of the totals: Chi-square 9.56; p<0.05.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

A test of conflated categories does not give any significant changes in Gawdy’s usage, but for Chamberlain the same pattern emerges as for Table 10. Who against the other two pronouns proves significant (p<0.05), but wh against th does not. The restrictive relative clauses in the material offer a different picture. With that as his only choice, Chamberlain’s grammar seems invariable in this respect. Gawdy, too, uses that nearly always. Ralegh is very different, with a rather strong wh-strategy even for restrictive relative clauses and the increase in the use of who is statistically significant (p<0.01). All in all, we can see that during the period under analysis, who had only begun to spread into a new linguistic context, restrictive relative clauses. It seems that in the early phase of diffusion, with both invariable and variable grammars living side by side, the differences between individuals stand out more clearly than in later phases, when the changes tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative.

5.  Discussion and conclusion Despite the similarity in terms of gender and social status, the linguistic profiles of the three early modern gentlemen whose language has been examined in this study turned out to be rather divergent. However, no one stands out as being different in all shifts, but the native of London with a non-gentry background, John Chamberlain, deviates from the other two in many ways. His usage is different in the following changes: my/thy vs mine/thine, third-person singular suffix, affirmative do and restrictive relative clauses. Furthermore, he avoids do in the negative statements in connection with the verbs know and doubt. On the other hand, Ralegh and Gawdy are alike in my/thy vs mine/thine, third-person stemfinal sibilants, affirmative do, negative do in the know group, and the wh-strategy in relative markers. As far as participation in the ongoing changes is concerned, it is clear that no one is advanced or conservative overall. This individual variation is not in conflict with the observations of the CEEC informants in general (see e.g., Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 92–109). Despite similarity in background, people seem to make their own choices from the repertory of linguistic variants used among their social groups in order to create and support their identities and personal styles (see also Beckett 2003). In terms of lifespan changes, Chamberlain stands out on account of his stability. His grammar seems very fixed, the only change appearing in his growing use of the relative marker who, albeit only in nonrestrictive clauses. The person who changes his usage most is Sir Walter Ralegh, who increases the proportion of thirdperson -s suffix as well as affirmative and negative do and wh-strategy among relative markers, especially among the restrictive relativizers. Gawdy’s language is



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

more stable, but one can distinguish an interesting rise-fall pattern in his usage, in particular in the third-person singular suffix and affirmative do. It is impossible to pinpoint any one reason for the similarities and dissimilarities between the informants. The first factor that comes to mind is age, and Chamberlain’s fixed grammar may be connected with the fact that our material covers the period when he was between 44 and 72 years of age. There is no way of knowing whether he had acquired the forms he used in childhood or later in life. Interestingly, my findings show that Ralegh and Gawdy changed their usage when they were middle-aged. This seems to corroborate the results of Finnish and Swedish research claiming that changes do occur even in elderly people’s idiolects and not only among the young, as many sociolinguists claim. On the basis of my findings, it is impossible to make a distinction between the different components of grammar, as idiolectal changes occur both in morphology and syntax. Here it is important to point out, however, that the only really phonologically conditioned change my/thy vs mine/thine had almost run its course during the period studied, and hence it is not a good representative of this type of linguistic constraining. On the other hand, Aubrey’s comment on Ralegh’s unchanging use of broad Devonshire lends support to the claims of phonology being the most stable area in an idiolect. This comment and my findings together give us a picture of a man who changed a great deal of his morphology and syntax but retained the basic characteristics of his childhood pronunciation. If we then try to find explanations for the grammatical changes in Ralegh’s and Gawdy’s language, more than one scenario can be forwarded. This is not to suggest that these explanations should exclude one another, but they should rather be seen as intertwined despite being introduced separately here. We must not forget that they are applications of models that derive from present-day studies and, consequently, their interpretation is not easy because the languageacquisition phase is out of reach for us. (For language acquisition in historical research, see also Nevalainen in this volume). The first possibility is that Ralegh and Gawdy just carried on increasing the proportions of the incoming variants as a continuation of a process that had begun in their childhood. So the question would be of communal change, possibly cooccurring together with generational change, as attested in several grammatical changes in Early Modern English and even Present-day Finnish (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 86–92; Paunonen 1996). Nahkola and Saanilahti’s arguments about quantitative shifts may lend support to this line of thought. Although we do not know if our informants acquired the linguistic phenomena studied as variable, we do know that all the changes studied were in progress in the English society in the 1550s and 1560s, when they were born. As

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg

mentioned in Section 3.1, Nahkola and Saanilahti (2004) argue that it is more likely for adults to change features which have been acquired as variable. If, on the other hand, we change the focus and examine each linguistic context separately, there are cases with no change, such as Ralegh’s and Gawdy’s thirdperson suffixes in verbs with stem-final sibilants. These may have been acquired as invariable and they seem to have remained so in adulthood. There may be truth in the claims that it is less easy to change one’s language in qualitative terms than make shifts in the proportions of already acquired alternatives. This argument also seems to agree with Tagliamonte and D’Arcy’s (2007) findings on changes in frequency compared with underlying grammatical change. The second possible explanation takes migration into account. Both Ralegh and Gawdy were immigrants to London and the Court. It is natural here to suggest that accommodation accounts for the changes Ralegh and Gawdy made, in other words, that they adopted the forms that were used in their new domicile. These can have been new shifts for them, or perhaps the case was rather that the new domicile, the capital region, accelerated their use of the incoming variants, since the capital region was in the lead with most ongoing changes in the early seventeenth century (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003:  171–181). As regards Gawdy’s rise-fall pattern, it would be tempting to suggest that his identity and accommodation pattern towards London and the Court usage varied and changed over time. The third explanatory pattern also arises from migration. Here we might see a situation of dialect contact when two adults try to learn the patterns of language use of their new domicile. According to Labov (2007), adults have difficulties in learning abstract features of linguistic structure. Although the straightforward morphological changes like the possessives losing their nasals and the use of -s as the third person singular suffix cannot be thought of as abstract features, the auxiliary do in various linguistic contexts as well as the whole system of relative markers might be considered such. Perhaps the two men did not fully acquire the London or the Court patterns of usage, and at times Ralegh’s use in particular seems hypercorrect. This leads to a further issue which should not be neglected in the discussion of Ralegh and Gawdy, i.e., the pursuit of social advancement. Unlike Chamberlain, who rose socially but did not seem to have any further aspirations, the other two were upwardly mobile. As we have seen above, Ralegh was at times very successful as one of the Queen’s favourites, but Gawdy remained only on the fringes of the Court, which nevertheless probably meant advancement for an East Anglian younger son. This article provides further evidence for the participation of adults in ongoing linguistic changes, but it also shows that participation is not necessarily



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

the case. I believe that the gradually accumulating findings about lifespan changes should serve as an incentive to reconsider the validity of the apparent-time analysis and the roles of generational and communal changes, as Sankoff and Blondeau also suggest. On the whole, however, I can only agree with Sankoff (2005: 1010), who says “given the amount of variability we have encountered, it is probably too early to make valid generalizations”.

References Corpora CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. CEECSU = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki.

Other references Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York:  Macmillan and London: Collier. Aubrey, John. 1993/1982. Brief Lives. A Modern English Version Edited by Richard Barber. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer. Beckett, Dan. 2003. “Sociolinguistic individuality in a remnant dialect community.” Journal of English Linguistics 33 (1): 3–33. Blondeau, Hélène. 2001. “Real-time changes in the paradigm of personal pronouns in Montreal French.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 453–474. Bybee, Joan L. & Slobin, Dan I. 1982. “Why small children cannot change language on their own:  Suggestions from the English past tense.” In Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 21], Anders Ahlqvist (Ed.), 29–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change:  An Evolutionary Approach [Longman Linguistics Library]. London: Longman. Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary ‘Do’: The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English [Gothenburg Studies in English 2]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Finkelpearl P.J. 2004–2005. “Chamberlain, John.” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5046, accessed 31 December 2007. Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine I. 2000. “Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English?” Nature 408: 927–928. Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislaw (Eds), 1997. Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg Holmqvist, Bengt. 1922. On the History of the English Present Inflections, Particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Kerswill, Paul. 1996. “Children, adolescents, and language change.” Language Variation and Change 8: 177–202. Kurki, Tommi. 2005. Yksilön ja ryhmän kielen reaaliaikainen muuttuminen:  Kielenmuutosten seuraamisesta ja niiden tarkastelussa käytettävistä menetelmistä (Real-time language change in individual and group: On following linguistic changes in real and apparent time, and on the methods used in the study of language change). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kytö, Merja. 1993. “Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English.” Language Variation and Change 5: 113–139. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1, Internal Factors. Oxford, UK/ Cambridge, USA: Blackwell. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2, Social Factors. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell. Labov,William. 2003.“Pursuing the cascade model.” Social Dialectology: In Honour of Peter Trudgill, David Britain & Jenny Cheshire (Eds), 9–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Labov, William. 2007. “Transmission and diffusion.” Language 83 (2): 344–387. Lightfoot, David W. 2002. “Introduction.” In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David W. Lightfoot (Ed.), 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Louden, Mark L. 2003. “Child language acquisition and language change.” Diachronica 20 (1): 167–183. Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1993. Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose. Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Mullan, John. 1999. “Lost voices.” The Guardian. 18 June, 1999. Nahkola, Kari & Saanilahti, Marja. 2001. Kymmenen vuotta myöhemmin. Seuruututkimus kielenmuutosten etenemisestä yksilön kielessä ja puheyhteisössä. (Ten years later: A study of the progression of linguistic changes in idiolect and speech community) [Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 68]. Turku. Nahkola, Kari & Saanilahti, Marja. 2004. “Mapping language changes in real time: A panel study on Finnish.” Language Variation and Change 16 (2): 75–91. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. “The Corpus of Early English Correspondence.” In Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Eds), 39–54. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2000a. “The changing role of London on the linguistic map of Tudor and Stuart England.” In The History of English in a Social Context. A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 129], Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (Eds), 279–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2000b. “The third-person singular -(e)s and -(e)th revisited: The morphophonemic hypothesis.” In Words: Structure, Meaning, Function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky [Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 130], Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Nikolaus Ritt (Eds), 235–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. “The rise of the relative who in Early Modern English.” In Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral [LINCOM Studies in Language Typology 7], Patricia Poussa (Ed.), 109–121. München: Lincom Europa.



Lifespan changes of three gentlemen 

Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England [Longman Linguistics Library]. London: Pearson Education. Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Trudgill, Peter. 2001. “Chapters in the social history of East Anglian English: The case of third person singular.” In East Anglian English, Jacek Fisiak & Peter Trudgill (Eds), 187–204. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. Nicholls, Mark & Williams, Penry. 2004–2005. “Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/23039, accessed 31 December 2007. Nurmi, Arja. 1999a. A Social History of Periphrastic do [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 56]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nurmi, Arja. 1999b. “Rewriting the history of periphrastic do.” Paper presented at ICAME, Freiburg, May 1999. Ogura, Mieko & Wang, William S-Y. 1996. “Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of -s in the third person singular present indicative in English.” In English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Derek Britton (Ed.), 119–141. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004–2005. Oxford:  Oxford University Press.  http://www.oxforddnb.com. Paunonen, Heikki. 1996. “Language change in apparent time and in real time:  Possessive constructions in Finnish.” In Samspel och Variation:  Språkliga studier tillägnade Bengt Nordberg på 60-årsdagen, Mats Thelander (Ed.), 375–386. Uppsala Universitet: Institutionen för Nordiska Språk. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2005. “Language change in adulthood:  Historical letters as evidence.” In Letters and Letter Writing, Minna Palander-Collin & Minna Nevala (Eds), special issue of European Journal of English Studies 9 (1): 37–51. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2006. “Leaders of linguistic change in Early Modern England.” In Corpus-based Studies of Diachronic English [Linguistic Insights 31], Roberta Facchinetti & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 115–134. Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. “Social embedding of linguistic changes in Tudor English.” In Raymond Hickey & Stanislaw Puppel (Eds), 701–717. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nevalainen, Terttu. 2007a. “From mine to my and thine to thy: Loss of the nasal in the first and second person possessives.” In Tracing English through Time, Ute Smit, Stefan Dollinger, Julia Hüttner, Gunther Kaltenböck & Ursula Lutzky (Eds), 303–313. Vienna: Braunmüller. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nevalainen, Terttu. 2007b. “Historical sociolinguistics:  The Corpus of Early English Correspondence.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Diachronic Databases, vol. 2, Joan C. Beal, Karen Corrigan & Hermann Moisl (Eds), 148–171. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rowe, Joe. 2004–2005. “Gawdy family (per. c. 1500–1723).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/74464, accessed 31 December 2007. Rydén, Mats. 1983. “The emergence of who as relativizer.” Studia Linguistica 37 (2): 126–134. Sankoff, Gillian. 2005. “Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics.” In Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 2, Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (Eds), 1002–1013. 2nd completely revised and extended edition. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

 Helena Raumolin-Brunberg Sankoff, Gillian & Blondeau, Hélène. 2007. “Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French.” Language 83 (3): 560–588. Schendl, Herbert. 1997. “Morphological variation and change in Early Modern English:  my/mine, thy/thine.” In Raymond Hickey & Stanislaw Puppel (Eds), 179–191. Siebenhaar, Beat. 2002. “Sprachwandel von Sprachgemeinschaften und Individuen.” In Spracherwerb und Lebensalter [Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur], Annelies Häcki Buhofer (Ed.), 313–325. Tübingen/Basel: A. Francke Verlag. Stein, Dieter. 1987. “At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics:  Notes on the replacement of th by s in third person singular in English.” English Studies 5: 406–431. Sundgren, Eva. 2002. Återbesök i Eskilstuna:  En undersökning av morfologisk variation och förändring in nutida talspråk (Eskilstuna revisited:  An investigation of morphological variation and change in present-day spoken Swedish) [Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska Språk vid Uppsala Universitet 56]. Uppsala. Sundgren, Eva. 2004. Språklig variation och förändring: Exemplet Eskilstuna (Linguistic variation and change: Eskilstuna as an example). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Tagliamonte, Sali A.  & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. “Frequency and variation in the community grammar:  Tracking a new change through the generations.” Language Variation and Change 19: 199–217. Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1936. A History of Modern Colloquial English, 3rd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

section 3

Sociohistorical context

Singular you was/were variation and English normative grammars in the eighteenth century Mikko Laitinen This article investigates the sociolinguistic processes in singular you was and you were variation in eighteenth-century correspondence. The focus is on the sociolinguistic mechanisms in operation when one variant was established as a standard, high-prestige variant, and the other as a non-standard form. The data are drawn from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension and complemented with evidence from A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. The results show that you was peaks before the mid-eighteenth century and gradually becomes a socially stigmatized linguistic marker, as evinced in normative comments in grammars. Men lead the change: the form peaks earlier among men than women who resort to using the were variant longer than men.

1.  Introduction Sociolinguistic discoveries of prestige cover a wide range of phenomena, but they tend to have the one common denominator that sociolinguistic values, prejudices, stigmatisations and social identity markers are selected on arbitrary criteria.1 Chambers, discussing social implications of linguistic variation, illustrates this perspective: [T]he more deeply we inquire into the social meaning of language, the more clearly we see how arbitrary are the values that are commonly attached to it (Chambers 2003: 277).

.  The research reported here has been funded by the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG) and by LANGNET, the Finnish Graduate School in Language Studies.

 Mikko Laitinen

This paper focuses on discovering sociolinguistic processes for one prestige marker whose selection is arbitrary, but which in Present-day English is used to maintain social distinctions governed by both overt and covert prestige. I explore singular you was and you were variation in eighteenth-century correspondence, paying special attention to the sociolinguistic mechanisms in operation when one of the preterit be variants was established as a standard, high-prestige variant, and the other as a non-standard, socially-stigmatized form. The period covered here provides new grounds for research, since the eighteenth century offers access to direct normative statements of some linguistic forms over the others. Finegan (1999) shows that these stigmatizations took place in the first English grammars that were normative in their approach. I shall first consider the linguistic variable of you was vs you were in singular uses and show how it caught the grammarian’s attention in one influential normative grammar in the mid-eighteenth century. I then survey selected previous research on the preterit be variation with the singular second-person pronoun. The main body of this paper is devoted to my corpus analysis that establishes the eighteenth century as a critical period in the diachronic development in you was/were variation and suggests that the role of normative grammars in the diachronic development of this particular variable was substantial, highlighting the arbitrariness of present-day linguistic social markers. 2.  The variants 2.1  Paradigmatic alternatives you was and you were To illustrate my case for modern readers and to show the irregularity of you was/were in the eighteenth century, (1) and (2) below show examples of the singular verb form uses. Example (1) is from Georgiana Cavendish, the Duchess of Devonshire, and (2) is from Princess Elizabeth, the daughter of George III. In these excerpts, you was may seem surprising to modern readers, since we would expect people from the upper ends of the society to use the now-standardised form were.

(1) the getting so large a sum must have distressed you, as you are much too generous ever to have any money, but yet I am sure it gave you pleasure to know you was of use to me. (Georgiana Cavendish, 1789?; George 4 II, 32–33)



(2) when I was undeceived by a letter from Gouly who told me that you was enchanted with Charlotte. (Elizabeth Hanover, 1796; George 4 III, 264)

The contexts in both of these examples are very similar, as the addressee was the Prince of Wales, George Augustus Frederick, the brother of Elizabeth Hanover and a close acquaintance of Georgiana Cavendish.



Singular you was/were variation 

The forms you was and you were function as paradigmatic alternatives. They both can be used in singular reference, as in examples (3) and (4) from Robert Dodsley, an eighteenth-century publisher and bookseller, written to poet William Shenstone, who was his close friend and frequent correspondent. Example in (3) is from Dodsley’s verbose letter thanking Shenstone for his visit to William’s estates, the Leasowes in Worcestershire, and (4) is from a letter in which literary matters are discussed.

(3) that You had treated with more neglect a much greater Personage than her Ladyship; but as you was not there to answer for your self, I kept silence even from ill words. (Robert Dodsley, 1755?; Dodsley: 206–207)



(4) to hold up her head mightily upon some little Commendations which You were pleas’d to flatter her with (Robert Dodsley, 1756?; Dodsley: 231)

Examining the illustrations in (1)–(4) quickly shows that the eighteenth-century variation of you was/were is different from Present-day English. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985: 130) show that you were in singular use is part of what is known as the standard variety of the language. You was, on the other hand, has been established as a sociolinguistic stereotype, which is a subject of overt comments and stigmatisations, as defined by Labov (2001: 196–197). What happened to you was as it went from a variant used by the highest social circles to a stigmatised non-standard variant? I propose that a likely source for the stigmatisation process of you was was the newly emerging genre of normative grammars in the eighteenth century. The variable rose above the level of consciousness and one variant was selected as the prestige form, heavily influencing you was/were variation and putting you was into decline. Among the most influential of these grammars was Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar published in 1762 (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000). Lowth (1762: 48), then a canon at Durham, writes in his grammar:2 Thou, in the Polite, and even in the Familiar Style, is disused, and the Plural You is employed instead of it: we say You have, not Thou hast. Tho’ in this case we apply You to a single Person, yet the Verb too must agree with it in the Plural number. … You was, the Second Person Plural of the Pronoun placed in agreement with the First or Third Person Singular of the Verb, is an enormous Solecism: and yet Authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it.

.  Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006) notes that Lowth’s “grammar reached 48 editions and reprints, including the unauthorised editions …it was translated into German in 1790 [and]… used by Murray as one of his major sources.”

 Mikko Laitinen

Lowth was one of the earliest grammarians to stigmatise you was, offering a modern historical sociolinguist a yardstick to be used in the analysis. Building on this particular proscription, my paper concentrates on social evaluation of language variability by speakers. The paper serves two purposes. Firstly, the aim is to provide quantitative corpus findings illustrating the proliferation of you was that prompted Lowth’s reaction against it. The question is not why the change towards you was took place and what the instigating factors were, but rather, how the change spread socially in the eighteenth century. Secondly, I will not only seek sociolinguistic patterns in the rise of you was but also in its eventual decline (but not fall) and the re-emergence of you were after the publication of Lowth’s grammar.3 The paper, therefore, addresses the question of how the diffusion of the new high-prestige variant, you were, proceeded. 2.2  From previous scholarship to my goals To date, there exist limited data on the diachronic patterns of you was/were variation in the eighteenth century and their sociolinguistic correlations in particular. Nevalainen (2006), in her study on the evolution of a vernacular pattern of default singulars, has shown that you was was practically non-existent in the seventeenth century. Her corpus queries in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence show that the material contains only rare cases of the singular verb variant in the second person. Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s (2002) corpus analysis of you was/were variation reveals that was emerged in the early eighteenth century, increasing markedly before peaking in the 1750s. The form eventually decreased towards the nineteenth century. She suggests that you was served as “a bridge phenomenon, facilitating the functional spread of you were to include singular reference”, and her argument is that “singular you was evidently felt to require a singular verb form” (2002:  97–100).4 Moreover, Tieken-Boon van Ostade shows that Lowth’s strong reaction to you was was not an isolated comment, as similar reactions had been recorded by other grammarians, most notably Joseph Priestley in 1761, a year before Lowth. Tieken-boon van Ostade’s conclusion is that these almost simultaneous reactions against the singular you was were carried out independently of each other, and brought about by the diffusion of the singular verb form in this structure in the first half of the eighteenth century.

.  See examples (6) and (7). 4.  The earlier second-person singular pronoun thou had decreased but not disappeared (García-Bermejo, Montgomery & Montgomery 2001: 352–353; Nevala 2002).



Singular you was/were variation 

I hope to complement Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s study by providing a historical sociolinguistic perspective on the diachronic frequencies of you was/ were. The empirical data in my approach are from correspondence, whereas Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2002) used edited, published texts. This data source selection allows a comparison of genre differences and enables me not only to determine the diachronic development of the variants more precisely but also to identify the directions of change in Labovian terms (2001: 275–279). A wellestablished fact in sociolinguistics is that formal writings tend to be more conservative than informal ones. The focus in my paper is on social diffusion of the variants, whereas Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s work concentrated on linguistic and social constraints in the variant selection. The main question answered in this corpus study is who used the emerging you was before Lowth’s grammar in 1762, and who preferred the new prestige variant you were after its publication.5 In addition to these general diachronic data, I will include gender as the independent sociolinguistic variable, with the aim of formulating generalisations for male and female writers in their reactions to overt stigmatisations of the variants. The gender of the writers has been selected as an independent variable since it tends to be the most prominent social factor in present-day sociolinguistics (Labov 2001, Chapter 8). To complement the empirical variant analysis, the last part of this paper concentrates on a group of prominent eighteenth-century language professionals and their use of you was/were in their personal correspondence. This group includes letter-writers who used language extensively in their professional life, including such people as the dictionary compiler Samuel Johnson, lawyer and early philologist William Jones and publisher Robert Dodsley. The letters by these individuals will be used as base-line data towards which the overall results are compared to provide generalisations about the influence of the emerging normative grammars. Testing the role of eighteenthcentury language professionals as possible early adopters offers interesting parallels with the present day. Recent research in the role of present-day language professionals, such as teachers, translators, interpreters, and those working to bridge the communication gap between different cultures and languages, has resulted in interesting insights on their role in adopting innovations very quickly (Fidelman 1998; Shetzer & Warschauer 2000).

.  For research resource purposes, I have decided to limit myself to a corpus study and exclude the question of the propagation of normative ideas in the eighteenth-century English society, a topic investigated by the scholars in The codifiers and the English language: tracing the norms of Standard English project at Leiden University (see: http://www.lucl.leidenuniv. nl/index.php3?m=13&c=126).

 Mikko Laitinen

The diachronic results here show the relevant occurrences of the preterit be with the singular second-person you, including both indicative and subjunctive sentences. Adverbial clauses introduced by conjunctions such as if, as if, though or in case were included as were were-subjunctives (Quirk et al. 1985: 158) and the occurrences with inversed operators, as in example (5).

(5) But it is over, and my Legg (I bless God) soe amended as I hope to morrow to begin my March down stayres, where I have obtained Dr Gale’s promise to meete mee, as I would despair of doeing yours, were you within reach. Which I shall now long to have; (Samuel Pepys, 1692; Evelyn 236)

The references to plural you, in examples (6)–(7), were excluded from the results, since the focus is on the number of the verb with the subject, which previously had the form thou.

(6) My dear Cassandra The Children were delighted with your letters — Martha & You were just in time (Jane Austen, 1799?; Austen 70)



(7) he Gave his Cind love to you and all his Brothers and sister an desird to know how you all ware they soon left Lisborn (Elizabeth Clift, 1797; Clift 154)

3.  The eighteenth century in a diachronic perspective The theoretical framework motivating my study is the notion that historical sociolinguistics is an approach seeking not only social conditioning factors in linguistic variation but also attitudes towards variation and varieties (Kastovsky & Mettinger 2000: xi). Since the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of language codification in the form of normativism, it provides a testing ground for sociolinguistic studies in which morphosyntactic variables can be used to examine the social dimension of language use. High-prestige variants and language varieties had existed earlier but, as Crowley (2003: 106ff.) has shown repeatedly, the eighteenth century saw the emergence of the notion of a “standard” in English. An historical sociolinguistic analysis of variability in diachrony prompts the questions of when and how some variants came to be used in dialects and others in standardised varieties. The case in point is the diffusion of you was into society, as suggested by Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2002), and its subsequent stigmatisation and ultimate non-standardisation. The selection of preterit be with the second-person you is of course arbitrary, even though you is historically plural. One can safely claim that saying you was here instead of you were here makes no difference to comprehension. From the present-day standard/non-standard language perspective, you was is stigmatised, as the uses of be are standardized in grammars: was in the first- and third-person singular and were with all other persons. you was has never disappeared from English. According to Kirsti Peitsara (personal communication), it is common in



Singular you was/were variation 

all dialect areas included in the Helsinki Corpus of British English Dialects.6 The following examples, (8) and (9), illustrate its use both in the spoken and written parts of the British National Corpus.7

(8) That’s what I’m saying, if, if, if, a- a- we hope you’re never in the situation 〈pause〉 but if you was describing that man, try and describe that man as honestly, honestly and as best as you can 〈pause〉 don’t say, if I say to you 〈pause〉 oh did he have jeans on? Don’t say oh yeah yeah he had jeans on. (BNC FMA 191–192)



(9) “Now sit still and stop hopping about, will you. Anyone’d think you was a flea on the organ-grinder’s monkey.” The windows were streaky like at the basement. (BNC AC5 711–713)

Percentages

In order to provide a point of comparison for my study of you was/were variation in the primary data of the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (CEECE), I ran a corpus query in the diachronic multi-genre ARCHER corpus (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers, see Biber & Finegan 1997). To complement the formal, published text types in Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s research, I limited myself to the four informal text types in the ARCHER: diaries, letters, journals, and drama. The results in Figure 1 show the broad generalisation of the variant proportions across three centuries. There are no cases of you was in the seventeenth century, as all the occurrences of the preterit be following or preceding you are in were. In the next century, the proportion of you was increases to 25 per cent, and drops again to 3 per cent in the nineteenth century (for the absolute numbers, see Table 5 in the Appendix). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ARCHER

WAS WERE

17th century

18th century

19th century

Figure 1.  You was/were variants in the ARCHER.

.  See http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/Dialects/index.html. .  The written examples of you was are from the imaginative text domain in the BNC.

 Mikko Laitinen

The initial conclusion of the previous studies and the quantitative information from the ARCHER is that you was must have been an eighteenth-century phenomenon embedded in the linguistic system with the reorganisation of the second-person pronoun paradigm, as the singular verb form was needed to distinguish the two pronominal numbers. To prompt grammarians such as Lowth to voice their proscriptions, you was must have been widely used in the early parts of the century.

4.  You was/were in eighteenth-century correspondence The frequencies in Table 1 below illustrate the results obtained in the CEECE, allowing us a more precise overall picture of the variable. Table 1 shows that you was in correspondence began to spread in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. You were forms a great majority in the first two 20-year periods (1681–1699 and 1700–1719), the data indicating that you was reached its peak in correspondence in 1720–1739 with over 60% of the cases in was. The increase in you was from the first period to its peak is statistically highly significant (chisquare test, p<0.01). The data corroborate the results in Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2002) and the corpus queries in the ARCHER corpus (Section 3 above). Certain differences emerge, however, and when compared with Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s results, the observed numbers in Table 1 strongly suggest that the transmission of the change towards was in the early eighteenth century came from below in Labovian terms (Labov 2001: 275–279), spreading from a relatively informal written genre of personal correspondence to more formal text types. You was remains the major variant in the next period (1740–1759) with almost 60% of the cases. After reaching its peak, the proportion begins to drop during the second half of the century. Table 1.  You was/were in 1681–1800. Years

was

%

were

%

Total

1681–1699 1700–1719 1720–1739 1740–1759 1760–1779 1780–1800 Total

15 22 31 49 23 61 201

18 34 63 56 31 37 38

68 42 18 38 52 105 323

82 66 39 44 69 63 62

83 64 49 87 75 166 524



Singular you was/were variation 

Comparing the numbers in Table 1 with Lowth’s quote in Section 2 above, shows that you was became a sociolinguistic marker in the mid-eighteenth century, rising above the level of social awareness after its increase in frequency in the early eighteenth century. The preterit were was arbitrarily selected as the verbal be form in the second-person singular, as the emerging ideas of correctness influenced its usage. This of course does not mean that Lowth was the only cause of the decline in you was; he used the form himself in his personal correspondence (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2002). He was commissioned to write the grammar and must have reflected the language use in his immediate circle. These results confirm that you was originates in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and it has remained in use since then. Was with a singular personal pronoun landed on fertile ground, since both the linguistic and social constraints were favourable to its emergence. The personal pronoun you had replaced the earlier singular form, thou, and the grammatical tradition of the eighteenth century held views such as “verbs have two numbers” (Murray 1795: 38). It was logical to use the verb in the singular with a singular pronoun. Moreover, social evaluations of correctness were just emerging, and proscriptions such as Lowth’s were not known. This is evident in examples like (1) and (2) above from people who would probably have had access to high prestige forms. Considering the arbitrary values attached to the verb variants, the eighteenth century proves to be a propitious period for this type of mixture in verb concord. The written data dating from that century and available to scholars today are more diversified than in the previous centuries. Our stock of material from this period is not unlimited, but it is more extensive than in the earlier periods, so that we simply have more variation in the writers’ social range. To provide examples of the social depth of the informants in the eighteenth century, the corpus used for this paper contains well-known letters written by the Clift family (Austin 1994; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2002). They were the children of a poor and relatively uneducated miller from Bodmin, Cornwall, most of them working in domestic service in Cornwall and London, although the youngest son, William, rose socially and eventually became the first Conservator of the Hunterian Museum of anatomical specimens. Their variant you was/were selection is illustrative of the social depth of the correspondence data used here. The oldest of the siblings, Elizabeth, has all 17 cases in you was. William also uses was at first, and only after 1797 do we find occasional cases of were. This has led some scholars to suggest that he was adopting the prestige form in London, and that was was becoming a socially marked form only at that point, forcing an ambitious person like William to switch away from the vernacular form (Austin 1994).

 Mikko Laitinen

Moreover, extracts like (10) offer us glimpses of the life and language of domestic workers in the late eighteenth century; the outworker Carolus Charles’s letter to his employer Peter Stubbs is an example of the inverted you was use. The material in the Banks collection includes vernacular material from people involved in the daily life of a large family mansion, Ravesby; example (11) was written by groundkeeper William Burbidge, and (12) by carpenter John Sherlock, engaged in the maintenance of the Banks’ estate. (10) I am sorry there was any mistake in the 4 In. frame saw files. Was you not mistaken in booking ’em, as I know there was no more than you mention’d (Carolus Charles, 1792; Stubs 14) (11) Sir, I thought I was to have had a dividend as well at Spilsby as at Hornecastle, but they would not let me hardly have it at Hornecastle because you was not there; thire dividend came to allmost six pounds and mine to thirty three shillings. (William Burbidge, 1721; Banks 74) (12) I would not have the work stopt and tould him he might pay these as I did (till then), but he gott none and I lost there summer for I wanted ’em at home wher our wages is paid without abatement. The removing the staires you was not charged with. (John Sherlock, 1718?; Banks 56)

Recent research into partly-schooled writers’ correspondence by Tony Fairman shows that you was dominated in the early nineteenth century, by which time roughly 80% of you was/were cases occurred in was in letters for parish petitions, a strong indication that it characterised non-standard, vernacular speech (Fairman personal communication). To conclude, it is reasonable to propose, using Labov’s terminology, that you was emerged from below. When judgements of incorrectness gradually became associated with it, i.e., there was influence from above the level of consciousness, the members of the upper ranks stigmatised the form and it became a stereotype of vernacular or non-standard speech (Labov 1972: 178–182), as Fairman’s data from the early nineteenth century suggest. 5.  Prestige forms and gender in the eighteenth century To get a more precise view of the social diffusion process of you was and its eventual replacement by you were, I now turn to gender differences in the variable. The focus here is on the sociolinguistics of writers’ attitudes towards variation and varieties in the eighteenth century. Norms and overt stigmatisations in this period have been well documented (Leonard 1929; Sundby, Bjørge & Haugland 1991), but few scholars provide quantitative corpus evidence



Singular you was/were variation 

that allows us to gain more insights into the role of normative grammars in language change. As my point of departure, I have selected two studies which have suggested that studies of gender differentiation in language use should take into account the level of social awareness concerning the diffusing linguistic variants. Labov’s gender paradox (2001:  275–279) proposes that in changes from above the level of consciousness women typically adopt prestige forms more quickly than men; thus, the role of women in the diffusion of linguistic changes is essential. In changes from below, women tend to use higher proportions of innovative forms, and the role of women in the actuation of new forms is critical. Recent historical sociolinguistic research has established that in the late medieval and early modern periods the role of women was more complex: “late medieval and early modern Englishwomen did not promote language changes that emanated from … outside their own spheres of ‘being’ ” (Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 131). Table 2.  Gender differences in you was. Men

1681–1699 1700–1719 1720–1739 1740–1759 1760–1779 1780–1800

Women

was

%

was

%

14 14 25 32 18 33

18 31 68 52 28 38

1 8 6 17 5 28

14 42 50 68 50 35

My aim is to shed light on the role of gender in promoting linguistic change, and the results of you was/were variation in Section 4 allow access to changes with both types of social awareness. In fact, the overall distribution of you was/ were frequency in this period turns out to be a text-book case for observing the gender paradox in a diachronic context. The stock of 524 relevant occurrences of you was/were in Table 1 was sorted according to the writers’ gender. Table 2 shows the results, which indicate that at the outset men adopt the new you was form slightly more quickly than women, suggesting that this diffusion from below was a male-led innovation in English. The proportions of you was increase for both men and women, but the corpus data show that it peaks earlier among men, during the period from 1720 to 1739, whereas women adopt the incoming singular form later than men. The emergence of you was was led by men from various backgrounds, as illustrated

 Mikko Laitinen

in examples (13)–(16). In (13) the merchant Nathaniel Pinney writes to his father John Pinney: (13) I am at a great difficulty to raise such a sume, and the security beeing soe verry good I am unwilling too to misse it. I remember you was telling me you had upwards of 100l which with the rent at Bridporte &c. money of Minifie &c. you may possibley make it up 2 or 300l which if soe twill doe (Nathaniel Pinney, 1690; Pinney 74)

George Fleming, educated at Kendall School and Oxford, and the future Bishop of Carlisle, writes to his father: (14) Sr I have received yours by London, yet but very lately; as the other also which you was pleased to send me by this Bearer. (George Fleming, 1689; Fleming 257)

Daniel Defoe, a writer and journalist, writes to Robert Harley, the first Earl of Oxford. (15) Indeed This Debt is Rais’d by Doublings of Intrest on bonds, The Length of Time haveing Encreased the Burthen. I was Riseing Fairly to Clear it all when the Publick Disaster you kno’ of began, but Sir That Entirely blasted all my affaires, and I Can Easily Convince you was above £2500 Loss to me all at Once. (Daniel Defoe, 1704?; Defoe 16–17)

Peter Wentworth, equerry to the Duke of Gloucester, writes in his early eighteenth-century letter:8 (16) but now was your opportunity, to take your post in Flanders, for which reason he was mighty glad to hear you was to come to the Hague as well as for several others; but if you let this slip he fear’d you wou’d for ever loose your pretentions in the Army (Peter Wentworth, 1711; Wentworth 182)

When the proportions of you was begin to decline, men resort to were earlier than women. In the last twenty-year period in Table 2, the proportions are almost

.  Peter Wentworth describes his education in his own words: “I neither can speak nor write Latin, for I had no school-learning, but went from Holland, without knowing one word of Latin, immediately to the University, and there made it my business to understand a Latin author as one does a French book, for I was too far advanced in age to spend much time to make myself a grammarian… but then I married, which put an end to all my studies, and have improved in nothing but in children for these 10 or 12 years last past” (Cartwright 1883: 3).



Singular you was/were variation 

equal. In the 166 cases actually falling within that period, the numbers are 33 for was and 53 for were for men, and 28 and 52 for women. These corpus findings show that men tended to use higher proportions of the innovative form, contradicting the gender paradox above; the results in textual variation indicate that the emergence of you was was from below, but the corpus data show men adopting the innovative form more quickly than women. Moreover, the data also show that men select the high prestige form, you were, earlier than women. The absolute numbers for men and women in the critical period of 1760–1779, i.e., when you was had started to decline, are statistically significant (p<0.05). We can conclude that eighteenth-century women tended to maintain the non-standard was form longer than men. Such findings on the role of men in the social evaluation of variants put normative rules in language in a new light, contradicting some of the previous proposals concerning the role of gender. Several explanations could be used to evaluate their validity. Firstly, the data used in this study may be too limited, the figures thus not representing the entire picture of the variant diffusion in social terms. If this is the case, you was became a stigmatised stereotype only in the nineteenth century. This explanation seems highly improbable, however, considering the results in Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2002) and the data from ARCHER in Figure 1. Secondly, in changes from above in the Labovian sense, i.e., with women typically adopting prestige forms more quickly than men, it would seem that the application of modern data on phonetic realisation to diachronic morphosyntactic variation is not unproblematic. This goes particularly for diachronic studies of language varieties before overt language proscription and standardisation. The ideas of linguistic norms and correct language were only beginning to emerge in the eighteenth century (Crowley 2003), and access to prestige variants for some groups in English society might have been limited. We can conclude that so far our knowledge of the role of language codification and prescriptivism in terms of correlational linguistics in diachrony is slight, and we will therefore have to turn to individuals who probably had access to the recently established standard norms.

6.  Language professionals and the diffusion of variants The last section of this paper concentrates on the use of you was/were by a group of letter-writers who could be considered language professionals of their time. Focusing on individuals whose life is closely tied to language use, i.e., early grammarians and linguists, publishers, actors, and poets, could provide deeper insights into the social evaluation of both new, innovative forms and standard, proscribed

 Mikko Laitinen

variants. It should be expected that such individuals probably had access to a wider range of variability in language. This is a pilot study for which Table 3 shows the writers included:9 Table 3.  The list of language professionals included in the analysis. Writer

Profession (lifespan)

Samuel Johnson David Garrick William Jones Robert Dodsley

Dictionary compiler (1709–1784) Actor (1717–1779) Lawyer and linguist (1746–1794) Publisher involved in the publication of Lowth’s grammar (1703–1764) Novelist (1775–1817) Poet, scholar (1716–1771) Philosopher, writer (1759–1797) Poet, writer (1683–1765) Poet (1688–1744) Poet, dramatist (1685–1732)

Jane Austen Thomas Gray Mary Wollstonecraft Edward Young Alexander Pope John Gay

The letters written by these individuals will be compared with the overall results in Sections 4 and 5 to establish generalisations about the influence of the emerging normative grammars and possible early adopters of these norms. Examples (17)–(31) show the variability in you was/were forms among this group. Samuel Johnson, compiler of A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), uses you were consistently in the letters included in the CEECE, his correspondence spanning the years 1738–1784. (17) Sir: I am to return You thanks for the present You were so kind as to send by me, and to entreat that You will be pleas’d to inform me by the Penny-post whether You resolve to print the Poem. (Samuel Johnson, 1738?; JohnsonS I, 15) (18) Sir: When You were here, you were pleased, as I am told, to think my absence an inconvenience; I should certainly have been very glad to give so skilful a lover of antiquities, any information about my native place (Samuel Johnson, 1784; JohnsonS IV, 423–424)

Johnson’s former pupil and good friend, actor David Garrick, is a mixed user. The corpus contains 20 occurrences of you with a preterit be. Nine are in the

.  The Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension contains some few thousand words of Robert Lowth’s letters, but unfortunately there are no occurrences of be either preceding or following the second-person pronoun in this material.



Singular you was/were variation 

singular and eleven use were. In his letters from the 1730s, Garrick uses you was consistently, as in example (19), and only after the 1750s do we find more you were (example 20) alongside the occasional you was (example 21). (19) Sr You was pleased to write in one of Your Letters when I should be fit for the University, I fancy in about two Years, I should have been ready by now, only my going to Lisbon backened me a great deal, but every body thinks at 18 (David Garrick, 1733; Garrick I, 7) (20) Sir. You were most Extreamly Wellcome to the Ticket or any other assistance in My Pow’r in all your Undertakings, whether Serious or Whimsical (David Garrick, 1754?; Garrick I, 203) (21) I desir’d my Brother to call upon You but You was in ye Country — I really cannot answer for any idle Stories that may circulate about this Town. it has been ask’d Me several times (David Garrick, 1761; Garrick I, 344)

William Jones, a lawyer and philologist, uses you were consistently in his letters from 1768 to 1794. (22) and I was particularly happy to be informed that you were in health. (William Jones, 1770; JonesW I, 76)

Publisher Robert Dodsley uses both the variants: all instances in his letters date from before 1762. (23) thanks you for the Improvements she receiv’d under your correction, seems to hold up her head mightily upon some little Commendations which You were pleas’d to flatter her with, and is vain and silly enough, poor creature, to fancy you might possibly be in earnest. (Robert Dodsley, 1756?; Dodsley 230–231) (24) I shall probably see Mr. Beard & Mr Havard before ’tis long, & will deliver your Compliments. I do not wonder You was pleas’d at Worcester Music-meeting, as I am inform’d there was much more eagerness amongst ye Ladies to see You, than to hear the Music. (Robert Dodsley, 1758?; Dodsley 373)

The only relevant case of you + preterit be by Jane Austen, in example 25, is with were. (25) I heard no news, except that Mr. Peters who was not there, is supposed to be particularly attentive to Miss Lyford. — You were enquired after very prettily, & I hope the whole assembly now understands that you are gone into Kent, which the families in general seemed to meet in ignorance of. (Jane Austen, 1800; Austen 53)

Thomas Gray uses the singular you was variant in his correspondence from the 1730s; his letters from the 1750s onwards all use you were, even though his primary addressee and correspondent Horace Walpole, in example (28), prefers you was.

 Mikko Laitinen

(26) After having been very piously at St Mary’s church yesterday; as I was coming home; somebody told me, that you was come, & that your Servant had been to enquire for me: (Thomas Gray, 1734?; Gray 12) (27) That nevertheless you were conscious, many accidents might arise to disappoint these hopes (Thomas Gray, 1765?; Gray 909) (28) Who & what sort of Man is a Mr Sharp of Bennet? I have received a most obliging & genteel letter from him, with the very letter of Edw. 6th which you was so good as to send me. (Horace Walpole, 1759; Gray 615)

Mary Wollstonecraft, writing at the end of the eighteenth century, uses you were consistently (example 29). (29) But, while I think of it, as your correspondent said, let me tell you that I have got a vigorous little Girl, and you were so out in your calculation respecting the quantity of brains she was to have (Mary Wollstonecraft, 1794; Wollstonecraft 255)

Combining the relevant occurrences of you was/were shows that these writers adopt the new standard form more quickly than the control group in the two earlier sections (Tables 1 and 2). The variant proportions in Table 4 below show that you were rapidly diffuses among language professionals, since you was can only be found in the correspondence of two informants dating after the publication of Lowth’s grammar in 1762. They are David Garrick, writing to his brother George Garrick (example 30), and Edward Young in a letter to his friend, painter George Keate (example 31). (30) I speak, intreat & Every thing else, but he does not go on’ — ’Tis strange he did not send for the map — Suppose you was to send a Card to know, if he wants it, (David Garrick, 1771?; Garrick II, 730) (31) Milton might possibly take his hint from the verses which You was so kind to send me; but there is a great difference between the beauty of the Root, & the Flower that springs from it. (Edward Young, 1764; Young 583) Table 4.  The frequencies and proportions of you was/were for the language professionals. Pre-1762

you was you were

Post-1762

N

%

N

%

7 17

29 71

2 34

6 94

The results of this study strongly support the hypothesis that you was emerged from below, since the proportion of the diffusing singular verb form for



Singular you was/were variation 

the professional group remains lower than that of the control group. Three of the six language professionals who use the variable in their correspondence prior to 1762 had university education:  Thomas Gray (Eton and Peterhouse College, Cambridge), Samuel Johnson (Litchfield Grammar School and Pembroke College, Oxford), and Edward Young (Winchester College and New College and Corpus Christi College, Oxford). Alexander Pope had private education and attended Catholic schools, since Catholics were debarred from universities, John Gay went to Barnstable Grammar School and Robert Dodsley’s educational background remains uncertain, but he was the eldest son of a Mansfield schoolmaster. The results in Table 4 also indicate that the role of these language professionals merits further investigation, particularly concerning their role in the social evaluation of both innovative forms and the established normative rules in the late eighteenth century. They adopt the high prestige you were form earlier than society at large, as they probably had access to the proscribed forms. Language as a means of making a living, and their readiness to evaluate variants makes such individuals an attractive target group in the endeavour to elucidate the role of normative grammars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 7.  Conclusion In this paper I have focused on the emergence and development of you was/were variation in 1681–1800. On the basis of quantitative corpus results we may conclude that the rise of you was was an eighteenth-century phenomenon, which began to spread in the late seventeenth century, reaching its peak before the mideighteenth century. In the Labovian S-curve, you was was at the mid-range stage, but the change was never completed (Labov 2001:  79–83). The results strongly suggest that this rise originated from below the level of consciousness, since the peak in you was occurs earlier in correspondence than in published material (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2002). The diffusion of you was was thwarted by the developing normative grammar tradition which played a vital role in the stigmatisation of you was, causing you was to be limited to non-standard speech from the mid to late eighteenth century onwards. Correlating the real-time data with writers’ gender shows that men led the change towards the prescribed you were, as women in the eighteenth century tended to maintain the non-standard you was form longer than men. The corpus results in the last section show that the individuals who most likely had access to proscribed forms should be the focus of further studies for their role in promoting language change in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

 Mikko Laitinen

Appendix Table 5.  You was/were variants in the ARCHER.

you was you were

17th century

18th century

19th century

0 25

20 59

3 81

References Corpora ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. 1990–1993/2002. Compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University, University of Southern California, University of Freiburg, University of Helsinki and Uppsala University. BNC = British National Corpus. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. CEECE = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki.

Other references Austin, Francis. 1994. “The effect of exposure to standard English: The language of William Clift.” In Towards a Standard English 1600–1800, Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 285–313. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1997. “Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English.” In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds), 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Cartwright, James J. 1883. The Wentworth Papers 1705–1739. Selected from the Private and Family Correspondence of Thomas Wentworth, Lord Raby, Created in 1711 Earl of Strafford, of Stainborough, Co. York. London: Wyman & Sons. Chambers, J.K. 2003. Sociolinguistic Theory:  Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance [Language in Society 32]. 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Crowley, Tony. 2003. Standard English and the Politics of Language. 2nd Edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Fidelman, Carolyn G. 1998. “Growth of Internet use by language professionals.” The CALICO Journal 15 (4): 39–57. Finegan, Edward. 1999. “English grammar and usage.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4, 1776–1997, Suzanne Romaine (Ed.), 536–588. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.



Singular you was/were variation 

García-Bermejo, Giner, Montgomery, María F.  & Montgomery, Michael. 2001. “Yorkshire English two hundred years ago.” Journal of English Linguistics 29 (4): 346–362. Kastovsky, Dieter & Mettinger, Arthur. 2000. “Introduction.” In The History of English in a Social Context. A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (Eds), v–xviii. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Leonard, Sterling Andrus. 1929. The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Lowth, Robert. 1762/1967. A Short Introduction to English Grammar [English Linguistics 1500–1800 18]. Menston: Scholar Press. Murray, Lindley. 1795. English Grammar. In Landmarks in English Grammar. The Eighteenth Century, Gerald Nelson (Ed.) (CD-ROM). London: University College London. Nevala, Minna. 2002. “Youre moder send a letter to the:  Pronouns of address in private correspondence from Late Middle to Late Modern English.” In Variation Past and Present, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 135–159. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. “Vernacular universals? The case of plural was in Early Modern English.” In Types of Variation:  Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces, Terttu Nevalainen, Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen (Eds), 351–369. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman. Shetzer, Heidi & Warschauer, Mark. 2000. “An electronic literacy approach to networkbased language teaching.” In Network-based Language Teaching:  Concepts and Practice, Mark Warschauer & Richard Kern (Eds), 171–185. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. Sundby, Bertil, Bjørge, Anne Kari & Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1800. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2000. “Robert Dodsley and the genesis of Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar.” Historiographia Linguistica 27: 21–36. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2002. “You was and eighteenth-century normative grammar.” In Of Dyuersitie & Chaunge of Langage. Essays Presented to Manfred Görlach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Katja Lenz & Ruth Möhlig (Eds), 88–102. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006. The Codifiers and the English Language:  Tracing the Norms of Standard English. http://www.lucl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=13&c=126; accessed 17 January 2006.

Encountering and appropriating the Other East India Company merchants and foreign terminology Samuli Kaislaniemi This study is a micro-level investigation of the processes of lexical borrowing in a historical language contact situation. It investigates three different types of borrowings from Japanese in the letters of East India Company merchants in Japan, 1613–1622. One type of borrowing in particular, the persistent “incorrect” use of a borrowed term (here called appropriation), is found to fit poorly into traditional models of borrowing. In order to understand rapid synchronic developments in language contact situations, such traditional models need to be supplemented by analyses of the socio-historical and discourse contexts of the borrowing events. The records of the East India Company prove a valuable resource for such studies.

1.  Introduction In the early seventeenth century, one of the primary qualifications for finding employment with the English East India Company was a knowledge of languages.1 This is not particularly surprising, as the world of commerce has always been international, and merchant communities have always been multilingual (see e.g., Wright 2002 and Trotter 2003). In the late Elizabethan period, those who attended grammar school were taught Latin, and merchant apprentices were regularly sent abroad for training (see McGrath (Ed.) 1957), where they would also learn European languages relevant to their trade. East India Company employees stationed in the East Indies could usually speak Portuguese or Spanish, and some knew French, Dutch, or Italian. All soon picked up local dialects or linguae francae — or at the

1.  The research presented in this study was funded by the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change (VARIENG), and by the Academy of Finland for the period 1.1.–30.6.2007.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

very least, all were quick to learn the large mercantile vocabulary necessary for conducting trade in the Indies. Nearly all of the words in this mercantile vocabulary were borrowings, and most were names for types of merchandise, currencies, weights and measures, but they also included words necessary or useful for living and conducting commerce in maritime Asia — words for interpreters, various kinds of ships, official documents and, inevitably, innkeepers, entertainers and prostitutes. Words were borrowed from all languages encountered, but while many borrowings remained close to their regional source, some words came to be used by East India Company employees across the Asian seaboard from the Red Sea to Japan. These borrowings and loanwords were a prominent feature in the letters sent home from the East Indies. From 1613 to 1623, the English East India Company had a trading post in Japan, in a provincial town which by accident had become host to Chinese, Dutch, and now English merchants. Half a dozen Englishmen lived and conducted trade in this multilingual setting for ten years, and they left behind a sizable corpus of correspondence and other documents. This study looks at three different borrowings from Japanese which occur in their letters home:  goshuin, a license for trade; tono, an honorific term of address akin to lord; and tatami, a kind of mat-cum-floorboard made of rushes. These three case studies have two objectives. Firstly, as discussions of three different types of borrowing, they form a micro-level investigation into the processes of borrowing in historical texts, which have received too little attention in the past. Secondly, they provide information on multilingualism and linguistic interaction between Englishmen and locals in Early Modern Asia — a subject which has been neglected. 2.  Lexical borrowing Typologies of lexical borrowing in the history of English can be divided into three types: morphological, semantic and sociolinguistic (Fischer 2001). In his survey of these typologies, Fischer notes several times that detailed typologies of borrowing can be problematic, mainly because it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify definite categories for historical data (2001:  105, 107–108, 109, 110). With respect to the present study, these typologies are problematic for a further reason, namely that they are not typologies of the borrowing event, but of the results of borrowing — usually viewed over the course of several centuries.2 2.  Studies of borrowing in PDE, on the other hand, are problematic due to their focus on features such as phonetic integration, which make them largely unsuitable for application to



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Nonetheless, the classic typologies provide us with a starting point, as all begin by making the distinction between borrowing lexis and borrowing referents and concepts, and proceed to point out that borrowings form a continuum and categorisation is not always simple.3 My approach is more philological than cognitive, but I find that the usage-based model of bilingualism given by Rohde, Stefanowitsch and Kemmer (2000) is more useful than other, more traditional models of language contact situations. Their “conceptual typology” of lexical borrowings is fairly typical, being based on traditional typologies, and it will serve for the purposes of this paper (Rohde et al. 2000: 4): 1. Words borrowed for new referents or concepts 2. Words borrowed for existing referents or concepts (lexicalised or not) 3. New referents or concepts borrowed for existing words (also known as semantic borrowing). The borrowings investigated in this paper fall under categories 1 and 2. Rohde et al. delve into the semantic processes of borrowing in some detail, but their article is an introduction to a theoretical model, not an empirical investigation. Although lexical studies of historical texts are by no means uncommon, studies of the process of lexical borrowing in historical texts remain few, and there is a need for better tools for such studies (but see Grzega 2003).4 In the present study, the classical typology illustrated by Rohde et al. will be supplemented with an analysis of the wider semantic fields of the borrowings and a close reading of their socio-historical context.

historical texts (see e.g., Holden 1976; Poplack, Sankoff & Miller 1988 and Boyd, Andersson & Thornell 1997). Furthermore, the distinction between code-switches and borrowings is a much-debated issue in code-switching theory, and one that does not need to be discussed for the purposes of this paper. For a recent discussion of theories of code-switching, see Myers-Scotton (2006:  239ff.); for a discussion of code-switching versus borrowing in historical texts, see especially Pahta (2004: 77–80). 3.  In addition to Fischer (2001), see Grzega (2003) for an excellent summary (and critique) of the classical typologies developed by the likes of Haugen (1950) and Weinreich (1966); see also Myers-Scotton (2002: 239ff.) for a slightly different approach. 4.  For overviews, see e.g., Serjeantson (1935) and Nevalainen (1999: 358–375); for smaller studies, see e.g., Cannon (2000), Skaffari (2003) and Podhajecka (2006); for a study of the borrowing process, see Gray (1998).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

3.  The material: The English Factory in Japan The material used in this study is the Factory collection from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement (CEECSU).5 The Factory collection consists of English East India Company correspondence from the years 1613–1624, selected from the correspondence of the East India Company trading post in Japan published in The English Factory in Japan, 1613–1623 (Farrington 1991). In this section, the historical, social and discourse context of the material will be described, and this will be followed by a detailed description of the material itself. 3.1  The English East India Company in the Far East The English East India Company (EIC) was founded in 1600. The EIC reached Japan in 1613, and established a “factory”, or trading post, on Hirado, a small island off the westernmost coast of Japan. The Hirado factory existed for ten years before being closed down as unprofitable, having failed to produce the mountains of silver expected by the EIC committee in London. There were several reasons for this failure: English misjudgement (the factory was established far from the commercial centres of Japan), failure to deliver on the part of the EIC (very few EIC ships came to Japan during the ten year period, and all brought inappropriate and ill-conditioned merchandise), animosity between the English and the Dutch (the Dutch had military superiority in the East Indies, and pursued their trade and conquests ruthlessly), and the changing political situation in Japan (by 1620 Christianity was proscribed and foreigners were made to feel unwelcome). The Hirado factory left behind a large corpus of material: correspondence and letter-books, a factory diary, ships’ logs and journals, accounts and bills, and some other documents such as wills and contracts (all the extant documents have been edited and published:  see Cocks 1978–1980 and Farrington 1991). While these documents are primarily concerned with business, the diary and correspondence in particular reveal much about the daily life of the English merchants in Japan. The main studies that have used the Hirado records to date are a history of the EIC attempt to establish themselves in Japan (Massarella 1990) and an unpublished study of the cultural interaction of the English merchants in Japan (Lewis 2004). The communicative and discursive aspects of the correspondence of the Hirado factory — or, for that matter, of the EIC in general — have hitherto only

5.  The CEEC and CEECSU collections Cely, Factory, Johnson, and Marescoe were used in this study. (See the Appendix of this volume for details.)



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

been investigated in Lewis (2004) and in my MA thesis (Kaislaniemi 2005). EIC correspondence has not been previously studied by linguists. 3.2  East India Company long-distance correspondence Voyages to the East Indies were costly and time-consuming. It took half a year to sail to Bantam, but as ships engaged in the “country trade” (as the intra-Asian trade was called) before heading back to England, voyages usually lasted from two to five years.6 From Bantam, Japan could be reached in four to eight weeks; once there, however, ships had to wait six months until the wind turned again to leave.7 On average, it took 26 months for EIC ships to reach Hirado from England. The return voyage theoretically took ten months without detours, but in practice it was always longer than a year. The distances involved meant that, although more than one copy of each letter was sent and all possible conveyances were used, letters from England took over two years to reach Japan, and letters from Japan took nearly a year to reach England. The distance was reflected in the length and contents of the letters, and EIC employees in the East Indies were required to write extensive letters home, but to stick to relevant matters: business. 3.3  The correspondents 3.3.1  The writers: The English Factory in Japan There are 21 writers in the Factory collection; all but one of them are EIC employees, and most of them are merchants. Six never visited Japan, but the rest were either Hirado factory members or visited Japan aboard EIC vessels. The lives of most of these men have not been researched, and for many little is known beyond their involvement with the EIC. Since the bulk of the Factory collection consists of letters by five writers (see Table 2 in Section 3.4), brief biographies for these are given here. Richard Cocks (c. 1565–1624) was the head of the Hirado factory.8 The second son of a Staffordshire yeoman, he was trained as a clothworker in London. Cocks lived in France from c. 1603 to 1608, during which period he wrote intelligence

6.  Bantam, near Jakarta on the island of Java, was the centre of the EIC’s Indies trade 1603–1682. 7.  For sailing times from England to the East Indies, see Farrington (1999). For details on EIC ships visiting Japan, see Farrington (1991: 1581–1588). 8.  This brief biography is based on Massarella (1985) and Farrington (2004).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

letters to Thomas Wilson, secretary to Sir Robert Cecil. Wilson became his patron, and probably helped Cocks find employment with the EIC. Cocks left England in 1611, and lived in Japan from 1613 until he was recalled in disgrace in 1623. Over a hundred letters written in Japan have been preserved (including several to Wilson and Cecil), along with a long manuscript of Cocks’s factory diary.9 Cocks died at sea en route to England on 27 March 1624. He was an honest and a sociable man, if not the most competent manager, exact accountant, or acute businessman. He was, however, an astute observer, and his letters from Japan to Wilson and Cecil contain lengthy, accurate descriptions of Japan. Nearly half of the letters in the Factory collection were penned by Cocks. Richard Wickham (d. 1618) came from Bristol.10 He was first employed by the EIC in 1607, but was captured by the Portuguese in Zanzibar in 1609. He managed to escape and return to England in 1610, and was re-employed by the EIC, serving as a member of the Hirado factory from 1613 to 1618. Wickham had attended grammar school and probably served an apprenticeship, and was the most competent businessman of the Hirado factory members, if sometimes ruthless in his dealings. He died in Bantam in late 1618.11 About a quarter of the Factory collection letters are by Wickham. William Eaton (d. post 1668) was a member of the Hirado factory from 1613 to 1623.12 He helped run the day-to-day business of the factory, pursued sales within Japan, and partook in two trading voyages to South-East Asia. Eaton lived to return to England, and was still alive in 1668 when the EIC was reconsidering reopening trade with Japan. Eaton’s son with his Japanese mistress was the first (half-)Japanese student to attend an English university: William jr is recorded as a student at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1640. William sr’s letters form a tenth of the Factory collection. William Adams (1564–1620) is commonly known as “the first Englishman in Japan” (see Farrington & Massarella 2000).13 Born in Kent, Adams was apprenticed

9.  A part of the diary is unfortunately missing. It has been published three times; the most comprehensive edition is the newest one (Cocks 1978–1980). 10.  This brief biography is based on McGrath (1955:  104), Farrington (1991:  1576) and Massarella (1990: 143). 11.  Wickham engaged in private trade, amassing a fortune which at his death was evaluated at more than £1,500 — something like £220,000 today — scandalizing the EIC committee at home. 12.  This brief biography is based on Farrington (1991: 1555). 13.  This brief biography is based on Massarella (2004). Many books have been written about Adams — or rather his myth — a recent one being Milton (2002). For a debunking of his myth, see Farrington and Massarella (2000).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

to a shipwright in London. He worked as a pilot from the 1580s, and left for Japan on a Dutch voyage in 1598. Only one of the five ships in this expedition reached Japan, in 1600, and that with just two dozen sick and emaciated men. Adams gained the favour of the temporal lord of Japan, the shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616), and was made a hatamoto (a bannerman or retainer) and granted a small estate. When the Dutch and English East India Companies arrived in Japan, Adams helped each obtain trading privileges from Ieyasu and set up factories. He was employed by the English EIC from 1614 to 1616, and afterwards worked as a free agent. Adams did not forget his wife and daughter in England, and regularly sent them money via the EIC. Adams died in Japan in 1620. Less than a dozen of his letters survive. Ralph Coppendale (d. 1617x1619) is a typical example of an early EIC employee, in that little is known about him.14 He was employed as an assistant factor on the EIC voyage that left England in May 1614. He captained the ship Hosiander from Java to Hirado in 1615, and remained in Japan for six months; four of his letters from this period have been preserved. He died in Java sometime between 1617 and 1619. 3.3.2  The recipients in London Aside from letters to other members of the Hirado factory, most of the letters in the collection were sent to the EIC committee in London and its governor, Sir Thomas Smythe. Richard Cocks also wrote lengthy descriptions of Japan to Sir Thomas Wilson and Sir Robert Cecil. While letters written to other EIC merchants in the East Indies are on occasion quite intimate, those written to their employers in London retain the level of formality necessary when writing to those of higher social rank. For the most part, letters written to the EIC committee do not stray from business matters. The EIC committee consisted of various major stockholders of the Company. They decided upon the actions of the Company, such as the gathering of subscriptions for voyages. The committee were also the employers of all EIC merchants (Massarella 1990:  90), and EIC employees were required to write to the committee using all suitable conveyances and were chastised for failing to do so (see Massarella 2001). Sir Thomas Smythe (c. 1558–1625) was a successful London merchant.15 He was appointed Sheriff of London in 1599, and in 1600 was elected the first Governor

14.  This brief biography is based on Farrington (1991: 1553). 15.  This brief biography is based on Farrington (1991: 1570–1571) and Morgan (2004).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

of the EIC, a position he held almost continuously until 1621. He was knighted on the accession of James I. Smythe was personally interested in exploration and trade, and welcomed informative letters from EIC employees. Sir Thomas Wilson (c. 1560–1629) studied law at Cambridge, and came under the patronage of William Cecil.16 From 1594 to 1605 he travelled on the continent, serving as a foreign intelligencer for the Cecils. During this time he met Richard Cocks in Bayonne; Cocks became one of his sources, and enjoyed Wilson’s patronage in turn. On returning to England, Wilson joined the secretariat of Sir Robert Cecil, and in 1606 obtained through him the post of Keeper of the Records at Whitehall. Wilson was one of the original subscribers to the Virginia Company, was keenly interested in the affairs of the EIC, and knew and corresponded with many of its employees (such as Cocks). He was knighted in 1618. 3.4  The Factory collection in CEEC Supplement The Factory collection consists of 220 holograph letters chosen from those published in Farrington (1991). In order to create a rough and ready division of the correspondence into spheres of discourse, I have divided the Factory letters according to “direction”, that is, according to the origin and destination of the letters. The resulting data are given in Table 1. Table 1.  The Factory collection in CEECSU, by direction. Direction Within Japan Japan to England Japan to the East Indies East Indies to Japan East Indies to England Within England Totals

Words

Letters

81,530 79,391 27,279 5,348 4,209 740 198,497

137 39 29 8 5 2 220

Average words per letter 595 2,036 941 669 842 370 902

This division by direction immediately reveals that, on average, the longest letters were those sent home to England. This is natural, for the length of the journey (both in miles and months) meant that extensive reporting took place when the opportunity presented itself. There is some variation among the 21 writers in the Factory collection, as can be seen in Table 2.

16.  This brief biography is based on Farrington (1991: 1577) and Kelsey (2004).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Table 2.  The Factory collection in CEECSU, by writer. Writer

Words

Letters

Richard Cocks Richard Wickham William Eaton William Adams Ralph Coppendale 16 other writers

97,488 48,123 19,317 11,430 3,012 19,127

86 64 29 8 4 29

Average words per letter 1,134 752 666 1,429 753 660

The lengthy letters written by William Adams and Richard Cocks bring the average length of their letters up above that of the rest of the writers in the Factory collection. However, the length of the letters in the Factory collection ranges from 93 to 9,760 words, and as Cocks is found at both extremes, it is not accurate to classify him as particularly verbose in all his correspondence. Finally, Figure 1 shows the number of letters and the word count of the Factory collection for each year. As can be seen, the first half of the ten-year period contains three quarters of both the letters and the words in the collection. This imbalance, like the fact that letters by Richard Cocks constitute nearly half of the collection, is caused by the fact that only a fraction of the voluminous correspondence has survived.17

Words

letters

60

50000

50

40000

40

30000

30

20000

20

10000

10

0

1613

1614

1615

1616

1617 1618 1619

1620

1621

1622

Letters

words

60000

0

Figure 1.  Number of letters and words in the Factory collection by year.

17.  See Lewis’s (2004: 343–360) reconstruction of the Hirado factory correspondence from June 1613 to the end of July 1615. For example, he lists 83 letters for the months of June and July 1615 alone, of which only one is extant.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

3.5  Code-switching in the Factory collection Although this article looks specifically at borrowings in the Factory collection, a helpful way of setting the scene is to briefly discuss code-switches in the data, using Nurmi and Pahta (2004) as a comparison. Their study found 618 instances of codeswitching in the first half of the CEEC (2004: 435). These findings indicate that, at least in the CEEC, merchant letters on average contain no more switches than personal letters. In the Factory collection, on the other hand, the relative frequency of code-switches is much higher than that in Nurmi and Pahta’s material (Table 3).18 Table 3.  Code-switches in Nurmi and Pahta (2004) and the Factory collection compared. Collection CEEC 1410–1550* CEECSU Factory

Words All Merchants All

862,217 191,905 198,497

Code-switches Switches per 10,000 words 618 145 849

7.17 7.56 42.77

* These figures are from Table 3 in Nurmi and Pahta (2004: 435).

The criteria for counting code-switches in the CEEC corpora are applied consistently both in their study and this one (see Nurmi & Pahta 2004: 428–429 and this volume), so another factor must be found to explain the much greater frequency of code-switches in the Factory collection. In order to see whether merchants and expatriates — that is, writers living abroad — code-switch more than those who are neither, collections in the CEEC more comparable to the Factory collection were searched for code-switches. Three collections consisting mainly of merchant letters were chosen, and codeswitches by the expatriates in each collection were counted separately. The results are shown in Table 4. The figures in Table 4 seem to support the hypothesis that merchant expatriates code-switch more frequently than those who are neither merchants nor expatriates. However, the very few code-switches in the Cely collection show that without further investigation this cannot be taken as more than a general tendency. In any case, it is reasonable to assume that people living in multilingual communities would be influenced by their surroundings, and that this would be reflected in, for example, an increase in the frequency of code-switching and borrowing.

18.  In Nurmi and Pahta (2004: 435), the largest number of code-switches was found in letters by clergymen, but their 19.19 occurrences per 10,000 words falls short of the figure for the Factory letters (Table 3).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Table 4.  Code-switches in merchant collections with expatriate writers in CEEC.

All

Expatriates

Cely Johnson Marescoe Cely Johnson Marescoe

Years

Words

1474–1488 1542–1553 1668–1680 1476–1488 1543–1552 1676–1680

51,478 191,695 21,543 10,191 31,505 9,895

Code-switches Switches per 10,000 words 2 141 18 1 77 16

0.39 7.36 8.36 0.98 24.44 16.17

4.  Familiar encounters: Passes and goshuin The first case study in this paper is of the most common type of borrowing: a local word borrowed for a known referent. The Hirado factory, as dictated by their orders (Farrington 1991:  119–122), immediately engaged in the country trade. This required them to acquire permits from the Japanese government, which controlled trade by issuing licenses for trading ventures based in Japan. These licenses, known to the English merchants as “goshon” — that is, go-shu-in, or ‘great red seals’ — were a sign of official approbation for the trading voyage. Their bearer was under the “Emperor’s” (i.e., the shogun’s) protection, and those without goshuin were considered equal to pirates and smugglers (Farrington & Massarella 2000:  29; see also Massarella & Tytler 1990: 189). Applying for goshuin was not a simple matter, as it required a trip to the court of the shogun, a time-consuming and expensive undertaking. Goshuin were usually granted for specific voyages, and the English merchants were obliged to make many applications over the years. Although the word goshuin occurs throughout the period of the Factory correspondence, it is found in only 13 letters, with 21 instances in all. Only four of these are glossed. The occurrences of goshuin are given in Table 5. Table 5.  Occurrences of goshuin in the Factory collection.* Direction Japan to England Within Japan Japan to the Indies Totals

Letters

N

Glossed

RC

RW

WA

WE

3 9 1 13

3 17 1 21

2 1 1 4

2 13 1 16

0 1 0 1

1 0 0 1

0 3 0 3

* RC = Richard Cocks, RW = Richard Wickham, WA = William Adams, WE = William Eaton.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

Table 5 shows that while goshuin is used far more by Richard Cocks than the other English merchants, Cocks is not the only user of the term. It is not very surprising that most of the instances are found in the correspondence sent within Japan, nor that they are not usually glossed. A typical example of such use is seen in example (1).19

(1) Soe now I stay only to get out our two goshons for Syam & Cochin China & to get a dispach from th’Emperour [.] (Richard Cocks, 1617; Factory 626)

The glossed occurrences of goshuin are particularly interesting, especially those in the correspondence sent within Japan. I give all the glossed uses of goshuin in examples (2)–(5).

(2) The Dutch & we both may lawfully fall to the trade of stealinge from the Spaniard, Portugall or any other that shall not be fownd with the Emperour his goshin or passe, being without the bowndes of Japon. (Richard Wickham, 1615; Factory 319)



(3) The Emperour of Japon aloweth it good prize, both men and goodes, and that we (or Hollanders) may take all of them w’ch goe w’thout his passe or goshon. (Richard Cocks, 1615; Factory 352)



(4) I am now enformed […] that […] the new Emperour hath granted our nation trade into China […] and that ther wanted but the fermes of ij vixroys of ij provinces to conferme it, and that the goshon or passport will be sent us the next moonson [.] (Richard Cocks, 1620; Factory 830)



(5) [T]he Emperour of Japon hath geven out his passe or goshon to the Chinas to trade to Taccasanga & soe from thence into Japon. (Richard Cocks, 1621; Factory 911)

Example (2) is from a Japan-internal letter from Wickham to Cocks, and is the first instance of goshuin in the Factory collection. This may be the reason for his glossing it as “passe”. In example (3), Cocks repeats the same information in a letter to fellow EIC factor Adam Denton in Pattani (on the Malay Peninsula). Examples (4) and (5) are in letters from Cocks to Sir Thomas Smythe and the EIC committee in London, and therefore the glossing of goshuin is not surprising. It is worth noting, however, that in example (4) Cocks uses goshuin for a “passport” granted by the “Emperour” of China, not of Japan. One unglossed instance of goshuin is worth looking at, as it occurs in a letter from William Adams to Sir Thomas Smythe:

19.  In the examples, my emphasis is indicated by italics.





East India merchants and foreign terminology 

(6) […] the cape m’rchant […] sent me to the court to procure thoss thinges w’ch hee required, w’ch wass the renewall of the old Emperor’s privi’ges, w’th a gowshin for his jounk for Siam &c [.] (William Adams, 1617; Factory 569)

Example (6) is the third instance of goshuin in the Factory collection, and the first unglossed instance. Considering that Cocks found it necessary to gloss goshuin in letters to the EIC written after eight years of stay in Japan, it is striking that Adams does not gloss it in this relatively early instance. Documents like the goshuin were, of course, issued by many governments desirous of controlling and encouraging trade, and were familiar to EIC servants. The examples above show that their usual words for such documents are pass and passport; these words occur in the Factory collection both in conjunction with goshuin and alone (four and ten times, respectively). A search for pass or passport used in this sense in two contemporary travel collections, Richard Hakluyt’s Principal Navigations (1599–1600) and Samuel Purchas’s Purchas his Pilgrimes (1625), produces 29 hits in Hakluyt and 46 in Purchas. Four of the occurrences in Purchas are constructions like the examples above, where a loanword is glossed with pass or passport, as in example (7).

(7) […] the Portugals would come to no reasonable composition with them for their Custome and Cartas (or Passe) their Voyage was giuen ouer, according to our Pilots former information. (Purchas 1625: vol. 1 bk. III chap. 12, p. 294)

Example (7) comes from the journal of Nicholas Downton, captain of the EIC ship Peppercorn on its voyage 1610–1613, and is thus contemporary with the Hirado factory correspondence. It suggests that borrowing words like goshuin was common practice for EIC merchants in the East Indies.20 5.  A semantic investigation: Does tono mean ‘king’? When the English arrived in 1613, Japan was a feudal economy consisting of some 300 fiefs ruled over by territorial lords, the daimyo. They in turn were subject to the rule of a generalissimo, the shogun, who was the temporal lord of Japan. Contemporary Europeans in Japan usually called the shogun “Emperor”, but the real emperor at that stage lived a secluded life at court in Kyoto and held only symbolic power. The shogun did not always wield absolute power, either, for nominal abdication was standard practice in Japan, and rulers often relinquished their titles to their heirs while retaining real power until death. 20.  Most of these borrowed terms had restricted spheres of usage; see e.g., McConchie (2002) and Kaislaniemi (forthcoming) for case studies of restricted borrowing(s).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

The English merchants in Japan had to visit the courts of the shogun and the retired shogun every time an EIC ship arrived. The shogunate was a major customer, but court visits were time-consuming and the required gift-giving inevitably made them expensive. Far more often the English merchants had dealings with the daimyo of Hirado: not only was he one of their primary customers, but his relationship with them became quite intimate over the years, and the English merchants and the Hirado daimyo often entertained each other. This section looks at how the English merchants referred to the daimyo in their correspondence. They usually called the daimyo “kings”, and called the shogun the “Emperor”, but their use of these terms shows evidence of confusion brought about by the Japanese practice of nominal abdication, and especially by the mismatch between Japanese and European semantic categories. What makes the English merchants’ nomenclature for daimyo interesting for our purposes is their adoption of a local word, the Japanese honorific term tono. 5.1  King for daimyo In order to better contextualize the use of tono by the Hirado factory members, I will first discuss the use of its most frequent collocate, king. Table 6 shows the distribution of the use of king to mean daimyo and shogun in the correspondence, organized by direction of letter and referent of the term. Table 6.  Occurrences of king for Japanese ruler in the Factory collection. Direction

Japan to England Within Japan Japan to the Indies Within England Totals

Letters with king

22 33 7 2 64

Referent of king Daimyo

Shogun

61 54 11 1 127

4 0 7 0 11

Unclear 1 5 3 2 11

Total 66 59 21 3 149

Typical instances of the use of king to mean daimyo are seen in examples (8) and (9).

(8) I think it were good yf yow went to the king of Shashma w’th a present of wyne & fishes & offer hym our service. I make acco’ yow have byn w’th the king of Firando w’th the lyke before now. But at any hand lend no money. (Richard Cocks, 1616; Factory 394)



(9) But presently the kinge’s brother sent for hym & caused hym to be brought to his howse & that the Spaniardes should attend his brother’s pleasure untill he retorned from hunting. (Richard Cocks, 1614; Factory 272)



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Usually, the daimyo were referred to as explicitly the “king of X” (example 8), but occasionally the contents of the letter were enough to imply which “king” was meant, as in example (9). As mentioned above, there was some confusion as to how to refer to the shogun. This can be seen in Table 6, where there are as many references to the shogun as king as there are instances of the reference being uncertain. Most of these occur in the complex context of passages referring to both the reigning and the retired shogun, as in example (10), written soon after the death of Tokugawa Ieyasu. (10) […] I wrote only of the death of the Emp’, whoe died in Surungava the 16 of Shinguach, w’ch was the 20th of May. […] Cogico Dono is at Edoe with the new Emperour Shongo Sama. […] Goto Sasabra is in some disgrace & behind in his acco’ with the King, as it is reported, 80 thowsand barres of oban for busines in the Mintes, as the report goeth. (Richard Wickham, 1616; Factory 430)

In (10), the deceased “Emp” is the retired shogun (Tokugawa Ieyasu), the “new Emperour” is the de facto shogun (Tokugawa Hidetada, here even called “Shongo Sama”, or shōgun sama, ‘Lord Shogun’), but the “King” also refers to the shogun. This usage of king follows the example of William Adams, who consistently writes “Emperor” for the retired shogun, and “King” for the reigning one. In example (11), he even makes the relationship between the two explicit. (11) So the next day following the Gennerall mad himsellf reddy to go for Quanto, a provinc so called whear the Kinge, the Emperous eldest soon, is ressident, being distant from the Emperor court soum 42 ll’, to w’ch plac we went. (William Adams, 1613; Factory 105)

The retired shogun (Ieyasu) lived — and died — in “Surungava” (Suruga), but his son, the shogun at the time the letter was written, resided in Edo (modern Tokyo). Accordingly, the English merchants called the shogun the “king of Edo”, as in example (12), where Cocks practically cites Adams in (11). (12) Two daies past I receved a lettr from Miaco from Mr W’m Eaton wherin he adviseth the Emperour is coming from Shrongo to Miaco w’th his sonne the King of Edo, where all the tonos (or kings) of Japon must meet hym. (Richard Cocks, 1616; Factory 390)

The difference between Adams and the Hirado factory members is that Adams never calls the daimyo kings, while the others do so from the start. 5.2  Tono for daimyo At least two of the English merchants in Japan, following local practice, took to referring to the daimyo as tono. This is an honorific roughly corresponding in

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

usage to the English “lord”, and is used only of one’s feudal superiors.21 A typical example of the Hirado daimyo being called tono in the factory correspondence is seen in example (13). (13) In the meanetime I have bin often solicited by the tono of Firando for the mony that you promised heare to lend him, & wille hardly be answeared [with] any reason […] (Richard Wickham, 1614; Factory 149)

Tono could also be applied to other nobles or high officials, as seen in example (14). (14) But that would not serve, the tono or cheefe justis of Firando telling us that yf we would not leave it by feare meanes, they would take it whether we would or noe. (Richard Cocks, 1622; Factory 898)

Table 7 shows all of the occurrences of tono in the Factory collection. Table 7.  Occurrences of tono in the Factory collection by direction and writer. Direction

Richard Cocks Letters

Japan to England Within Japan Japan to the Indies Totals

8 6 2 16

Richard Wickham

N

Glossed

Letters

N

21 10 2 33

14

0 10 0 10

0 12 0 12

2 16

Despite the low frequency of tono in the Factory collection, two observations can be made from Table 7. First, tono was clearly a familiar term for the Hirado factory members, for not once is it glossed in the group-internal correspondence. On the other hand, and unsurprisingly, it usually is glossed in letters to England and the East Indies. As seen in Table 7, only two writers in the Factory collection use tono. While Wickham uses tono only in in-group correspondence, Cocks does not shy from using the word in letters to England or the East Indies. All of the glossed instances are in letters by Cocks. The most frequent gloss for tono is “king”, as in examples (15) and (16). (15) May it please your Wor’ to understand that the Emperour hath commanded all the tonos (or kinges) of Japon to com to his court and bring their wives (or queens) w’th them for to remain theare the space of 7 yeares. (Richard Cocks, 1616; Factory 380)

21.  Tono also appears in a voiced suffix form -dono, which can be used of one’s peers as well as superiors, as in example (10). It is unlikely that the English merchants were aware that this was the same word.



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

(16) So then they went to the tono (or king) of Firando, desiring to have their English slaves (as it pleased them to call them) deliverd unto them. (Richard Cocks, 1620; Factory 778)

The seven unglossed occurrences in Cocks’s letters to England are of particular interest. In most of these cases, the meaning of tono is clear from the context or from an earlier, glossed occurrence in the same letter. This is demonstrated by examples (17)–(19), which include six of the eight instances of tono from a single lengthy letter from Cocks to Sir Thomas Smythe in 1618. (The first and fourth occurrences in the letter are glossed with “(or king)”, and are not reproduced here.) (17) The Hollanders made a greate complaint to th’Emperour how they were misused, and had we seconded them as they desired out of dowbt the tono had lost his chaune (or kyngdom). But upon good consideration I thought it better to be sylent, he owing your Wor’ much money, w’ch had he byn ruened the debt had byn lost. So that allthough som of the Emperour’s councell asked whether we were misused as the Hollanders were I answered no, for w’ch the tono gave me many thankes after complayning against the Hollanders’ p’ceadinges, exskewsing hymselfe by meanes of his abcense. (Richard Cocks, 1618; Factory 666–667) (18) They went up at same tyme I went to th’Emperour’s court & were by the Emperour’s comand royally entertaind by all the tonos (or kinges of Japon) thorow whose terretories they passed, and all at the Japons’ charge, they begyning w’th the tono of Tushma & next w’th hym of Firando &c, & coming to the court, the Emperour made them to dyne at his owne table, they being served by all the tonos (or kinges) of Japon, every one having a head attire of a redish culler w’th a littell mark of silver, lyke a fether, in it. (Richard Cocks, 1618; Factory 670–671) (19) Yf we might have carid it to Miaco & Edo we might have dispached much more, for somtymes the tonos will clothe all their followers in cloth cloakes after Japon fation, all of one culler […] (Richard Cocks, 1618; Factory 672)

Of the other three unglossed occurrences of tono, two occur in a long letter from Cocks to Thomas Wilson, which is essentially comprised solely of descriptions of events in Japan. Again, the first occurrence in the letter glosses tono as “kyng”, and the next two are clear from their context, as can be seen from examples (20) and (21). (20) And to say the truth, his court & trayne is mighty, for w’th those tonos and kyngs w’ch daylie attend upon hym they canot be so few as 100,000 men […] (Richard Cocks, 1617; Factory 541) (21) And for the quarter where the other tonos’ and noblemen’s howses are, it is bigger then the fortresse […] (Richard Cocks, 1617; Factory 541)

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

The last unglossed instance of tono is given in example (22). It is from yet another long letter by Cocks, this one written to the EIC committee in 1617. (22) [T]hese 2 Spanish shipps […] were sent of purpose by the King of Spaine, haveing knowledg of the death of the ould Emperour, thinking som papisticall tono might rise and rebell and so draw all the papistes to flock to them […] (Richard Cocks, 1617; Factory 555–556)

This was not the first occurrence of tono in letters written from Japan to the EIC committee in London. However, example (22) is the only instance of tono in this particular letter. The letter is one of the longest in the Factory correspondence, but of 14 occurrences of king in it, only two refer to daimyo; both of them occur long after the tono in the text, and therefore do not provide contextual help. However, given that the earliest occurrences of tono in the Factory correspondence are from 1614; by the time of this letter Cocks would have already grown accustomed to using tono as an appropriate word for daimyo (see Trotter 2003: 28). Finally, before moving on to the next loanword, it is useful to compare both king and tono as used for daimyo in the Factory correspondence. Table 8 compares the terms used by the English merchants to refer to the daimyo over time. Table 8.  Words for daimyo in the Factory collection over time.* Year

Tono

King

Letters

1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 Total

0 7 0 12 13 8 0 3 0 0 43

5 24 10 42 10 9 1 12 10 3 126

6 23 8 22 7 1 1 7 3 3 81

* This table includes only references to daimyo in letters written in Japan; references to daimyo in letters written elsewhere and other uses of tono are not included.

As Table 8 shows, in the extant material tono is used for just over a quarter of all references to the daimyo. In 1617, it briefly becomes the dominant term of choice. It is unfortunate that so little of the later correspondence of the Hirado



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

factory survives (see Figure 1 above), for it would have been interesting to see whether the proportion of usages of tono for daimyo remained as high in the later period.

6.  Appropriate(d) measures: Tatami The primary commodity of the English merchants in Japan was English woollen broadcloth. While some goods acquired in the country trade from South-East Asia sold better in Japan than broadcloth, the whole Japan enterprise of the EIC was based on the conception that English woollen cloth would sell very well there.22 Since it was their mainstay, much of the time of the English merchants was occupied with trying to sell their broadcloth, and thus it is a constant topic in their correspondence. Broadcloth came in large rolls, but was usually retailed by length. Several measure words were used for it; those occurring in the Factory collection are yard, fathom and mat, along with a borrowing from Japanese, tatami. Of the three borrowings from Japanese chosen for this study, tatami is the only one that eventually became lexicalized in English. For this reason, I will approach it via the definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). The entry for tatami in the OED gives the following definition:23 A rush-covered straw mat which is the usual floor-covering in Japan and the size of which (approx. six feet by three feet) functions as a standard unit in room measurement. 1614 R.  Wickham in Trans. Asiatic Soc. Japan (1898) XXVI. 209, I..made Tatamee of Meaco 15 2/3. Ibid., I sold it per 14 Tatamees at 120 Mas per tatame. 1616 R. Cocks Diary 23 Jan. (1883) I. 103, 20 tattamis for Matingas howse. 1625 Purchas Pilgrimes II. v. 326 Hee caused at Ozaca a Hall to bee erected, with a thousand Tatami (very elegant mats). 1880 I.L. Bird Unbeaten Tracks in Japan I. ix. 89 Japanese house-mats, tatami, are as neat, refined, and soft a covering for the floor as the finest Axminster carpet. 1976 P. Quennell Marble Foot v. 182 No less beautiful.. were the tatami that lined our floors, long greenish slabs, that turn with age a dull gold, of finely woven rush-matting.

22.  This was in fact a misconception, but it was one which would prove a very tenacious myth (see Massarella 1990: 93–95, 349–351). 23.  References to the OED are to the online version; this entry is from the 1989 2nd edition of the OED.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

It is worth noting here that the OED definition of tatami is in accordance with Japanese usage. With this in mind, let us investigate the quotations more closely. The first quotation is taken from a 1614 letter by Richard Wickham, published in the Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan (Riess 1898). Example (23) reproduces the whole passage. (23) I have, since our cloth landed sold one whole Broadcloth by the lump being wolklys (?) Black No. 57 quoted (?) per Invoice 33, but made Tatamee of Meaco 15 2/3 which being as the most of them are vilely eaten all over the midst of the cloth with wormholes cleane through, whereof being the first that I shewed and to merchants that stayed of purpose the coming thereof so that to put it of I sold it per 14 Tatamees at 120 Mas per tatame amounting unto 1680 mas which is 43£ st. the cloth being most coarse for a cloth of 19£ price. (Riess 1898: 208–209)

It is immediately clear that the tatami in example (23) cannot be mistaken for floor mats; rather, it is quite obvious that the term is being used for measuring cloth. Thus, the usage in the first quotation for tatami in the OED is not in accordance with the definition given directly above it. The second quotation is from the first published edition of Richard Cocks’s Diary (Cocks 1883). The diary entry for 23 January 1616 has a list of expenses; a portion of the passage is reproduced in example (24). (24a) January 23.—I gave 6 taies plate bars to Matinga to provide things against the new yeare. […] And I reconed with Jno. Gorezano for 6 tais, 9 mas, viz.



ta.

ma.

Con.

Pro 4 peare sheew and slippers for myselfe […]

01

0

0

Pro 20 tattamis1 for Matingas howse […] (Cocks 1883: 102–103)

02

4

0

The editor’s explanatory footnote reads: (24b)

1 Tatami, a mat; used also for a measure of about 6 x 3 ft. (Cocks 1883: 103)

In contrast to the first quotation, the tatami in example (24a) do seem to be floor mats. This is also the case in the third quotation, where tatami is even glossed as “mats”. This quotation is from Purchas his Pilgrimes, and comes originally from a letter written by Luis Frois in 1595.24 Frois, writing over twenty years before the

24.  Luis Frois (1532–1597) was a Portuguese Jesuit who lived in Japan from 1563 to 1597. Some of his letters were published in Europe in 1591, and these were translated by Hakluyt



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

English reached Japan, unequivocally uses tatami to mean the rush-covered straw mats used for flooring. However, as seen in example (23) (the first quotation in the OED), this is not how the EIC merchants in Japan used the term. 6.1  Tatami in the Factory collection It is not clear how and why the English merchants appropriated tatami as a measure of length, particularly applying it to broadcloth. The first measures for broadcloth that appear in the Factory correspondence are those listed earlier, yard, fathom and mat. Tatami soon joined these, and all the words co-occur as binomials or glosses, as seen in examples (25)–(29). (25) Make awaye your braudcloath, be it at 130 masse the matt […] (John Saris, 1613; Factory 121) (26) Also I have sould some 11 mates lenght or fadoms of broadcloth, but verey cheape, the beste not above 15 tayes the matt, & some for 14 & a 1/2. (William Eaton, 1614; Factory 142) (27) [F]or as yet he hath taken but 3 broadclothes of the 6 I caried overland, viz. the sad blue at 160 mas the tatame, being somwhat above 2 yardes, the sinamon & the haire-cullor at 150 mas le tatame, of the same measure; all w’ch cloth fall short of the measure per invoyce, as Capt’ Adames, whoe measured them, can witnes. (Richard Wickham, 1614; Factory 149) (28) We have sould som p’te of our broadcloth most of them blackes, at 12, 13, 14 and 15 taies the tattamy or matt, w’ch is somthing more then 2 yardes; a taie is 5 shilling str’. (Richard Cocks, 1614; Factory 225) (29) And for sales of comodeties, our broadcloth goeth away per littell & littell at 15, 14, 13 and 12 taies the tatt’m or Japan measure, w’ch is somthing more then 2 English yards; (Richard Cocks, 1614; Factory 235)

“Mat” here could be seen as a translation of tatami. A fathom, meanwhile, is roughly equivalent to the length of a tatami, for it is defined as “the length covered by the outstretched arms […] hence, a definite measure of 6 feet” (OED s.v. fathom 3b). Examples (25)–(29) above come from letters written during the first two years of the Hirado factory’s existence. In order to show how tatami is used in the Factory collection over time, Table 9 gives all the occurrences of measure words for broadcloth, and Figure 2 shows the proportionate use of tatami.

and included in his Principall Navigations. Purchas later included them in his Purchas his Pilgrimes.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

Table 9.  Occurrences of all measure words for broadcloth in the Factory collection over time. Year

Letters with cloth measures

Tatami

English length words

All cloth measures

1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 Total

1 17 4 11 2 1 1 2 2 2 43

0 14 4 30 4 9 2 18 3 2 86

1 23 3 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 34

1 37 7 31 7 10 2 20 3 2 120

Tatami 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1613

1614

1615

1616

1617

1618

1619

1620

1621

1622

Figure 2.  Percentage of tatami of all broadcloth measures in the Factory collection over time.

Judging by Figure 2, tatami very quickly became an established loan for the English merchants in Japan, and became the dominant measure word for broadcloth. There are, of course, some caveats. As seen in Table 9, the number of occurrences per year fluctuates greatly, as does the number of letters including measure words for broadcloth. Furthermore, the number of occurrences, while greater than for



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

goshuin and tono, is still too small for any definite statements of usage. Finally, neither Table 9 nor Figure 2 gives any indication as to how the word tatami was used, except that it was used throughout the existence of the EIC factory at Hirado. Table 10.  Occurrences of tatami in the Factory collection by writer. Tatami

Writer

Richard Cocks Richard Wickham William Eaton Ralph Coppendale Totals

Direction

N

Glossed

Abbr.

Japan to England

Within Japan

Japan to the East Indies

37 29 20 4 90*

2 3 1 2 8

11 12 1 0 24

19 2 17 0 38

13 27 3 0 43

5 0 0 4 9

* This figure includes 4 instances of tatami used for something other than broadcloth.

An investigation of two features of the use of tatami gives some idea of the word’s adoption and use. Tatami occurs in letters written in Japan and sent in all directions. Tatami was of course glossed with English synonyms, but in contrast to the previous two words, such glossing occurred only in the earlier correspondence. Since it was used as a measure word, and a frequent one at that, tatami was also abbreviated. Four writers use tatami; all of them gloss it, and three out of four abbreviate it. Tables 10 and 11 give the totals of all occurrences of tatami in the Factory collection by writer and by direction, with glossed and abbreviated instances enumerated. Table 11.  Occurrences of tatami in the Factory collection by direction. Tatami

Direction

Japan to England Within Japan Japan to the East Indies Totals

All

Glossed

Abbreviated

38 43 9 90*

1 4 3 8

5 18 1 24

* This figure includes 4 instances of tatami used for something other than broadcloth.

Tatami is glossed or defined in only eight instances: six times in 1614, and twice in 1615. These instances are found in seven of the first ten letters that include the word tatami in the Factory collection. Four of the glossed occurrences are seen above, in examples (27)–(29). The very first occurrences of tatami in the Factory

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

collection are found in a letter from Richard Wickham at Edo to Richard Cocks at Hirado, written on 26 April 1614. Here, Wickham glosses tatami twice (see example 27) — but in his next extant letter, of 22 May 1614, again to Cocks, he does not (this is the source of the first quotation for tatami in the OED: see above example 23; also Farrington 1991:  159). In a third letter to Cocks, written on 3 June, Wickham glosses tatami for a third and final time, as seen in example (30). (30) He hath proferred me 115 mas the great tatatme of 2 y’ds & 1/4, but I stand uppon 120. (Richard Wickham, 1614; Factory 172)

Richard Wickham may have been the first to borrow tatami, for its first ten occurrences in the Factory collection are in his letters. The next writer to use tatami is William Eaton, in a letter to Richard Wickham of 17 June 1614. His first use of tatami (example 31) is also glossed — although since the first instance in the letter is not glossed, this was possibly not the first time Eaton had used tatami in his letters. (31) By w’ch your sayed letters I understand of all matters, as allso howe that you are in hope to put awaye all the blake cloth you have at 120 mases the fatame, and have writen mee to send you as maney of my blake clothes as I could spare. […] Some of the saied clothes I sould for 115 mas the fatam or matte’s lenght, and others for 114 & 113 mas per matt. (William Eaton, 1614; Factory 183)25

The third Hirado factory member whose letters contain the word tatami is Richard Cocks. He, too, glosses tatami on its first appearance, as was seen above in examples (28) and (29). These instances come from two letters of 25 November 1614: the first to the EIC committee in London, and the second to Adam Denton at Pattani. Cocks uses tatami in later letters to each of these recipients, but only these first occurrences are glossed. The final user of tatami in the Factory collection is Ralph Coppendale. Coppendale spent six months in Japan, from which period four of his letters are preserved, all of which are included in the Factory collection. His first letter was sent within Japan to Richard Wickham, but the other three were written to EIC factors in Pattani and Siam. These latter three letters all use tatami, and the first two define the term, as seen in example (32).

25.  I have not been able to consult the manuscript letter, and thus cannot verify whether “fatam(e)” for tatami is an error, and if so, on whose part — scribe (Eaton), transcriber or printer. That “fatam(e)” is not “fathom” is clear from the fact that Eaton spells fathom as “fadom(e)”, as in example (26) (see also Farrington 1991: 145 and 435).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

(32) The Hollanders sell English broadecloth for 7 and 8 tayes the tattamy, w’ch is 2 1/3 yardes at the leaste. The devell hawle some of them for theire paines. (Ralph Coppendale, 1615; Factory 345)

Once tatami has been defined in letters sent in a given direction, it ceases to be glossed. For the English merchants in Japan, it becomes such a commonplace that they begin to abbreviate it. We have already seen this in example (29) above, where Richard Cocks is the first to abbreviate tatami, in 1615. By 1616, the abbreviation has been reduced to tatta’ and tat’, and even to just t’ in one instance. Tatta’ and tat’ are the most common abbreviations.26 A typical passage with abbreviated forms of tatami is seen in example (33). (33) As for one rem’ specified in our second cargazon, vizt No.125, 4 tat’ 3/32, I fownd but 2 t’ 3/4, as Miguell the jurabasso & myself can wittnes, when I unpacked the chest at Edoe & measured all the remnantes I carried up, where I fownd the rem’ of popinjoy to want some 1/4 of a tattame of what is charged. (Richard Wickham, 1616; Factory 398)

While the English merchants in Japan usually used tatami for measuring broadcloth, there are four instances of it being used to measure wooden boards. Example (34) comes from a 1616 letter from William Eaton to Richard Cocks; example (35) comes from one of the letters written in reply (the other two instances are in two other similar letters from Cocks back to Eaton). (34) I have receved [news?] from Langasaque that theare is to be had theare 200 inch bordes of 2 tatames long apece, w’ch hee hath made prise for 73 mas per 100 bordes. (William Eaton, 1616; Factory 425) (35) So I think it best at sight of my lettr to get Mr Eaton’s host of Langasaq’ to send to buy the 200 inch boardes of 2 tatta’ long, w’th 100 sackes lyme. But have a care the boardes be ison thick, or Japon inche, & not shells or crustes, & then yow canot doe amis. (Richard Cocks 1616; Factory 428)

This exchange shows that the English merchants considered tatami to be a genuine length measure, applicable to anything. What makes this use more peculiar is example (35), where Cocks also writes to make sure the boards are “ison”, or issun, that is, one sun thick — a sun is the Japanese inch (as Cocks says). This shows that the English merchants (or Cocks, at any rate) were not unaware of Japanese linear measures. How did they end up using tatami as a measure of length?

26.  As seen in example (24) above, the abbreviation “ta” was reserved for the silver coin “taie”, that is, tael (OED s.v. tael 2a; see also example 28).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

6.2  Mats and measures: A possible explanation The use of tatami as a linear measure has not gone unnoticed. Scholars working on the EIC Hirado factory material have noted it, albeit usually without much comment (Cocks 1883: liv; Massarella 1990: xii; Farrington 1991: 1606), or taking it as a now obsolete usage (Riess 1898:  48 fn.). While the quotations for tatami in the OED require adjustment, the present OED definition for mat does have the following:27 mat,ˉn.1 III.ˉExtendedˉuses. 8 . [In use with numerals translating Japanese -jō (< Middle Chinese), suffix used specifically for counting tatami mats.] In Japan: a unit of area equal to approx. 6 feet by 3 feet (1.8 metres by 0.9 metre), corresponding to the traditional size of a tatami. In quot. 1613 used as a measurement of length, equal to approx. 6 feet. For a discussion of the possible origin of this use, see E.M. Satow Voy. Capt. J. Saris to Japan, 1613 (1900) (note). 1613 in A. Farrington Eng. Factory in Japan (1991) II. 1023 Our chiefest commoditie intended for those parts being broadcloth (which, according to former intelligence, had lately been sold there at fortie rialls the matte, which is two yards, as aforesaid). […]

The 1613 quotation is from the journal of John Saris, captain of the EIC ship Clove which took the Hirado factory members to Japan.28 The comment before it refers to a footnote in an edition of Saris’s journal (Satow 1900) in which the editor briefly discusses the problem of “mat” and tatami. Satow sees two possible explanations. His first suggestion is that the English “adopted the Dutch word maat (measure), and confounded it with mat, which is the same in Dutch and English” (1900:  96). However, Satow points out that “[i]n the Dutch factory [next door], piece-goods were measured by the ikje, which is a corruption of ikken, i.e., one ken, a Japanese measure equal to 6 Japanese feet” (1900: 96). Therefore the English were definitely not copying Dutch borrowing behaviour. Satow’s second suggestion is that the Japanese habit of measuring rooms in tatami — mats — which

27.  This entry is from the draft revision of March 2001. Only the first quotation is reproduced here. 28.  This version of the journal was printed by Purchas (1625: vol. 1 bk. IIII chap. 1) and is reproduced in Farrington (1991: 989–1028).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

were uniform in size,29 led the English to believe that “mats” — tatami — were a measure of length, instead of area (Satow 1900: 96).30 It is difficult to say whether the English merchants were influenced by the Dutch maat, but Satow’s second suggestion is plausible. While the use of tatami as a linear measure is not recorded in major Japanese dictionaries (Nihon Kokugo Daijiten and Encyclopedia Japonica s.v. tatami), Satow writes that “the editor remembers that when he arrived in Japan in 1862 he heard Europeans use the word mat in speaking of Japanese lengths” (Satow 1900:  96). Thus, while the answer remains elusive for the moment, perhaps there are more universal rules of borrowing that lead to appropriation in cases like that of tatami. 7.  Borrowing, appropriation and diffusion None of the observations made in the case studies above are particularly new: it is well known that the meanings of borrowings can change over time, and sometimes dramatically. However, by investigating lexical borrowing as it takes place, my study contests two assertions. The first is Grzega’s (2003:  30–31) comment on semantic “pseudo-loans”, i.e., borrowings with meanings different from the source language (such as tatami in this study). He argues (rightly) that one must turn to the first attestations of borrowings in order to determine whether they are “true” or “pseudo”-loans, but goes on to say that “[p]ersonally, I don’t see that aberrant uses of a loan, if they should ever happen in the parole, can have any lasting effects on the langue. We have no evidence that the first introduction of a loan is a wrong use of the foreign language” (Grzega 2003: 31). Rohde et al. (2000:  1–2, 6) provide a counterargument to Grzega in stating that, from a cognitive perspective, meaning cannot be “imported” from one user (or language) to another, but has to be constructed (or re-created) by the borrowing side. In other words, the first introduction of a loan by (this) definition cannot be a right use of the borrowed language. As for lack of evidence, Gray (1998: 242, 250) quite explicitly shows how James Cook and his crew borrowed words the meanings of which they had misunderstood. Furthermore, this study has discussed the first introduction of a borrowing, tatami, which was used “wrong” from the

29.  Tatami measure one ken by one half ken, or about 1.8 x 0.9 metres, or 2 x 1 yards. There was some regional variation in measures, but the EIC merchants were aware of this, as seen in references to “Tatamee of Meaco” and “the great tatatme” in examples (23) and (30). 30.  However, Satow also notes that Cocks uses tatami to measure things other than broadcloth (1900: 96).

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

start, and continued to be used so for a period of ten years. This is what I have called appropriation. The second assertion I contest is the dictum that “borrowings” become “loanwords” — that is, become “established” in the borrowing language — only through general acceptance in the borrowing language, and only gradually over a long time (e.g., Weinreich 1966: 11). As for the first point, Rohde et al. (2000: 5–6) reduce the criteria somewhat in stating that borrowings become loanwords by spreading through the speech community. It is now generally accepted that many borrowings thrive within restricted spheres of discourse, or small linguistic communities determined by class, profession or region — although these words tend to be classified as “specialized terms” enjoying “limited acceptance” (Gray 1998: 246– 247; see also McConchie 2002). While it is clear that most of the mercantile and regional vocabulary used by EIC employees did not, and would not have spread into use outside the EIC, the established status of these borrowings within the language cannot be doubted in light of the evidence.31 The second point is contradicted by the evidence presented in this paper showing that tono and tatami were both adopted very quickly: see Tables 8 and 9 above, and especially Figure 2. Rapid adoption of a borrowing is also noted by Gray (1998: 243), although he is careful to emphasise that this happened in the context of a “little linguistic community”.32 However, the size of the borrowing community clearly cannot be used as a criterion for determining which borrowings become “established”, any more than the lifespan of borrowings can (but see McConchie 2002: 77, 94). It is worth repeating that the large number of borrowings in the Factory collection is not unusual. The multilingual history of international commerce is well documented (see e.g., Braunmüller & Ferraresi 2003 and Trotter 2000), and studies of late medieval English have shown that borrowings are not special, but merely form part of “the appropriate […] lexis” for discussing matters pertaining to multilingual interaction, such as international commerce (Trotter 2003: 28). In restricted linguistic communities, like that of the EIC employees in the East Indies, the proliferation of borrowings is also balanced by the shared understanding that

31.  The history of EIC English is interconnected with the history of Anglo-Indian, a variety characterised by countless borrowings. For a rare account of the EIC and language, see Majeed (1995). 32.  Gray (1998:  243) notes the morphological and syntactic integration of borrowings, something also evident in the words studied in this paper (see e.g., examples 1, 15 and 34). Morphological and syntactic integration are sometimes used as criteria for distinguishing loanwords from borrowings (e.g., Poplack et al. 1988).



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

most borrowings are for familiar concepts — in this case for concepts relevant to conducting business. But why borrow at all? Gray (1998: 239–240) points out that when encountering a new concept or referent, it is misleading to think that there is “a ‘gap’ in the lexis which ‘need[s]’ to be filled” by borrowing. Native words can be used just as well, as seen above in the case of king versus tono. In the case of appropriation, as with tatami in this study, the motives for borrowing are even more obscure. In the long term, it is easy to claim that the behaviour of tatami in the Factory collection is a case of semantic shift or metonymy. However, when this behaviour is placed in context, it is striking that the English persisted in using a common Japanese word incorrectly, particularly as they used it to measure their primary merchandise on a daily basis for a period of ten years. How could they not be aware of the native meaning of tatami? Yet this case illustrates perhaps the greatest problem in studies of historical language contact situations, that of measuring linguistic competence. It may be ultimately impossible to determine to what extent the Hirado factory members spoke Japanese.33 Finally, I would like to call for more studies of borrowing events in historical texts. The problem of “bad data” for historical linguistics — there being too few texts to study and too little information on their socio-historical context (see Pahta 2004: 79–80; also Fischer 2001: 110) — does not excuse the lack of such studies; suitable material does exist, particularly for the Early and Late Modern periods. Since studies of borrowing usually stress the importance of the process of borrowings becoming “established”, it is curious that the evidence for this process in historical texts has not been studied. Whether the material will “allow us to see the process of lexical borrowing almost at first hand” (Gray 1998: 238) or not is debatable, particularly since there are gaps even in the best historical data, such as the material used in this study. However, these gaps can be bridged by the inclusion of other data; for instance, the results of this study could be complemented with an investigation of borrowings from Japanese in comparable contemporary European materials (such as the records of the neighbouring Dutch factory).34

33.  The evidence is, alas, scanty, but aside from numerous borrowings from Japanese in their letters and diaries, passages such as those in Farrington (1991: 778) and Massarella (2001: 46) suggest that the merchants knew at least some Japanese. At any rate, claims they never learned any Japanese are nonsensical. See also the discussion in Lewis (2004: 104–148). 34.  Or in the non-English records of the Hirado factory — the English merchants had close ties with the local communities of Dutch and Chinese merchants as well as with the Japanese, and even had dealings with Catholic Iberian missionaries, sailors and merchants. Correspondence between these groups exists; see for instance documents 3, 46 and 277–303 in Farrington (1991) for letters written in Spanish or Japanese.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi

This kind of a comprehensive investigation would be the next step towards a better understanding of the processes of borrowing as well as of the spreading of borrowings within a speech community — something I hope to return to in the future.

8.  Conclusion This paper presented case studies of three borrowings from Japanese in the letters of early English East India Company merchants. The first, goshuin, was a typical borrowing of a local word for an existing referent, namely ‘license for trade’. The second word, tono, was a more interesting case of the borrowing of an honorific term (‘lord’) according to local usage, but showing confusion due to the mismatching of near-equivalent semantic categories. The third term, tatami, was a case of appropriation, of a word being borrowed “incorrectly”: the word means ‘standardsized rush-covered floor mat’, but was used by the English to indicate a measure of about two yards. This pilot study showed that, in order to study the actual processes of borrowing in historical texts, traditional typologies need to be supplemented with an analysis of the wider semantic fields of the borrowed words and their collocates, and the borrowings need to be placed in their socio-historical and discourse contexts. It also showed that, contrary to traditional views, the establishment of a borrowing in a speech community can be a rapid process. It concluded that micro-level studies of historical borrowing provide insight into language contact situations, but further studies are needed in order to chart the processes of borrowing in the history of English.

References Primary sources CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. CEECSU = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement. Compiled by Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Tanja Säily & Anni Sairio at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. Hakluyt, Richard (Ed.). 1599–1600. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation […], 3 vols. London: George Bishop, Ralph Newberie, & Robert Barker. Huntington Library. Early English Books Online, http://www.eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 15 February 2007.



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Purchas, Samuel (Ed.). 1625. Purchas his Pilgrimes […], 4 vols. London. University of Illinois. Early English Books Online, http://www.eebo.chadwyck.com, accessed 15 February 2007.

Other references Boyd, Sally, Andersson, Paula & Thornell, Christina. 1997. “Patterns of incorporation of lexemes in language contact:  Language typology or sociolinguistics?” In Towards a Social Science of Language. Papers in Honor of William Labov, vol. 2, Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin & John Baugh (Eds), 259–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Braunmüller, Kurt & Ferraresi, Gisella (Eds). 2003. Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism II]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cannon, Garland. 2000. “Turkish and Persian loans in English literature.” Neophilologus 84: 285–307. Cocks, Richard. 1883. Diary of Richard Cocks, Cape-Merchant in the English Factory in Japan, 1615–1622, with Correspondence, 2 vols [Hakluyt Society First Series 66–67], Edward Maunde Thompson (Ed.). London: Hakluyt Society. [Reprint: 1970. New York: Burt Franklin.] Cocks, Richard. 1978–1980. Diary Kept by the Head of the English Factory in Japan: Diary of Richard Cocks, 1615–1622, 3 vols. Tokyo: The Historiographical Institute, University of Tokyo. EEBO = Early English Books Online. University of Michigan, Oxford University and ProQuest Information and Learning. http://www.eebo.chadwyck.com. Encyclopedia Japonica. 1967–1972. 23 vols. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. Farrington, Anthony. 1991. The English Factory in Japan 1613–1623, 2 vols. London: The British Library. Farrington, Anthony. 1999. Catalogue of the East India Company Ships’ Journals and Logs 1600– 1834. London:  The British Library. Available online at  http://www.a2a.org.uk/html/059iorlmar.html. Farrington, Anthony. 2004. “Cocks, Richard (bap. 1565; d. 1624).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47038, accessed 5 Feb 2007. Farrington, Anthony & Massarella, Derek. 2000. “William Adams and early English enterprise in Japan.” STICERD discussion paper No.IS/2000/394, July 2000. http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/ is/IS394.pdf, accessed 6 May 2003. Fischer, Andreas. 2001. “Lexical borrowing and the history of English: A typology of typologies.” In Language Contact in the History of English [Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 1], Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (Eds), 97–115. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Gray, Douglas. 1998/1983. “Captain Cook and the English vocabulary.” A Reader in Early Modern English [University of Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 43], Mats Rydén, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade & Merja Kytö (Eds), 237–253. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Grzega, Joachim. 2003. “Borrowing as a word-finding process in cognitive historical onomasiology.” Onomasiology Online 4:  22–42. http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/ grzega1032.pdf, accessed 15 February 2008. Haugen, Einar. 1950. “The analysis of linguistic borrowing.” Language 26 (2): 210–231.

 Samuli Kaislaniemi Holden, Kyril. 1976. “Assimilation rates of borrowings and phonological productivity.” Language 52 (1): 131–147. Kaislaniemi, Samuli. 2005. Needless Lies? Merchant Letters and Knowledge of Japan in Early Seventeenth-century England. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of English, University of Helsinki. Kaislaniemi, Samuli. Forthcoming. “Jurebassos and linguists: The East India Company and Early Modern English words for ‘interpreter’.” In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2). Cascadilla. Kelsey, Sean. 2004. “Wilson, Sir Thomas (d. 1629).” Revised version of the entry by Albert Frederick Pollard. 1900. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29690, accessed 15 November 2007. Lewis, James. 2004. ‘Nifon catange or Japon fation’: A Study of Cultural Interaction in the English Factory in Japan, 1613–1623. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sheffield. Majeed, Javed. 1995. “‘The jargon of Indostan’:  An exploration of jargon in Urdu and East India Company English.” In Languages and Jargons:  Contributions to a Social History of Language, Peter Burke & Roy Porter (Eds), 182–205. Cambridge: Polity Press. Massarella, Derek. 1985. “The early career of Richard Cocks (1566–1624), head of the English East India Company’s Factory in Japan (1613–1623).” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan Third Series 20: 1–46. Massarella, Derek. 1990. A World Elsewhere. Europe’s Encounter with Japan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Massarella, Derek. 2001. “‘Ticklish points’: The English East India Company and Japan, 1621.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Third Series 2 (1): 43–50. Massarella, Derek. 2004. “Adams, William (1564–1620).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/135, accessed 5 Feb 2007. Massarella, Derek & Tytler, Izumi K. 1990. “The Japonian charters. The English & Dutch shuinjo.” Monumenta Nipponica 45 (2): 189–205. McConchie, R.W. 2002. “The brilliant youth and long, sad decline of the stockado:  Some Italian fencing terms in English.” In Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 61], Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 77–97. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. McGrath, Patrick. 1955. Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth-Century Bristol [Bristol Record Society XIX]. Bristol: Bristol Record Society. McGrath, Patrick (Ed.). 1957. The Marchants Avizo by I[ohn] B[rowne,] Marchant, 1589 [Kress Library of Business and Economics 11]. Boston, MA: Baker Library. Milton, Giles. 2002. Samurai William:  The Adventurer Who Unlocked Japan. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Morgan, Basil. 2004. “Smythe, Sir Thomas (c.1558–1625).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25908, accessed 15 November 2007. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact Linguistics. Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. “Early Modern English lexis and semantics.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. III, 1476–1776, Roger Lass (Ed.), 332–458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



East India merchants and foreign terminology 

Nihon Kokugo Daijiten [The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Japanese Language]. 1988. 20 vols. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. Nurmi, Arja & Pahta, Päivi. 2004. “Social stratification and patterns of code-switching in Early English letters.” Multilingua 23: 417–456. OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dictionary. oed.com. Pahta, Päivi. 2004. “Code-switching in medieval medical writing.” In Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English, Irma Taavitsainen & Päivi Pahta (Eds), 73–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Podhajecka, Mirosława. 2006. “Russian borrowings in English:  Similarities and differences in lexicographic description.” In Selected Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX), R.W. McConchie, Olga Timofeeva, Heli Tissari & Tanja Säily (Eds), 123–134. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Poplack, Shana, Sankoff, David & Miller, Christopher. 1988. “The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation.” Linguistics 26: 47–104. Riess, Ludwig. 1898. “History of the English Factory at Hirado (1613–1622)” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan First Series 26: 1–114. Rohde, Ada, Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Kemmer, Suzanne. 2000. “Loanwords in a usage-based model.” LAUD Series B 296. Essen: University of Essen. Satow, Ernest Mason (Ed.). 1900. The Voyage of Captain John Saris to Japan, 1613 [Hakluyt Society Second Series 5]. London: Hakluyt Society. Serjeantson, Mary S. 1935. A History of Foreign Words in English. London:  Routledge & Kegan Paul. Skaffari, Janne. 2003. “Lexical borrowings in early Middle English religious discourse: A case study of Sawles Warde.” In Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 119], Risto Hiltunen & Janne Skaffari (Eds), 77–104. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trotter, David. 2003. “Oceano vox: You never know where a ship comes from. On multilingualism and language-mixing in medieval Britain.” In Kurt Braunmüller & Gisella Ferraresi (Eds), 15–33. Trotter, David (Ed.). 2000. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Weinreich, Uriel. 1966/1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague/London/ Paris: Mouton de Gruyter. Wright, Laura. 2002. “Code-intermediate phenomena in medieval mixed-language business texts.” Language Sciences 24: 471–489.

Everyday possessions Family and identity in the correspondence of John Paston II Teo Juvonen This study examines the linguistic and historical aspects of possession in the correspondence of John Paston II, a fifteenth-century Norfolk gentleman. The aim is to complement previous studies that analyze possessive constructions at a more general level by focusing on specific and everyday usage. A major problem with the analysis of possessive constructions is the wide range of semantic relations they encode. This problem is considered through the notion of identity to show how the possessive relation can be conceptually described in terms of material, social and body space. Linguistically, the possessive relation can be divided into an assertive, informative type in which ownership is central and an inherently relational type in which kinship and body relations are central.

1.  Introduction Possession both in its historical and linguistic aspect is a central feature of the correspondence of John Paston II, the elder son and later head of a rising gentry family of Norfolk during the Wars of the Roses.1 This study approaches the linguistic analysis of possession through a case study to complement previous studies that describe and explain possessive constructions at a general or universal level. The main aim is to analyze the linguistic constructions used to denote possession and to characterize the semantic content of the possessive relation. To achieve this end, I shall discuss the ways in which possession, identity and social relations interact in the particular context of the Paston family. Thus, the focus is on the particular and the personal, rather than on the general and global. However, the concept of possession is first discussed at a very general level to enable a more detailed account and to place

1.  This research has been funded by the Finnish Cultural Foundation. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG) for providing the facilities in which to conduct this research.

 Teo Juvonen

possession in a wider perspective. In this sense, the everyday operates on both the general level and the specific level. The main problem with the semantics of the possessive constructions is the range of relations between the “possessor” and the “possessee” (i.e., the entity possessed), which is very large and difficult to characterize based on any one concept. Possessive constructions do frequently deal with ownership and control of inanimate entities, but they are equally used to express social relations or to characterize the possessor. The concept of possession, however, is commonly identified as the core or basic relation. I shall first discuss the concept of possession and the linguistic function of possessive constructions. The aim is to show that while possession is semantically the most salient sense in these constructions, it does not determine their linguistic function. Linguistically, possessive constructions are necessary for the use of a set of lexical items denoting kinship, body parts and activities. These lexical items can be characterized as inherently relational nouns, which cannot conceptually exist without reference to another entity, the “possessor”. This linguistic function interacts with the concept of possession to produce the range of possible possessive relations. Second, I shall illustrate this interaction in the context of the letters of John Paston II. The most frequent possessive constructions in the correspondence are the s-genitive (e.g., the King’s son), the pronouns his (e.g., his son), my (e.g., my son), your (e.g., your son) and the verb have (e.g., the King has a son). The aim here is to show which of the possessive relations can be understood as most prototypical and how different possessive constructions are associated with different relations. Finally, I shall produce a quantitative analysis of the possessive constructions and the possessive relations they express. Here, each of the possessive constructions will be characterized according to how they are used in the letters of John Paston II.

2.  The concept of possession From a sociohistorical perspective, the most natural approach to possession is the legal point of view, along with a consideration of the de facto control of property and moveable material goods. In this sense, possession is limited to the legal and practical control of inanimate entities by human agents. However, from the linguistic perspective, a broader concept of possession is useful, because the range of relations expressed by possessive constructions is not convincingly explained solely as extensions of possession. The concept of possession is linked to identity. One aspect of identity is the relation of the individual to the material world. Possession can be seen as a



Everyday possessions 

principle according to which this relation is organized, sorting the material world into entities according to who owns or controls what. From this perspective one function of the concept of possession is to delimit the material space of the individual, or possessor. Likewise, the social space of the individual can be described using an analogous relation:  the social world is organized according to who is related to whom and in what way. This idea is based on psychological and cognitive processes of identity formation and social space, in which both social relationships (particularly family and community relationships) and possession and ownership are integral to the creation of self (cf. Macfarlane 1978; Schmidgen 2002; Smith 2003; Jenkins 2004). It is unclear whether material or social space should be given priority; rather, both seem to operate in conjunction. This is particularly apparent in the letters of John Paston II, as will be shown in Sections 2.1 and 3.1. Possessive constructions are also often used to express part-whole relations. With human possessors, this takes the form of reference to body parts such as the hand or head. This type of relation is seen as integral to these constructions (cf. particularly Heine 1997). Consequently, I would argue that the core semantic function of possessive constructions is to situate the possessors according to their material, social and bodily space. The rest of Section 2 discusses the possessive constructions from this perspective. The main aim is to identify the basic, or prototypical, possessive relations, especially as they appear in the Paston correspondence. 2.1  Possession and ownership in the England of the Pastons The concept of possession today, as well as in the England of the Pastons, is based on the idea of ownership (cf. Bennet 1968; Wrightson 2000; Smith 2003). Ownership itself is founded on legal rights and the ability of the state to enforce these rights. In fifteenth-century England, legal ownership was not a simple matter and social considerations figured largely in the problems of ownership that the Paston family had to deal with. This situation can be illustrated by an example concerning the manor of Oxnead. This manor had been owned by the father of John Hauyten, a Carmelite friar, and by his ancestors from King Edward III until Colby’s time.2 William Paston had purchased the manor in the late 1410s and had given it to his wife Agnes as dowry in 1420. The contest over the manor began in William Paston’s time, but seems to have ended around 1449, after his death. Interestingly, the issue seems to have hinged more on John Hauyten’s status, as Carmelite friars were debarred from 2.  Or at least Hauyten had found an entail of this in the royal records (Davis 1971–1976: II, 521–522).

 Teo Juvonen

holding property, rather than on the validity of the various claims to the manor. John Hauyten obtained a dispensation from the Pope, claiming he had been forced into the order while under age, while William Paston drew up a memorandum showing that Hauyten had entered the order of his own free will. After William Paston’s death, Hauyten mustered both legal and social support for his claim and at one time attempted to take the manor by force. Around 1449 he arrived at the gates of the manor and tried to claim the property, but was repelled by Edmund Paston:3

(1) And than he [John Hauyten, the friar] stowpyd doun and toke vp herd [=earth] and deliuered to his man, seyng to hem that come with hym, “I charge yow all of the Kynges be-halffe ye bere record that I take here poscession of myn inheritaunce.” And Edmund seyd that this takyng of poscession skillyd nowth [=was invalid], and than the friere seyd that son [=since] he myth not haue it no, he shuld come a-geyn a nothire tyme. (Memorandum on Oxnead, written in James Gloys’s hand, 1449?; Paston II, 522)4

The matter ended there briefly, but soon after Hauyten was seen riding around town:

(2) He seyd pleynly in is town þat he xal haue Oxnede, and at he hath my lord of Suffolkys good lordschip and he wol ben his good lord in þat matere. (Margaret Paston to John Paston I, 1449; Paston: I, 234)

In the end the manor remained in the hands of the Pastons. John Paston I attempted to get the Pope’s dispensation annulled; and more importantly, the Duke of Suffolk, without whose patronage Hauyten had no chance of making good his claim, was impeached and beheaded. As shown here, the Pastons’ concept of possession had, in practice, much more to do with establishing and keeping de facto control over their legal property and ensuring sufficient patronage to maintain their ownership than would be the case today. In addition to having to prove their rights of ownership legally, they also had to physically defend their property against enemies. The success of both the legal and physical aspects of defence was often determined by the patronage of the King and powerful lords. In this way, the concept of possession was linked to social and family relations since family relations were crucial both to the rights of inheritance and the traditional control of property. In the everyday life of the Pastons, ownership and possession were thus associated with tradition, law, inheritance, social relationships and control.

3.  No later than mid-March 1449, because Edmund Paston died 21 March 1449. 4.  In the examples, the possessive constructions are underlined and the possessees are in italics.



Everyday possessions 

2.2  Possession as a linguistic concept From the linguistic point of view, possessive constructions are used to express both permanent possession, such as ownership, and temporary possession, i.e., actual control, without necessarily implying ownership (e.g., I have a book may mean ‘I own the book’ or ‘I have the book in my possession at present’). In present-day society the division between permanent possession and temporary possession is more obvious, but in the time of the Pastons the actual control of property or items could effectively equate to ownership. Also, in everyday speech the line between permanent and temporary possession is often blurred. As such, the linguistic concept of possession includes both permanent and temporary possession, and this division affects the use of possessive constructions, as will be shown below in Section 4. The verb have can also be used to express what may be called dynamic possession where there is a transfer of possession:

(3) the monye that I hadde of yowe (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391)

This type of use is quite common in the letters, as are uses in the following pattern:

(4) and whether it be a possible to haue Caster ageyn and ther goode wyllis (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1471; Paston I, 440).

Example (4) may be characterized as potential possession. In most cases, the possessive pronouns and the s-genitive can only express permanent possession, while the verb have can express all these four types of possession. The most problematic aspect of the so-called possessive constructions is that they are polysemous. The most common linguistic constructions expressing possessive relations, i.e., the verb have, the s-genitive and the possessive pronouns, are also used to express kinship and social relations as well as to characterize the possessor. Conceptually these relations appear to have little or nothing to do with possession as it is usually understood. Nonetheless, the concept of possession has remained central to the description and explanation of possessive constructions. Intuitively, the core meaning, or the most natural reading of these possessive constructions, has to do with possession (e.g., I have a book or my book). There seems to be no reason to think that possession was not the core meaning of these constructions in the language of the Pastons, although the possibility should be kept in mind. However, as mentioned in Section 2.1 the concept of possession did differ from today in its connotations and associations. Many studies describe and explain the linguistic functions and semantics of possessive constructions. The model I have found most useful is that by John Taylor (1996), which is a unifying, explanatory account of the use of the s-genitive. Taylor’s analysis is based on the principles of Cognitive Grammar. He constructs a

 Teo Juvonen

persuasive account of the grammatical function of the possessive morpheme (-’s) and the range of the semantic relationships it codifies, concluding that the possessive morpheme in Present-day English is a grammatical tool that enables definite reference, i.e., it is a way of leading the hearer from a known entity to an unknown or less prominent entity. This definition is based on Ronald Langacker’s reference point analysis (1995), where the world is conceptually filled with immediately apparent, salient entities and non-salient entities, access to which can only be gained by reference from a salient entity. Determiners are one type of grammatical tool facilitating this reference. The possessive morpheme is best analyzed as a special type of determiner, where the possessor is a specific salient entity, often a proper noun, enabling the hearer to identify the non-salient entity, the possessee. Furthermore, Taylor explains the semantic content of the possessive morpheme and the semantic relation it essentially encodes between the possessor and the possessee on the basis of this grammatical analysis. He argues that possession is the prototypical instance of this reference and draws the following parallel: a specific entity can be uniquely identified given the identity of its possessor and, in the case of prototypical possession, the possessor has access to and control of the possessed entity. Likewise, the grammatical construction affords mental access to the possessee entity, and “[t]he distinctive character of the English prenominal possessive lies in the fact that it has grammaticalized this component of a relation of paradigmatic possession” (Taylor 1996: 19). Thus, in John’s book the entity book can be uniquely identified by reference to the possessor John. In the prototypical scenario, John has the book in his immediate possession. What Taylor is suggesting is that the idea of the possessor’s access to the possessed entity, which is prototypical of possession, became grammaticalized into the possessive construction to enable the referential function as explained above. This is a very interesting idea, because it suggests an interaction between social and cultural factors and grammatical elements. Section 3.1 on the correspondence of John Paston II discusses the interaction between societal concepts of possession and their linguistic realizations.5

5.  It seems unarguable that thought and language do interact at a very basic level; and by extension, language shapes society and vice versa. Thus it seems possible that the use of similar linguistic expressions for “material possession”, “social possession” and “kinship possession” may well evoke parallel thought and social act patterns. However, numerous other factors are involved in this, and it is anything but clear that the role of language, in comparison, plays any significant role in this. Perhaps the most useful attitude to take is to consider our own role as observer, where our understanding of the past is derived to a great extent through the medium of language. Even subtle shifts in the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic expressions can thus have a significant cumulative impact on our understanding of that foreign



Everyday possessions 

The idea that prototypical possession is the foundation of possessive structures is not confined to Taylor. Heine (1997) argues from a cognitive, typological, crosslinguistic point of view that the concept of possession is basic to possessive constructions. He analyzes a large number of languages, claiming of the structures and the types of conceptual relation he identifies in these structures: “The main reason for treating them all as possessive notions is that in many languages they are expressed in the same way as prototypical instances of possession” (Heine 1997: 36). Thus, there appears to be cross-linguistic evidence for considering the concept of possession as basic to the possessive constructions. Heine focuses on predicative possession (e.g., the English verb have) but also discusses attributive possession (e.g., the English s-genitive). Morphosyntactically, predicative and attributive possession exhibit different characteristics, which have semantic and pragmatic repercussions. For example, in my book possession is presupposed while in I have a book possession is asserted (cf. Heine 1997: 26). However, as far as the conceptual relation between the two entities (e.g., I and book) is concerned, it can be described by prototypical properties of possession. From this perspective possession is a prototypical notion comprised of a set of properties; this approach allows for a characterization of relations as more or less prototypical on the basis of how many of these properties apply to that relation and how well the relation is defined by these properties. Heine (1997: 39), based on Taylor, lists the following properties for prototypical possession: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The possessor is a human being. The possessee is a concrete item. The possessor has the right to make use of the possessee. Possessor and possessee are in spatial proximity. Possession has no conceivable temporal limit.

According to this list of properties as interpreted by Heine (1997: 33–41), permanent possession is the most prototypical form, while temporary possession, kinship relations and body-part relations are less so. There are a number of problems with the interpretation of these properties, and it seems more justifiable to use this list as a rough guideline to prototypicality rather than as an absolute rule. Kinship relations, in particular, seem central to the use of possessive constructions, and this needs to be accounted for in the description of these linguistic constructions.

country, the past, so that the interaction of language, thought and society is crucial to our understanding of the past (cf. Fodor 2001; Schmidgen 2002; Rosenthal 2003; Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003; Silverstein 2004).

 Teo Juvonen

2.3  Possession as a relational concept A useful approach to explaining the frequency of social relations in possessive constructions is to consider the relational character of the possessees. Material possessions such as house and book can in some sense stand alone and be discussed without reference to their owners. They may even have an independent existence beyond any possessive relations. Kinship and social terms, qualities and activities, on the other hand, are inherently relational, requiring or presupposing a possessor. From this perspective, the core function of possessive constructions, particularly possessive NPs, is relationality, the expression of identity and situatedness.6 The possessees that appear in possessive constructions can thus be divided into two types: relational possessees, which require a possessor, and sortal possessees, which can stand alone. Relational possessees usually require some sort of possessive construction to identify them, and in these cases the semantic content of the possessive constructions is secondary, if not irrelevant, to the linguistic function of the constructions. With sortal possessees, typically material possessions, the possessive constructions impose relationality and situate them in similar patterns to those in inherently relational possession. In these cases, however, the semantic content is primary. 2.4  Categorization of the possessive relations Sections 3 and 4 below analyze the use of possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II qualitatively and quantitatively. To facilitate this analysis, the relations expressed by these constructions have first been categorized into prototypical and non-prototypical instances. These two categories have been further sub-divided. This categorization is based on Anette Rosenbach’s 2002 study of the English genitive construction. Her categorization, which is based on the work by Taylor (1996) and Heine (1997), has been adapted for this study, as shown in Table 1. Table 1.  Prototypicality of the possessive relation with human possessors (adapted from Rosenbach 2002: 121 and Rosenbach, Stein & Vezzosi 2000: 191). Type of possessive relation [+prototypical]

[–prototypical]

kinship: brother, child body: hand, stomach

social: servant, man, lawyer quality: soul, ease, pleasure associative: language, words abstract: bill, evidence

material: manor, money

6.  Heine (1997: 10–16) discusses this distinction using the terms inalienable and alienable possession.



Everyday possessions 

Table 1 shows the most prototypical relations between the human possessor and the possessee, i.e., kinship possession, body possession and material possession, and their less prototypical counterparts, i.e., social possession, quality possession and abstract possession. In practice, the categorization is based on the meaning of the possessee. With prototypical possession this division is mostly straightforward. Non-prototypical possession provides unclear cases, and the following guidelines were used: social possession (all human possessees that were not kin), quality possession (all relational possessees that characterized the possessor), abstract possession (all sortal possessees that can be transferred and are not the result of an action by the possessor). The category of associative possession is half-way between quality possession and abstract possession, including possessees that are not obviously relational, but are still associated with the possessor. These are possessees such as time, day, language or words. It also includes deverbal nominals such as advice. This categorization allows for the analysis of the possessive relations in terms of prototypicality, as well as enabling a comparison of relational and sortal possessees, since the categories of kinship, body, social and quality possession comprise relational nouns, and the categories of material and abstract possession comprise sortal nouns. The associative possession category contains instances that are unclear as regards relationality. 3.  The correspondence and possessions of John Paston II This study is based on the correspondence of John Paston II (1442–1479), who was the elder son of John Paston I (1421–1466) and Margaret Mautby (c. 1420–1484). The younger son was also called John, thus John Paston III (1444–1503), married to Margery Brews (c. 1460–1495) in 1477. Since the time of William Paston (1378–1444), who was John Paston I’s father and husband of Agnes Berry (d. 1479), the Paston family had acquired more and more property and risen in social standing. As the family grew in wealth, so did their problems with retaining the ownership of these properties. They were involved in litigation or physical defence of their lands for most of the century, in particular Caister Castle, owned by Sir John Fastolf and bequeathed to John Paston I, and desired by most everyone with interests in Norfolk. The correspondence of John Paston II begins in 1461 and ends in the year of his death, 1479. The letters analyzed in this article are those included in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), with 42 letters and a word count of 24,813.7

7.  For more information on the Paston letter collection, see the Appendix of this volume.

 Teo Juvonen

The correspondence deals with a variety of issues, including the securing of patronage, Paston’s perpetual lack of money, marital concerns, gossip and the defence of property. 3.1  Family matters: Kinship and material possession Kinship relations and the ownership of property were intimately linked in the life of the Pastons. The possessive constructions are used to refer to both types of relation. Example (5) below exemplifies the problems of kinship relations and how they relate to ownership.

(5) Item, an other jnconvenyence is, wher as I vnderstande þat the maner [manor of Sparham] is gevyn to my brother and to hys wife [=the potential wife] and to þe issywe [=children] bytwen them bygoten, iff the case weet so þat he and she hadde yssye togedre a dowtre ore moo, and hys wyffe dyed and he maried afftre an othere and hadde issywe a sone, þat sone sholde have noon londe, and he beyng hys fadris heyre. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1477; Paston I, 500)

The last use of his refers to a son who may be born of a potential second marriage after the suggested marriage this letter talks about, following the possible birth of one or more daughters. The manor of Sparham was Margaret Paston’s and part of the Mawtby inheritance. The example above shows how important kinship relations were in determing ownership. A similar situation holds with ownership and social relations with the great lords of the time, and their kinship relations.

(6) Item, I praye yow recomande me to my moodre, and late vs alle preye God sende my lady off Norffolk a soone [=son], fore vppon þat restythe moche mater. For iff þe Kyngys soone mary my lordys dowghtre, the Kynge wolde þat hys soone sholde have a fayre place in Norffolk [=Caister Castle], thowhe he sholde gyffe me ij tymes þe valywe in other londe, as I am doon to weete. I praye yow sende me worde off my ladyes spede [=pregnancy] as soone as ye kan. (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1476; Paston I, 492)

Example (6) shows how important kinship and the question of heirs were to politics and the control and ownership of property. The place in question was Caister Castle, which was at the time in the possession of the Duke of Norfolk, but to which the Paston family had perhaps the best claim. At the time of writing of this letter, the Duke of Norfolk had just died (on 16 January 1476), but John Paston II had come to know of an agreement for the marriage of the King’s two year old son to the daughter of the Duke. If this marriage were to come to pass, it was likely that the King would want his son to have Caister Castle. Thus, the Pastons hoped for the Lady of Norfolk to have a son who would inherit, but would be too young to defend his inheritance.



Everyday possessions 

Examples (5) and (6) show how both possessive NPs and the verb have are used in kinship and material possession. Of particular interest is the use of the verb have in kinship relations. In these letters it is never used with kinship relations that exist of necessity, such as father or mother, rather its use is limited to spouses and children. The reason for this is that spouses and children can be acquired, and their acquisition was of great importance and interest. Marriage was a frequent topic in the letters. John Paston II never married and died without an heir, but he was much involved in helping his younger brother secure a marriage.

(7) Asfore my lady Boleynes dysposicion to yow werdys, I kannot in no wyse fynde hyre a-greable ðat ye scholde haue here dowter, for all the preuy meanes ðat I kowde make; (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1467; Paston I, 396)

Example (7) shows contrastive use of predicative and attributive possession. The verb have asserts temporary possession, while my presupposes permanent or at least long-term possession. The following three examples further illustrate the use of these possessive constructions. Example (8) shows the use of the s-genitive and have in the possession of land. It also has an instance of quality possession with the pronoun his. The topic under discussion is Agnes Paston’s eventual inheritance.

(8) But I preye yow sende me worde off hys [my uncle William] dysposycion heryn, and also whethere he be off the same dysposicion in my grantdamez londe as he was at hys last beyng here, at whyche tyme he tolde me þat he scholde and wolde haue suche lond as I loked afftre (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1470; Paston I, 415)

Example (9) also refers to Agnes Paston’s inheritance.

(9) and more-ouyre that he hathe myn euydence of Bekham. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1469; Paston I, 408)

Example (9), like example (7), shows contrastive use of predicative and attributive possession. Example (10) shows the verb have expressing potential or hoped for control and possession of property. This is typical of its use in the letters and reflects the concerns and realities of ownership for John Paston II. (10) Item, I was jn goode hope to have hadde Caster ageyn. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1475; Paston I, 486)

The aim of this section was to show how closely kinship and material possession were in the minds of the Pastons. The differences in the use of the possessive NPs and the verb have were also illustrated here, and these will be returned to in greater detail in Section 4.

 Teo Juvonen

3.2  Hands, gowns, heads and hearts: Body and material possession Body possession is used metaphorically to indicate both material possession and kinship possession, as examples (11) and (12) show: (11) soo thatt itt [Caister] maye ones ageyn come to Crysten mennes handes. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1472; Paston I, 446) (12) I vndyrstand that Mastres Fytzwater hathe a syster, a mayd, to mary. I trow and ye entretyd hym she myght come in-to Crysten menys handys. (John Paston III to John Paston II, 1476; Paston I, 603)

Hands are commonly used to indicate potential or temporary possession and control, body possession being linked to material possession in this way. A more important relation between body and material possession also exists, namely clothing. Clothing, when worn, is in direct contact with the possessor and can almost be seen as body parts (cf. Heine 1997: 17–18). Furthermore, it is an important indicator of identity, a visual realization of rank and status, and, in example (13), of simply being alive. (13) And yn the syght of all his men he [the Duke of Suffolk] was drawyn ought of the grete shippe yn-to the bote, and there was an exe and a stoke, and oon of the lewdeste of the shippe badde hym ley down hys hedde and he shuld be faire ferd wyth and dye on a swerd; and toke a rusty swerd and smotte of his hedde withyn halfe a doseyn strokes, and toke awey his gown of russette and his dobelette of veluet mayled and leyde his body on the sondes of Dover. (William Lomnor to John Paston I, 1450; Paston II, 35–36)

This passage highlights the graphic importance of clothing. The pronoun his is used to indicate social, body and material possession. In a sense, this passage illustrates the taking away of all the three spaces of identity. Although body possession is conceptually a prototypical form of the possessive relation, it is not frequent in the correspondence (see Table 8 in the Appendix for the frequency of body possession in the possessive constructions). Its use is mostly metaphorical. For instance, heart and mind are associated with diligence: (14) Ryght worschypful and verrely welbelouyd brothere, I hertely comande me to yow, thankyng yow of yowre labore and dyligence that ye haue in kepyng of my place at Castre so sewerly, both wyth yowre hert and mynde, to yowr gret bisynesse and troble; (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1467; Paston I, 396)

Hands are used to express control and temporary possession and stomach refers to health: (15) and to my wetyng I hadde neuer a better stomake in my lyffe; (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1475; Paston I, 487)



Everyday possessions 

Examples (14) and (15) show how body possession is very close in meaning and use to quality possession and suggest that, in terms of identity, body space is naturally extended to the sphere of qualities. 3.3  Of men and money: Social possession The earliest letter by John Paston II in the CEEC collection is mainly concerned with money and social relations, topics which recur throughout his correspondence. He gives an account to his father of his efforts to secure the King’s favour to their cause through the Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Essex and his man, Baronners. The reply he has thus far received, from the mouth of Baronners, recounting the King’s answer was: (16) he wold be yowre good lord therein as he wold be to the porest man in Inglond (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391)

This statement is somewhat softened by later comments. The end result, however, remains that the Pastons cannot expect preferential treatment, and will be treated the same as all the rest. Example (16) has two expressions referring to a lord’s relations to his subjects. The first is through the use of the pronoun your, which here expresses a permanent power relationship with the subject referred to by the pronoun itself (i.e., the possessor) and the lord as the possessee. This same expression can be used with the relative social ranks switching places: (17) Cristofyre Hansom yowre seruaunt (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391)

The second possessive expression in example (16) is the to-genitive, which is particularly used to denote social and kinship possession. Like the possessive pronouns, it can have the social superior either as possessor or possessee. The togenitive is rare in the correspondence. Example (17) also shows a typical linguistic form for showing social relationships, the appositive, which normally has the name first, followed by a possessive construction, which is almost always in the form of the possessive pronoun, or just occasionally, the s-genitive. The verb have is also frequently used for referring to social relations. In this case, the predominant use is with the grammatical subject of higher rank and the grammatical object in a socially inferior role, particularly that of a servant: (18) I am jn suerté where as I schall haue a-nothyre mann jn the stede of Pekoke. (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391)

Example (18) also shows how verbal expressions denoting possession can be modified to indicate time and aspect, whereas this can only be implicit or contextual in the possessive NPs (see Section 3.1).

 Teo Juvonen

The importance of money in social relations is often discussed. The following letter is by the merchant John Russe, who recounts what an acquaintance of his had said of John Paston II’s position at the Court. (19) But he seyd there shal no thyng hurte hym but youre streytnesse of mony to hym, for withoute [=unless] he haue mony in hyse purse so as he may resonably spende amonges hem, ellys they wyll not sette [=set store] by hem; and there be jentilmen sones of lesse reputacion that hath mony more lyberal x tymez than he hath, and soo in that the seyd Waynflet seyd it were full necessary fore you to remembre, &c. (John Russe to John Paston I, 1461; Paston II, 247)

Money as the possessee mostly occurs with the verb have. There are only two occurrences of money with possessive NPs, once with my and once with your. Money is more commonly discussed in terms of getting and giving, as opposed to having: (20) Where-for I haue send to Londun to myn onkyl Clement to gete an c s. [=100 shillings] of Cristofyre Hansom yowre seruaunt (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391) (21) the monye that I hadde of yowe (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 391)

Example (21) shows the use of the dynamic have, i.e., have + of/from (‘receive’), which is frequent in the correspondence. Money also figures in interpersonal relations: (22) And he seyd þat þer was a lytyl mony be-twyxe yowe and a jantylman of Estsexe callyd Dyrward, seyyng þat þer is as myche be-twejn my seyd lord and the seyd jantyilman, of the wyche mony he desieryth yowre part. (John Paston II to John Paston I, 1461; Paston I, 392)

The Earl of Essex, through his man Beronners, suggests that John Paston I should pay his debt to Dyrward, so that he can get his own money back from the same gentleman. The equation is roughly this: the Earl of Essex has “money” in the sense of social capital, i.e., influence and position, which he uses to control the flow of actual money to his benefit. This section shows the importance of social relations in the letters and how they relate to material possession. The dynamic use of the verb have is particularly common in these contexts, with both men and mony. This section also illustrates other possessive constructions and linguistic constructions having to do with the transfer of material possessions. 3.4  Marriage and advice: Quality and associative possession The possessive constructions are also used to describe the qualities of people. John Paston II writes to his mother that he is well pleased that the marriage



Everyday possessions 

between his younger brother and the daughter of Sir Thomas Brews should take effect, because: (23) — concyderyd hyre persone, hyre yowthe, and the stok þat she is comyn offe, þe love on bothe sydes, þe tendre fauore þat she is in wyth hyre fadre and moodre, the kyndenesse off hyre fadre and moodre to hyre in departyng wyth hyre, the favore also and goode conceyte þat they have in my brothere, the worshypfull and vertuous dysposicion off hire fadre and moodre, whyche prenostikyth þat of lyklihod the mayde sholde be vertuous and goode. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1477; Paston I, 500)

In sum, it is her qualities of person, youth and stock which is of concern; the virtue, disposition and religiousness of her parents is also important, as is the existence of love on both sides. Example (23) also shows how the grammatical expressions used extend into spheres which can only tentatively be called possessive, particularly when talking about qualities or attributes. The verb be in particular is frequently used to describe the qualities of people either on its own or in conjunction with a range of prepositions and participles. Likewise, the possessive relation of quality possession seems the furthest removed from the concept of possession. Activities are related to quality possession, which are both inherently relational, but neither is obviously prototypical of possession. The case with activities is complicated because the possessee has aspects of verbality but is still a noun that can be transferred. The most common activity in the correspondence is advice. (24) I myght have hadde my ladyes advyce (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1476; Paston I, 491)

The possessee advice occurs exclusively in possessive constructions if take and the of-genitive are included in the list of these constructions. (25) wherffor itt is full convenyent þat we take goode heede and ryght goode advyce how to guyde vs for itt (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1471; Paston I, 442)

The pronouns my and your are most frequent with advice, since the benefit or trustworthiness of other people’s advice needs to be justified. Thus, social relations are linked to activities: (26) and as to Bernarde brothere I praye yow to take hys advyce, for I hope he is my welwyller, as ye know; (John Paston II to Margaret Paston or John Paston III, 1472; Paston I, 453)

The possessee advice could be classified as a case of quality possession as its use in the letters is relational in nature. However, because of its transferable nature, it seemed to fit better into the associative possession category, which contains all the possessees that are not obviously quality or abstract possession. Other frequent

 Teo Juvonen

possessees in the associative possession category were answer, knowledge, language, words, errands and day. 3.5  Receipts and costs: Abstract possession The category of abstract possession contains all transferable entities that are not obviously physical in nature. Thus, in example (27) the possessees receipts and bills are classified as abstract possessions. (27) I comande me to yow, letyng yow wete that I haue receyuyd yowre letter in þe boxe, and the byllys also off yowre receytys where-in ye refferre yow to a rekenyng whyche ye made to me last, whyche I remembre nat, nere haue no byllys off it that I remembre. (John Paston II to John Paston III, 1470; Paston I, 413)

Example (28) has the possessee costs, which could also be classified as associative possession. However, since it is of transferable or at least payable nature, it is classified as an abstract possession. (28) And iff my brother and Lomnor take labor her-in, I shall recompence ther costys. (John Paston II to Margaret Paston, 1479; Paston I, 516)

The categories of quality, associative and abstract possession illustrate the problems of defining and categorizing the possessive relation. Too fine a categorization runs the risk of arbitrariness, since the actual meaning of the possessive relation is dependent on context. This is also a problem for larger-scale quantitative research, because each text is set in a different historical context. The solution seems to be to concentrate on distinguishing between the prototypical possessive relations and the less prototypical relations. Section 4 below discusses the problem of prototypicality in greater detail and identifies the typical uses of the various possessive constructions.

4.  Quantities of possession: Letters, brothers, land and money Section 3 has described the historical situatedness of the possessive constructions in the letters of John Paston II with some examples from other writers in the Paston collection. This section quantifies the use of the possessive constructions in his correspondence. His letters in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) were searched for all occurrences of the s-genitive, the pronoun his,8 the pronoun my,

8.  The his construction includes all the instances with third person singular and plural possessive pronouns (i.e., his, her and their). The occurrence count for the various entities also



Everyday possessions 

the pronoun your and the verb have in its possessive use.9 These occurrences were divided into the seven categories of kinship, body, material, social, quality, associative and abstract possession. Several occurrences were excluded as too formulaic.10 The purpose of this section is to discuss two aspects of the possessive constructions. The first part shows how relational and sortal possessees interact with these constructions, as discussed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. The second part shows how the various possessive constructions relate to each other, describing the characteristics and typical use of each construction. The overall aim is to show how the linguistic function of relationality and the semantic content of possession interact in the possessive constructions. 4.1  Relational and sortal possessees in possessive constructions The range of entities that occur as possessees in possessive constructions is large. In most cases it was fairly obvious which were relational and which were sortal in nature. The relational possessees are all in the kinship, social, body and quality possession categories and the sortal possessees in the material and abstract possession categories. The associative possession category contains all the unclear cases, with the exception of those possessees that were human (e.g., lawyer or council), which were sorted into the social possession category. The purpose of this section is to determine the extent to which possessive constructions are necessary with relational nouns. To this end, the possessees that occurred in the possessive constructions were counted individually and this count was compared with the number of occurrences in the letters of John Paston II. For example, the possessee brother occurs 40 times in possessive constructions and 41 times in the text as a whole. The possessee son occurs 5 times in possessive constructions of the 9 occurrences in the whole text. Table 2 shows this in percentages (e.g., 98% for brother and 56% for son) and gives the range for all the entities within each category.

includes those instances where the object was referred to by it in the possessee position (e.g., I have it) and also by relative clauses (e.g., the letter that you had), and variants thereof. 9.  The verb have is also used to mark the perfect tense (e.g., I have eaten). This use is not analyzed here. 10.  A number of occurrences of the possessive constructions were excluded from the analysis. Since the interest was in the productive use of the possessive constructions, all formulaic uses such as God’s grace were excluded as were those occurrences in the opening and closing addresses. Additionally the expressions my lord, my lady and variants thereof were excluded, as were such set phrases as by my truth. Gerunds and possessive constructions with inanimate possessors were also excluded.

 Teo Juvonen

Table 2.  Possessees in the correspondence of John Paston II according to possessive relation: percentage (%) of occurrences in possessive constructions versus occurrences in the whole text. Kinship possession (50%) 100% Body possession 65–100%

Social possession 40–100% Quality possession 45–100% Associative possession 5–100% Abstract possession 10–100%

Material possession 10–100%

Table 2 can only be indicative of how the possessees occur, since in most cases there were only one or two counts for each. What is clear, however, is that the possessees in the relational categories occur at least 40% of the time while those in the sortal categories can occur only incidentally. This suggests that there is a distinct functional division in the possessive relation. From this perspective, a core function of the possessive constructions is to enable reference to these inherently relational objects. With material and abstract possessions, the possessive constructions impose relationality onto the possessees, thus situating and identifying them in similar patterns to the inherently relational objects. This suggests that linguistically social relations are more basic than material possessive relations, and that linguistic relationality and the concept of possession are interlinked at a very basic level. Table 3 shows the distribution of occurrences according to relationality in the different possessive constructions. Table 3.  Possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II: percentage of occurrences in relational, sortal and associative possession categories out of total occurrences.

my your his s-genitive have

Relational categories

Sortal categories

Associative possession

Total

78% 56% 77% 71% 22%

15% 20% 13% 14% 41%

7% 23% 9% 14% 37%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 3 shows a distinct difference between the possessive NPs and the verb have. The possessive NPs are most frequent with the relational categories. The verb have, on the other hand, is more evenly distributed, but is weighted toward the sortal categories with a large number of occurrences in the associative



Everyday possessions 

possession category. This distribution suggests a link between the possessive NPs and the relational function in the possessive relation. Section 3 discussed the use of the possessive constructions in the different categories. As indicated there, the possessees in prototypical relational categories of kinship and body possession occur only in a limited set of linguistic constructions. In kinship possession, the possessees that exist of necessity, such as father and mother, occur only in possessive constructions and, furthermore, only in possessive NPs. Possessees denoting children (e.g., son, issue) also occur with the verb have and in a few other constructions. In body possession, the possessees hand and heart occur outside of possessive constructions, but in these cases their use is metaphorical. Possessees in social and quality possession occur only in a slightly broader set of linguistic constructions, and within these categories there are several important entities, such as servant, friend, life and soul, that occur almost exclusively in possessive NPs. In terms of prototypical use, then, the possessive NPs are linked with kinship and body possession, and potentially certain entities in the social and quality possession categories. The verb have is linked to the sortal categories and associative possession. 4.2  The functions and semantics of the possessive constructions The use of the possessive constructions was further analyzed according to the type of possessive relation they express. Table 4 shows the total number of occurrences for each type of possessive construction. Table 4.  Frequency of possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II. Possessive construction

Number of occurrences

my your his s-genitive Total possessive NPs have

231 103 141 49 524 205

Table 5.  Possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II: percentage of occurrences in the prototypical possessive categories out of total occurrences. Kinship possession my your his s-genitive have

77% 21% 57% 41% 11%

Body possession 3% 24% 22% 29% 2%

Material possession 20% 56% 22% 29% 86%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 Teo Juvonen

Table 5 shows the distribution of the possessive constructions in the prototypical possessive relations and how the various possessive constructions relate to the prototypical possessive categories. The possessive pronouns as a whole are linked with kinship possession, while the verb have is linked with material possession. The use of my is particularly common with kinship possession, with his and the s-genitive following behind. The pronoun your is a special case as will be mentioned below. The results in Table 5 reinforce the idea that there is a division in function between the possessive NPs and the verb have. Table 6 shows the same distribution in the non-prototypical possessive categories. Table 6.  Possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II: percentage of occurrences in the non-prototypical possessive categories out of total occurrences.

my your his s-genitive have

Social possession

Quality possession

Associative possession

Abstract possession

Total

22% 25% 19% 34% 13%

52% 38% 58% 38% 15%

20% 35% 14% 22% 60%

6% 3% 9% 6% 12%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The possessive constructions can be characterized based on these findings and the discussion in Section 3. The s-genitive is weighted toward the relational categories, with material possession also somewhat frequent. The possessees daughter, wife, son, men and legal advisors are those that occur in social/kinship possession. In material/abstract possession books, land, seal, tomb and will are the most common possessees and occur with roughly equal frequency. There are also approximately 15 other possessees that each occur once or twice. In body/quality possession hand, head, disposition and life are the most common possessees with only a few others occurring. The pronoun his has a similar distribution to the s-genitive with more frequent quality possession. In social/kinship possession, the possessees are very varied, each occurring only once or twice. The possessees in material/abstract possession are also varied, with gate, gear, chamber and costs most common, as are the possessees in body/quality possession, where head, stomach, disposition, courtesy, person and welfare are most frequent. The pronoun my mostly occurs in kinship possession, with my brother, my mother and my uncle as particularly frequent expressions. These uses account for nearly half the my occurrences. Other family members also appear in social/ kinship possession, as does servant and a small variety of other possessees.



Everyday possessions 

In material/abstract possession place, gown, duty and matters are most frequent, and in body/quality possession intent, will, life and power. The pronoun your is the most balanced of the possessive NPs. Its use also appears to be the most recipient-oriented one in several ways. First, it refers to the recipient directly in terms of social and material space, where the possessees servant, man, lord, letter, land, stuff and gift are most common. Second, it has an aspect of courtesy through the use of such qualities as pleasure and good will. Third, and related to the courtesy aspect, is the attribution of qualities and associations desired by the writer, such as discretion, language, tenderness, advice and promise. Have is mostly used with material, associative and abstract possession.11 In Table 7, these occurrences have been divided into instances of permanent, temporary and dynamic or potential possession: Table 7.  Material and abstract possession with the verb have in the correspondence of John Paston II: number of occurrences. Material possession Permanent possession Temporary possession Dynamic or potential possession Total

7 18 45 70

Associative possession 0 36 39 75

Abstract possession 1 9 5 15

The criteria for permanent possession were both ownership and control. As Table 7 shows, very few occurrences met these criteria, most instances of have referring to temporary possession (i.e., control but not ownership or long-term possession), potential possession or dynamic possession. The most common material, associative and abstract possessions with have are money, Caister, letter, land, answer, language and words. With kinship possession, frequent possessees are son, issue and heir. The possessive relation is typically potential and expresses hope or desire. With social possession man and spy are the most common. Typical associative possessions are knowledge, leisure and rest. Tables 5–7 show that the various possessive constructions are typically used by John Paston II with different possessive relations. This can be analyzed in terms of material, social and body/quality space. Have is used particularly to express material space, especially in its temporary aspect. Its use is assertive and informative. The s-genitive is also typically used for material space, but, in contrast 11.  Have is also used to indicate the present and past perfect tense. The ratio of perfect use to possessive use is roughly 1:1.3.

 Teo Juvonen

to have, the possession is more permanent, presupposed and relational. The s-genitive and have are similar in the nature of their possessor, which can be a common or proper noun, and thus a first mention. This feature may account for the greater frequency of material possession with the s-genitives compared to the other possessive NPs. The possessor in s-genitive constructions is used to identify and locate the possessee; the idea of control implicit in the concept of possession is metaphorical and grammaticalized in the s-genitive, while in have it is real and realized as temporary or potential possession. The s-genitive, the pronoun his and the pronoun my are also used to express social space, with my especially common with kinship space. His is descriptive and relational. The use of my is probably the best indicator of the personal identity of John Paston II, its use suggesting that his personal space is oriented by his family identity. The use of your is recipient-oriented, polite and indicative of the attitudes, hopes and desires of John Paston II in his dealings with the recipients. All the possessive NPs are fairly frequently used to express body/quality space, although it is not the typical use of any of them. From the functional and linguistic perspective there are several important differences between the verb have and the possessive NPs. With have, the possessive relation is asserted and thus emphasized. In this sense it has more semantic content and is probably more strongly influenced by the concept of possession in its cultural realization. In contrast, with the possessive NPs the possessive relation is presupposed and the grammatical, relational aspect of these constructions is emphasized. The possessive NPs are predominantly used with inherently relational possessees, and when material and abstract possessions occur in these constructions they assume relational characteristics. Possessive NPs and have are conceptually linked by the idea of possession, and both express the full range of possessive relations. Because of linguistic differences, possessive NPs imply a greater permancence, or inherentness, of possession whereas with have the possession is often temporary or potential and hoped for, as was shown above in the sections on property and kinship relations. These differences also have an impact on the types of possessee that occur with the constructions. Thus, the concept of possession in its cultural realization is filtered through the linguistic characteristics of the possessive constructions to create the actual possessive relations that occur in the correspondence of John Paston II. 5.  Conclusion: Identity, family and ownership This study considered the concept of possession initially through the notion of identity. The aim was to show how the possessive relation can be conceptually



Everyday possessions 

described in terms of social, body and material space. Similarly, the prototypical use of possessive constructions can be described with reference to kinship, body and material possession. Since the possessive NPs are linked with the relational categories and the verb have with the sortal categories, it seems that two different possessive relations operate in the possessive constructions. The first is an inherently relational and linguistically-oriented type of relationship between the possessor and the possessee. This is the relationship that is most apparent in the possessive relations of kinship, body, social and quality, whose possessees require a “possessor” of some sort to which they can relate. These types of possessee, such as brother, occur mostly in possessive constructions. In the letters of John Paston II, this possessive relation is mostly associated with my and kinship possession. The second possessive relation is semantically oriented and imposes relationality in similar patterns to the first concept of possession. In the letters analysed, it is associated with the verb have and material possession. This second concept of possession is more apparent and semantically stronger, since it is typically used with the verb have, which is assertive and informative. Thus, it is this concept that becomes the “intuitive” and default understanding for all these constructions. Hence, they can all be labeled “possessive constructions”. This seems to apply both to the constructions in these early letters as well as in Present-day English. These two concepts are linked together by the morpho-syntactic similarities among the possessive constructions, with the s-genitive occupying something of a middle ground. They are also interlinked at the discourse level in the life of the Pastons, where ownership and family relations had great impact on each other.

Appendix Table 8.  Possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II: number of occurrences of +prototypical possessive relations. Kinship possession my your his s-genitive Possessive NPs total have

114 7 29 7 157 9

Body possession 5 8 11 5 29 2

Material possession 29 19 11 5 64 70

Total 148 34 51 17 250 81

 Teo Juvonen

Table 9.  Possessive constructions in the correspondence of John Paston II: number of occurrences of –prototypical possessive relations. Social possession my your his s-genitive Possessive NPs total have

Quality possession

Associative possession

Abstract possession

Total

18 17 17 11 63

43 26 52 12 133

17 24 13 7 61

5 2 8 2 17

83 69 90 32 274

16

18

75

15

124

References Bennet, H.S. 1968. The Pastons and their England:  Studies in an Age of Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, Norman. 1967. “Style and stereotype in early English letters.” In Leeds Studies in English, vol. I, A.C. Cawley & R.C. Alston (Eds), 7–17. Leeds: The University of Leeds. Davis, Norman (Ed.). 1971–1976. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, parts I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fodor, Jerry A. 2001. “Language, thought and compositionality.” Mind & Language 16 (1): 1–15. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, Richard. 2004. Social Identity. London: Routledge. Langacker, Ronald. 1995. “Possession and possessive constructions.” In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, John R.  Taylor & Robert E.  MacLaury (Eds), 51–79. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Macfarlane, Alan. 1978. The Origins of English Individualism:  The Family, Property and Social Transition. Oxford: Blackwell. Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistcs:  Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman. Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English:  Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rosenbach, Anette, Stein, Dieter & Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. “On the history of the s-genitive.” In Generative Theory and Corpus Studies (A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL), Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C.B. McCully (Eds), 183–210. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rosenthal, Joel T. 2003. Telling Tales: Sources and Narration in Late Medieval England. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Schmidgen, Wolfram. 2002. Eighteenth-century Fiction and the Law of Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, Michael. 2004. “‘Cultural’ concepts and the language–culture nexus.” Current Anthropology 45 (5): 621–653.



Everyday possessions 

Smith, D. Vance. 2003. Art of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginary. Minneapolis/ London: University of Minnesota Press. Taylor, John. 1996. Possessives in English:  An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. Wrightson, Keith. 2000. Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press.

appendix

Editions in the Corpora of Early English Correspondence This is a list of all editions used for compiling the Corpora of Early English Correspondence. Each entry indicates which subcorpus it belongs to: Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (CEECE) or Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement (CEECSU). In addition, the collections from CEEC that have been included in the two published versions, the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC) are so indicated. The editions listed here for CEECE and CEECSU have been completely proofread and coded by May 2007. Addison  1699?–1718  14,201 words Graham, Walter (Ed.). 1941. The Letters of Joseph Addison. Oxford:  Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Allen  1579–1593  5,070 words Renold, P. (Ed.). 1967. Letters of William Allen and Richard Barret, 1572–1598 [Catholic Record Society]. Oxford: Oxonian Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Arundel  1589–1680  19,202 words Hervey, Mary F.S. (Ed.). 1921. The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, “Father of Vertu in England”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Arundel2  1608–1638  5,199 words Hervey, Mary F.S. (Ed.). 1921. The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, “Father of Vertu in England”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEECSU] Austen  1796–1800  27,955 words Le Faye, Deirdre (Ed.). 1995. Jane Austen’s Letters. 3rd edition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. [CEECE]

 Appendix

Bacon  1569–1594  139,004 words Hassell Smith, A., Baker, Gillian M.  & Kenny, R.W. (Eds). 1978–1979. The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey [Norfolk Record Society 46, 49 and 53]. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] BaconD  1597–1622  4,654 words Key, Jane (Ed.). 1991. “The letters and will of Lady Dorothy Bacon, 1597–1629.” In A Miscellany [Norfolk Record Society 56], Paul Rutledge, Roger Virgoe, Ralph Houlbrooke, Jane Key & Richard Wilson (Eds), 77–112. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. [CEECSU] BaconX  1596–1602  8,954 words Morgan, Victor, Key, Jane & Taylor, Barry (Eds). 2000. The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey [Norfolk Record Society 64]. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. [CEECSU] Banks  1704–1756  39,162 words Hill, J.W.F. (Ed.). 1952. The Letters and Papers of the Banks Family of Revesby Abbey 1704–1760 [Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 45]. Hereford:  Lincoln Record Society. [CEECE] Barrington  1628–1632  63,934 words Searle, Arthur (Ed.). 1983. Barrington Family Letters, 1628–1632 [Camden Fourth Series 28]. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Basire  1651–1666  7,068 words Darnell, W.N. (Ed.). 1831. The Correspondence of Isaac Basire, D.D. Archdeacon of Northumberland and Prebendary of Durham, in the Reigns of Charles I and Charles II. with a Memoir of His Life. London: John Murray. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Baxter & Eliot  1656–1657  2,346 words Powicke, F.J. (Ed.). 1931. Some Unpublished Correspondence of the Reverend Richard Baxter and the Reverend John Eliot, the Apostle of the American Indians, 1656–1682. Reprinted from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 15 (2). Manchester: Manchester University Press. [CEEC] Bentham  1560–1561  4,102 words O’Day, Rosemary & Berlatsky, Joel (Eds). 1979. “The letter-book of Thomas Bentham, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1560–1561.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. XXVII [Camden Fourth Series 22], 113–239. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]



Appendix 

BenthamJ  1745–1800  51,493 words Sprigge, Timothy L.S. (Ed.). 1968. The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vols 1–2. London: Athlone Press. [CEECE] AND Christie, Ian R. (Ed.). 1971. The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 3. London: Athlone Press. [CEECE] AND Milne, Alexander Taylor (Ed.). 1981. The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vols 4–5. London: Athlone Press. [CEECE] AND Dinwiddy, J.R. (Ed.). 1984. The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 6. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Betts  1522–1640  2,624 words Cusack, Bridget (Ed.). 1998. Everyday English 1500–1700. A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [CEECSU] Blomefield  1730–1751  13,318 words Stoker, David A. (Ed.). 1992. The Correspondence of the Reverend Francis Blomefield (1705–52) [Norfolk Record Society 55]. London:  Bibliographical Society. [CEECE] Bolton  1695–1700  8,300 words Simon, André L. (Ed.). 1928. The Bolton Letters. The Letters of an English Merchant in Madeira 1695–1714, vol. I 1695–1700. London: T. Werner Laurie. [CEECE] Bowrey  1687–1708  19,229 words Temple, Sir Richard Carnac (Ed.). 1905. A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay Of Bengal, 1669 to 1679, by Thomas Bowrey [Hakluyt Society Second Series 12]. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society. [CEECE] AND Temple, Sir Richard Carnac (Ed.). 1927. The Papers of Thomas Bowrey 1669–1713 [Hakluyt Society Second Series 58]. London: Hakluyt Society. [CEECE] Brereton  1524–1534  9,748 words Ives, E.W. (Ed.). 1976. Letters and Accounts of William Brereton of Malpas [Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 116]. Old Woking, Surrey: Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. [CEEC, PCEEC]

 Appendix

Browne  1653–1681  20,778 words Keynes, Geoffrey (Ed.). 1964. The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, vol. IV Letters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Bryskett  1581–1583  8,961 words Plomer, Henry R. & Cross, Tom Peete (Eds). 1927. The Life and Correspondence of Lodowick Bryskett. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Burney  1762–1784  39,451 words Ribeiro, Alvaro S.J. (Ed.). 1991. The Letters of Dr Charles Burney, vol. I 1751–1784. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] BurneyF  1770–1800  55,732 words Troide, Lars E. (Ed.). 1990. The Early Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] AND Troide, Lars E. & Cooke, Stewart J. (Eds). 1994. The Early Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] AND Hemlow, Joyce, Cecil, Curtis D. & Douglas, Althea (Eds). 1972. The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] AND Hemlow, Joyce & Douglas, Althea (Eds). 1972. The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] AND Hemlow, Joyce, Boutilier, Patricia & Douglas, Althea (Eds). 1972. The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] AND Hemlow, Joyce (Ed.). 1973. The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney, vol. IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Bute  1756–1764?  5,372 words Sedgwick, Romney (Ed.). 1939. Letters from George III to Lord Bute 1756–1766. London: Macmillan. [CEECE] Carter  1738–1800  25,499 words Hampshire, Gwen (Ed.). 2005. Elizabeth Carter, 1717–1806: An Edition of Some Unpublished Letters. Newark: University of Delaware Press. [CEECE]



Appendix 

Cary  1625–1659  10,258 words Wolfe, Heather (Ed.). 2001. Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland, Life and Letters [Renaissance Texts from Manuscript 4]. Cambridge: RTM Publications; Tempe, AZ:  Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Arizona State University. [CEECSU] Cecil  1586  1,634 words Read, Conyers (Ed.). 1909. The Bardon Papers. Documents Relating to the Imprisonment & Trial of Mary Queen of Scots [Camden Third Series 17]. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Cely  1474–1488  51,478 words Hanham, A. (Ed.). 1975. The Cely Letters 1472–1488 [Early English Text Society 273]. London/New York/Toronto: Oxford University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Chamberlain  1597–1625  69,349 words McClure, Norman Egbert (Ed.). 1939. The Letters of John Chamberlain [American Philosophical Society Memoirs 12 (1–2)]. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Champion  1774–1776  10,790 words Guttridge, G.H. (Ed.). 1934. The American Correspondence of a Bristol Merchant 1766–1776. Letters of Richard Champion [University of California Publications in History 22 (1)]. Berkeley: University Of California Press. [CEECE] Charles  1634–1678  2,964 words Marquis of Bristol (Ed.). 1864/1968. “Five letters of King Charles II.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. V [Camden Original Series 87]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] AND Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (Ed.). 1864/1968. “Letters of the Council to Sir Thomas Lake, relating to the proceedings of Sir Edward Coke at Oatlands.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. V [Camden Original Series 87]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Clavering  1705–1741  72,846 words Dickinson, H.T. (Ed.). 1967. The Correspondence of Sir James Clavering [Publications of the Surtees Society 178]. Gateshead: Surtees Society. [CEECE] Clerk  1458–1590  3,876 words Anderson, R.C. (Ed.). 1921. Letters of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries from the Archives of Southampton [Publications of the Southampton Record Society]. Southampton: Southampton Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]

 Appendix

Clifford  1494–1580  33,919 words Dickens, A.G. (Ed.). 1962. Clifford Letters of the Sixteenth Century [Publications of the Surtees Society 172]. Durham/London: Surtees Society. [CEEC] AND Hoyle, R.W. (Ed.). 1992. “Letters of the Cliffords, lords Clifford and earls of Cumberland, c. 1500–c. 1565.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. XXXI [Camden Fourth Series 44], 1–190. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Clift  1792–1799  52,038 words Austin, Frances (Ed.). 1991. The Clift Family Correspondence 1792–1846. Sheffield: CECTAL, The University of Sheffield. [CEECE] Conway  1640–1680  57,946 words Nicholson, Marjorie Hope (Ed.) & Hutton, Sarah (rev. ed.). 1992. The Conway Letters. The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and Their Friends. 1642–1684. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Corie  1666–1671  4,626 words Hill, Robert H. (Ed.). 1956. The Correspondence of Thomas Corie, Town Clerk of Norwich, 1664–1687. With his Annotations to Edward Browne’s Travels and other Memoranda [Norfolk Record Society 27]. Norwich:  Norfolk Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Cornwallis  1613–1644  61,603 words Griffin, Richard, Baron Braybrooke (Ed.). 1842. The Private Correspondence of Jane Lady Cornwallis; 1613–1644. London: S. & J. Bentley, Wilson, & Fley. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Cosin  1617–1669  37,853 words Ornsby, George (Ed.). 1869–1872. The Correspondence of John Cosin, D.D. Lord Bishop of Durham: Together with Other Papers Illustrative of His Life and Times, parts I–II [Publications of the Surtees Society 52 and 55]. Durham/London/Edinburgh: Surtees Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] CowperS  1732–1764  10,187 words Hughes, Edward (Ed.). 1956. Letters of Spencer Cowper, Dean of Durham 1746–74 [Publications of the Surtees Society 165]. Durham/London:  Surtees Society [CEECE] CowperW  1759–1799  56,254 words King, James & Ryskamp, Charles (Eds). 1979–1984. The Letters and Prose Writings of William Cowper, vols I–IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE]



Appendix 

Crisp  1779–1782  18,395 words Hutton, William Holden (Ed.). 1905. Burford Papers. Being Letters of Samuel Crisp to his Sister at Burford; and other Studies of a Century (1745–1845). London: Archibald Constable & Co Ltd. [CEECE] Cromwell  1523–1540  44,386 words Merriman, Roger Bigelow (Ed.). 1902. Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, vols I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Culley 1784–1785 25,100 words Orde, Anne (Ed.). 2002. Matthew and George Culley. Travel Journals and Letters, 1765–1798 [Records of Social and Economic History New Series 35]. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. [CEECE] Darwin  1763–1797  18,362 words King-Hele, Desmond (Ed.). 1981. The Letters of Erasmus Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEECE] Defoe  1703–1729  32,688 words Healey, George Harris (Ed.). 1955. The Letters of Daniel Defoe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Derby  1533–1539  12,555 words Toller, T. Northcote (Ed.). 1890. Correspondence of Edward, Third Earl of Derby, during the Years 24 to 31 Henry VIII [Remains Historical and Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester New Series 19]. Manchester: Chetham Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Dodsley  1743–1764  48,691 words Tierney, James E. (Ed.). 1988. The Correspondence of Robert Dodsley, 1733–1764. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEECE] Draper  1757–1775?  22,511 words Wright, Arnold & Sclater, William Lutley (Eds). 1922. Sterne’s Eliza. Some Account of Her Life in India: With Her Letters Written between 1757 and 1774. London: William Heinemann. [CEECE] Dukes  1732–1750  50,858 words McCann, Timothy J. (Ed.). 1984. The Correspondence of the Dukes of Richmond and Newcastle 1724–1750 [Sussex Record Society 73]. Lewes:  Sussex Record Society. [CEECE] Duppa  1650–1660  28,410 words Isham, Sir Gyles (Ed.). 1951. The Correspondence of Bishop Brian Duppa and Sir Justinian Isham 1650–1660 [Publications of the Northamptonshire Record Society 17]. Lamport Hall: Northamptonshire Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]

 Appendix

Edmondes  1592–1599  20,522 words Butler, Geoffrey G. (Ed.). 1913. The Edmondes Papers:  A Selection from the Correspondence of Sir Thomas Edmondes, Envoy from Queen Elizabeth at the French Court. London: Roxburghe Club. [CEEC, PCEEC] Elyot  1528–1536  7,201 words Wilson, K.J. (Ed.). 1976. “The letters of Sir Thomas Elyot.” Studies in Philology 73 (5): ix–78. [CEEC, PCEEC] Essex  1675–1677  25,206 words Pike, Clement Edwards (Ed.). 1913. Selections from the Correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, 1675–77 [Camden Third Series 24]. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Evelyn  1665–1703  38,929 words de la Bédoyère, Guy (Ed.). 1997. Particular Friends. The Correspondence of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. [CEECE] Evelyn2  1665–1700  14,378 words de la Bédoyère, Guy (Ed.). 1997. Particular Friends. The Correspondence of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. [CEECE] Factory  1613–1622  198,497 words Farrington, Anthony (Ed.). 1991. The English Factory in Japan 1613–1623. London: British Library. [CEECSU] Ferrar  1613–1658  17,126 words Blackstone, B. (Ed.). 1938. The Ferrar Papers Containing A Life of Nicholas Ferrar, The Winding-sheet, A Collection of Short Moral Histories, A Selection of Family Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Ffarington  1547–1554  6,125 words Ffarington, Susan Maria (Ed.). 1856. The Ffarington Papers. The Shrievalty of William Ffarington, Esq.; A.D. 1636: Documents Relating to the Civil War: and an Appendix, Containing a Collection of Letters Taken from the Ffarington Correspondence between the Years 1547 and 1688 [Chetham Society 39]. Manchester: Chetham Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Fitzherbert  1608–1610  11,271 words Hicks, L. (Ed.). 1948. Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, 1608–1610 [Publications of the Catholic Record Society 41]. London: Catholic Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Fleming  1650–1680  39,833 words Magrath, John Richard (Ed.). 1904. The Flemings in Oxford, Being Documents Selected from the Rydal papers in Illustration of the Lives and Ways of Oxford Men 1650–1700, vol. I [Oxford Historical Society 44]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC]



Appendix 

Fleming2  1653–1701  76,297 words Magrath, John Richard (Ed.). 1913–1924. The Flemings in Oxford, Being Documents Selected from the Rydal Papers in Illustration of the Lives and Ways of Oxford Men 1650–1690, vols II–III [Oxford Historical Society 62 and 79]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] FlemingX  1684–1698  14,020 words Magrath, John Richard (Ed.). 1913–1924. The Flemings in Oxford, Being Documents Selected from the Rydal Papers in Illustration of the Lives and Ways of Oxford Men 1650–1690, vols II–III [Oxford Historical Society 62 and 79]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Foundling  1758–1767  50,221 words Clark, Gillian (Ed.). 1994. Correspondence of the Foundling Hospital Inspectors in Berkshire 1757–68 [Berkshire Record Society 1]. Reading:  Berkshire Record Society. [CEECE] Fox  1497–1519  10,554 words Allen, P.S. & Allen, H.M. (Eds). 1929. Letters of Richard Fox 1486–1527. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Gardiner  1528–1554  31,785 words Muller, James Arthur (Ed.). 1933. The Letters of Stephen Gardiner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Gardiner2  1529–1546  4,405 words Muller, James Arthur (Ed.). 1933. The Letters of Stephen Gardiner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEECSU] Garrick  1733–1777  42,832 words Little, David M.  & Kahrl, George M. (Eds). 1963. The Letters of David Garrick, vols I–III. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [CEECE] Gawdy  1579–1616  22,418 words Jeayes, Isaac Herbert (Ed.). 1906. Letters of Philip Gawdy of West Harling, Norfolk, and of London to Various Members of His Family 1579–1616. London: Roxburghe Club. [CEEC] Gawdy2  1580–1614  35,586 words Jeayes, Isaac Herbert (Ed.). 1906. Letters of Philip Gawdy of West Harling, Norfolk, and of London to Various Members of His Family 1579–1616. London: Roxburghe Club. [CEECSU]

 Appendix

GawdyL  1600–1639  10,361 words Nevala, Minna (Ed.). 1996–1997. British Library Manuscripts Additional 27,395; Egerton 2,714, 2,715 and 2,716. Unpublished. [CEEC] Gay  1705–1731  7,227 words Burgess, C.F. (Ed.). 1966. The Letters of John Gay. Oxford:  Clarendon Press. [CEECE] George 3  1765–1783  7,765 words Fortescue, John (Ed.). 1927–1928. The Correspondence of King George the Third, vols I–VI. London: Macmillan. [CEECE] George 3A 1779–1800 51,638 words Aspinall, A. (Ed.). 1962–1970. The Later Correspondence of George III, vols I–V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEECE] George 4  1778–1800  73,065 words Aspinall, A. (Ed.). 1963–1967. The Correspondence of George, Prince of Wales 1770–1812, vols I–IV. London: Cassell. [CEECE] Gibbon  1750–1793  26,540 words Norton, J.E. (Ed.). 1956. The Letters of Edward Gibbon, vols I–III. London: Cassell and Company Ltd. [CEECE] Giffard  1664–1668  3,900 words Longe, Julia G. (Ed.). 1911. Martha Lady Giffard. Her Life and Correspondence (1664–1722). London: George Allen & Sons. [CEEC] Giffard 2  1665–1722  11,954 words Longe, Julia G. (Ed.). 1911. Martha Lady Giffard. Her life and Correspondence (1664–1722). London: George Allen & Sons. [CEECE] Gower  1783–1800  16,989 words Castalia Countess Granville (Ed.). 1916. Lord Granville Leveson Gower:  Private Correspondence 1781 to 1821, vol. 1. London: John Murray. [CEECE] Gray  1734–1771  42,694 words Toynbee, Paget & Whibley, Leonard (Eds). 1935. Correspondence of Thomas Gray, vols I–III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Grene  1530–1539  3,029 words Houlbrooke, Ralph (Ed.). 1991. “The letters and will of Thomas Grene (d. 1545), Rector of Poringland.” In A Miscellany [Norfolk Record Society 56], Paul Rutledge, Roger Virgoe, Ralph Houlbrooke, Jane Key & Richard Wilson (Eds), 59–76. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. [CEECSU]



Appendix 

Haddock  1657–1673  5,657 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1883/1965. “Correspondence of the family of Haddock 1657–1719.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. VIII [Camden New Series 31]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, PCEEC] Haddock2  1688–1719  4,647 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1883/1965. “Correspondence of the family of Haddock 1657–1719.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. VIII [Camden New Series 31]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEECE] Hamilton  1648–1650  1,091 words Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (Ed.). 1880. The Hamilton Papers:  Being Selections from the Original Letters in the Possession of His Grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon Relating to the Years 1638–1650 [Camden New Series 27]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Harington  1571–1612  8,833 words McClure, Norman Egbert (Ed.). 1930. The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington together with The Prayse of Private Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [CEEC] Harley  1625–1666  24,915 words Lewis, Thomas Taylor (Ed.). 1854. Letters of the Lady Brilliana Harley, Wife of Sir Robert Harley, of Brampton Bryan, Knight of the Bath [Camden Original Series 57]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Hart  1561–1578  2,139 words Danielsson, Bror (Ed.). 1955. John Hart’s Works on English Orthography and Pronunciation [1551  – 1569  – 1570], part I.  Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. [CEEC, PCEEC] Harvey  1573  9,759 words Scott, Edward John Long (Ed.). 1884. Letter-Book of Gabriel Harvey, A.D. 1573–1580 [Camden New Series 33]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Hastings  1573–1609  21,846 words Cross, Claire (Ed.). 1969. The Letters of Sir Francis Hastings 1574–1609 [Somerset Record Society 69]. London: Somerset Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Hatton  1601–1681  33,831 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1878. Correspondence of the Family of Hatton Being Chiefly Letters Addressed to Christopher First Viscount Hatton, A.D. 1601–1704, vols I–II [Camden New Series 22–23]. London:  Camden Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]

 Appendix

Hatton2  1682–1704  25,575 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1878. Correspondence of the Family of Hatton Being Chiefly Letters Addressed to Christopher First Viscount Hatton, A.D. 1601–1704, vol. II [Camden New Series 23]. London: Camden Society. [CEECE] Henry  1660–1693  10,637 words Lee, Matthew Henry (Ed.). 1882. Diaries and Letters of Philip Henry, M.A., of Broad Oak, Flintshire, A.D. 1631–1696. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. [CEECE] Henry VIII  1528 1,629 words Stemmler, Theo (Ed.). 1988. Die Liebesbriefe Heinrichs VIII. an Anna Boleyn. Zürich: Belser Verlag. [CEEC, PCEEC] Henslowe  1559–1620  14,408 words Foakes, R.A. & Rickert, R.T. (Eds). 1961. Henslowe’s Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CEEC] AND Greg, Walter W. (Ed.). 1907. Henslowe Papers, Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe’s Diary. London: A.H. Bullen. [CEEC] AND Yamagishi, Masayuki (Ed.). 1992. The Henslowe Papers Supplement:  The Theatre Papers. Kyoto: Apollon-Sha. [CEEC] AND Keränen, Jukka (Ed.). 1998. “Forgeries and one-eyed bulls:  Editorial questions in corpus work.” Neuphilogische Mitteilungen 99 (2): 217–226. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Holles  1587–1637  66,367 words Seddon, P.R. (Ed.). 1975. Letters of John Holles, 1587–1637, vol. I [Thoroton Society Record Series 31]. Nottingham: Thoroton Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Hoskyns  1601–1629  12,368 words Osborne, Louise Brown (Ed.). 1937. The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Hoskyns, 1566–1638 [Yale Studies in English 87]. New Haven:  Yale University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Hurd  1739–1797  37,415 words Brewer, Sarah (Ed.). 1995. The Early Letters of Bishop Richard Hurd 1739–1762 [Church of England Record Society 3]. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. [CEECE]



Appendix 

AND Whibley, Leonard (Ed.). 1932. The Correspondence of Richard Hurd & William Mason and Letters of Richard Hurd to Thomas Gray. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. [CEECE] Hutton  1566–1638  25,316 words Raine, J. (Ed.). 1843. The Correspondence of Dr. Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of York. With a Selection from the Letters, etc. of Sir Timothy Hutton, Knt., His Son; and Matthew Hutton, Esq., His Grandson [Publications of the Surtees Society 17]. London: J.B. Nichols and Son, William Pickering; Edinburgh: Laing and Forbes. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Johnson  1541–1553  191,695 words Winchester, Barbara (Ed.). 1953. The Johnson Letters (1542–1552). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of London. [CEEC] JohnsonS  1732–1784  25,706 words Redford, Bruce (Ed.). 1992–1994. The Letters of Samuel Johnson, vols I–V. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [CEECE] Jones  1651–1660  33,877 words Mayer, Joseph (Ed.). 1861. “Inedited letters of Cromwell, Colonel Jones, Bradshaw and other regicides.” In Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire [New Series I], 177–300. Liverpool: Adam Holden. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] JonesW  1768–1794  33,014 words Cannon, Garland (Ed.). 1970. The Letters of Sir William Jones, vols I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Jonson  1605–1631  3,798 words Herford, C.H., Simpson, Percy & Simpson, Evelyn (Eds). 1954. Ben Jonson, vol. I. Corrected ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Knyvett  1620–1643  27,355 words Schofield, Bertram (Ed.). 1949. The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644). London: Constable & Company. [CEEC, PCEEC] Knyvett 2  1621–1644  23,953 words Schofield, Bertram (Ed.). 1949. The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644). London: Constable & Company. [CEECSU] Lennox  1761–1800  66,358 Countess of Ilchester & Lord Stavordale (Eds). 1902. The Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox: 1745?–1826, vols I–II. London: John Murray. [CEECE]

 Appendix

Leycester  1585–1586  67,786 words Bruce, John (Ed.). 1844. Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during His Government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 [Camden Original Series 27]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Liddell  1709–1716  36,816 words Ellis, J.M. (Ed.). 1987. The Letters of Henry Liddell to William Cotesworth [Publications of the Surtees Society 197]. Durham: Surtees Society. [CEECE] Lisle  1533–1539  5,774 words Byrne, Muriel St. Clare (Ed.). 1981. The Lisle Letters, vols I–V. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] LisleH  1531–1539  12,552 words Byrne, Muriel St. Clare (Ed.). 1981. The Lisle Letters, vols I–V. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [CEECSU] Lowther  1632–1643  36,925 words Hainsworth, D.R. (Ed.). 1977. Commercial Papers of Sir Christopher Lowther 1611–1644 [Publications of the Surtees Society 189]. Gateshead: Printed for the Surtees Society by Northumberland Press. [CEEC] Marchall  1440?–1476  4,834 words Keränen, Jukka, Nevalainen, Terttu & Nurmi, Arja (Eds). 1996. The Marchall Letters. Public Record Office, SC1. Published in CEECS and PCEEC. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Marescoe  1668–1680  21,807 words Roseveare, Henry (Ed.). 1987. Markets and Merchants of the Late Seventeenth Century. The Marescoe-David Letters, 1668–1680 [Records of Social and Economic History New Series 12]. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. [CEEC] Marvell  1653–1677  10,616 words Margoliouth, H.M (Ed.). 1971. The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, vol. II Letters. 3rd edition, revised by Pierre Legouis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC] Melbourne  1776–1799?  3,824 words Gross, Jonathan David (Ed.). 1997. Byron’s “Corbeau Blanc”. The Life and Letters of Lady Melbourne. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [CEECE] Minette  1662–1669  7,748 words Norrington, Ruth (Ed.). 1996. My Dearest Minette: The Letters between Charles II and His Sister Henrietta, the Duchesse d’Orléans. London: Peter Owen. [CEEC, PCEEC]



Appendix 

Montagu  1710?–1761  76,408 words Halsband, Robert (Ed.). 1965–1967. The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, vols I–III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] More  1505–1535  36,942 words Rogers, Elizabeth Frances (Ed.). 1947. The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Newdigate  1731–1797  30,054 words White, A.W.A. (Ed.). 1995. The Correspondence of Sir Roger Newdigate of Arbury Warwickshire [Dugdale Society 37]. Hertford: Dugdale Society. [CEECE] North  1716–1790  14,551 word Hughes, Edward (Ed.). 1952–1965. North Country Life in the Eighteenth Century, vols I–II. London: Oxford University Press. [CEECE] Original 1  1418–1529  23,176 words Ellis, Henry (Ed.). 1825. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including Numerous Royal Letters: from Autographs in the British Museum, and One or Two Other Collections, vol. I. 2nd edition. London:  Harding, Triphook, and Lepard. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Original 2  1520?–1586  16,879 words Ellis, Henry (Ed.). 1825. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including Numerous Royal Letters: from Autographs in the British Museum, and One or Two Other Collections, vol. II. 2nd edition. London:  Harding, Triphook, and Lepard. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Original 3  1580?–1665  9,948 words Ellis, Henry (Ed.). 1825. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including Numerous Royal Letters: from Autographs in the British Museum, and One or Two Other Collections, vol. III. 2nd edition. London: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Original 4  1682–1716  2,900 words Ellis, Henry (Ed.). 1825. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including Numerous Royal Letters: from Autographs in the British Museum, and One or Two Other Collections, vol. III. 2nd Edition. London: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard. [CEECE] Osborne  1652–1657  71,100 words Moore Smith, G.C. (Ed.). 1928/1959. The Letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC]

 Appendix

Oxinden  1607–1681  123,861 words Gardiner, Dorothy (Ed.). 1933. The Oxinden Letters 1607–1642. Being the Correspondence of Henry Oxinden of Barham and His Circle. London: Constable & Co. [CEEC, PCEEC] AND Gardiner, Dorothy (Ed.). 1937. The Oxinden and Peyton Letters 1642–1670. Being the Correspondence of Henry Oxinden of Barham, Sir Thomas Peyton of Knowlton and Their Circle. London: The Sheldon Press. [CEEC] OxindenX  1635–1663  9,037 words Gardiner, Dorothy (Ed.). 1933. The Oxinden Letters 1607–1642. Being the Correspondence of Henry Oxinden of Barham and His Circle. London: Constable & Co. [CEECSU] AND Gardiner, Dorothy (Ed.). 1937. The Oxinden and Peyton Letters 1642–1670. Being the Correspondence of Henry Oxinden of Barham, Sir Thomas Peyton of Knowlton and Their Circle. London: The Sheldon Press. [CEECSU] Paget  1547–1556  25,430 words Beer, Barrett L. & Jack, Sybil M. (Eds). 1974. “The letters of William, Lord Paget of Beaudesert, 1547–1563.” In Camden Miscellany, Vol. XXV [Camden Fourth Series 13], 1–142. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Parkhurst  1569–1575  34,797 words Houlbrooke, R.A. (Ed.). 1974–1975. The Letter Book of John Parkhurst Bishop of Norwich Compiled during the Years 1571–5 [Norfolk Record Society 43]. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Paston  1425–1510?  234,098 words Davis, Norman (Ed.). 1971–1976. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, parts I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] PastonK  1603–1627  29,626 words Hughey, Ruth (Ed.). 1941. The Correspondence of Lady Katherine Paston, 1603–1627 [Norfolk Record Society 14]. Norwich:  Norfolk Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] PastonX  1467–1503  13,126 words Davis, Norman (Ed.). 1971–1976. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, parts I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECSU]



Appendix 

Pauper  1731–1795?  2,220 words Sokoll, Thomas (Ed.). 2001. Essex Pauper Letters 1731–1837 [Records of Social and Economic History New Series 30]. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. [CEECE] Pepys  1663–1680  42,476 words Heath, Helen Truesdell (Ed.). 1955. The Letters of Samuel Pepys and His Family Circle. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Pepys2  1681–1692  9,435 words Heath, Helen Truesdell (Ed.). 1955. The Letters of Samuel Pepys and His Family Circle. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Pepys3  1665–1700  27,127 words de la Bédoyère, Guy (Ed.). 1997. Particular Friends. The Correspondence of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. [CEECE] AND Heath, Helen Truesdell (Ed.). 1955. The Letters of Samuel Pepys and His Family Circle. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Perrot  1799–1800  8,924 words Stevens Cox, J. (Ed.). 1985. Letters from Ilchester Gaol, 1799–1800, by Jane Leigh Perrot, Jane Austen’s Aunt [Ilchester and District Occasional Papers 64]. Guernsey: Toucan Press. [CEECE] Petty  1676–1681  22,408 words Marquis of Lansdowne (Ed.). 1928/1976. The Petty-Southwell Correspondence 1676–1687 [Reprints of Economic Classics]. New York:  Augustus M. Kelley. [CEEC, PCEEC] Petty2  1682–1687  14,378 words Marquis of Lansdowne (Ed.). 1928/1976. The Petty-Southwell Correspondence 1676–1687 [Reprints of Economic Classics]. New York:  Augustus M.  Kelley. [CEECE] Pierce  1751–1775  20,354 words Macdonald, Violet M. (Ed.). 1927. The Letters of Eliza Pierce 1751–1775, with Letters from Her Son Pierce Joseph Taylor a Schoolboy at Eton. London: Frederick Etchells & Hugh Macdonald. [CEECE] Pinney  1679–1706  25,098 words Nuttall, Geoffrey F. (Ed.). 1939. Letters of John Pinney 1679–1699. London/New York/ Toronto: Oxford University Press. [CEECE]

 Appendix

Piozzi  1784–1798  39,572 words Bloom, Edward A.  & Bloom, Lillian D. (Eds). 1989–1991. The Piozzi Letters. Correspondence of Hester Lynch Piozzi, 1784–1821, vols 1–2. Newark: University of Delaware Press; London/Toronto: Associated University Press. [CEECE] Pitt  1750?–1757  9,071 words Lord Grenville (Ed.). 1805. Letters Written by the Late Earl of Chatham to His Nephew Thomas Pitt, Esq. (Afterwards Lord Camelford) Then at Cambridge. London/Gottingen: Reprinted for H. Dieterich. [CEECE] Pitt 2  1754  15,618 words Kaislaniemi, Samuli (Ed.). 2004. Correspondence of William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham and Lady Hester (Grenville) His wife. Public Record Office 30/8. (PRO 30/8/5/1: Letters of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham: To Lady Hester before their marriage. PRO 30/8/7: Letters of Lady Hester to her husband). Unpublished. [CEECE] Plumpton  1480–1550  36,771 words Stapleton, Thomas (Ed.). 1839/1968. Plumpton Correspondence. A Series of Letters, Chiefly Domestick, Written in the Reigns of Edward IV. Richard III. Henry VII. and Henry VIII [Camden Original Series 4]. New York:  AMS Press. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Plumpton2  1461–1549?  36,432 words Kirby, Joan (Ed.). 1996. The Plumpton Letters and Papers [Camden Fifth Series 8]. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society. [CEECSU] Pope  1708–1744  32,869 words Sherburn, George (Ed.). 1956. The Correspondence of Alexander Pope, vols I–IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Porter  1789–1800?  13,815 words Martin, Joanna (Ed.). 1998. A Governess in the Age of Jane Austen. The Journals and Letters of Agnes Porter. London/Rio Grande: Hambledon Press. [CEECE] Pory  1610–1632  6,084 words Powell, William S. (Ed.). 1977. John Pory/1572–1636. The Life and Letters of a Man of Many Parts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Prideaux  1674–1680  7,571 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1875. Letters of Humphrey Prideaux, Sometime Dean of Norwich, to John Ellis, Sometime Under-Secretary of State, 1674–1722 [Camden New Series 15]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]



Appendix 

Prideaux2  1681–1722  15,934 words Thompson, Edward Maunde (Ed.). 1875. Letters of Humphrey Prideaux, Sometime Dean of Norwich, to John Ellis, Sometime Under-Secretary of State, 1674–1722 [Camden New Series 15]. London: Camden Society. [CEECE] Purefoy  1736–1754  28,549 words Eland, G. (Ed.). 1931. Purefoy Letters 1735–1753, vols I–II. London:  Sidgwick & Jackson, Ltd. [CEECE] Ralegh  1581–1618  18,514 words Latham, Agnes & Youings, Joyce (Eds). 1998. The Letters of Sir Walter Ralegh. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. [CEECSU] Ralegh2  1583–1617  21,095 words Latham, Agnes & Youings, Joyce (Eds). 1998. The Letters of Sir Walter Ralegh. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. [CEECSU] Rerum  1483–1505  5,915 words Gairdner, James (Ed.). 1861–1863. Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores. Or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages. Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. & Henry VII, vols I–II. Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. London:  Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Royal 1  1585–1596  14,083 words Bruce, John (Ed.). 1849. Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI. of Scotland; Some of them Printed from Originals in the Possession of the Rev. Edward Ryder, and Others from a MS. which Formerly Belonged to Sir Peter Thompson, Kt. [Camden Society 46]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Royal 2  1612–1661  29,455 words Nevalainen, Terttu (Ed.). 1996. Letters of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, edited from State Papers 81, Public Record Office. Unpublished. [CEEC] AND Wendland, Anna (Ed.). 1902. Briefe der Elizabeth Stuart, Königin von Böhmen, an Ihren Sohn, der Kurfürsten Carl Ludwig von der Pfalz. 1650–1662 [Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 228]. Tübingen: Der Litterarische Verein in Stuttgart. [CEEC] AND Bray, William (Ed.). 1906. Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn. London: Routledge. [CEEC] AND

 Appendix

Walker, Sir Patrick & Macdonald, Alexander (Eds). 1835. Letters to King James the Sixth from the Queen, Prince Henry, Prince Charles, the Princess Elizabeth and her Husband Frederick King of Bohemia, and from their Son Prince Frederick Henry. Edinburgh: The Maitland Club. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Royal 3  1676–1680  13,363 words Bathurst, Benjamin (Ed.). 1925. Letters of Two Queens. London: Robert Holden & Co. [CEEC] Royal 4  1681–1684  4,408 words Bathurst, Benjamin (Ed.). 1925. Letters of Two Queens. London: Robert Holden & Co. [CEEC] Rutland  1492–1503  1,127 words Maxwell Lyte, H.C. (Ed.). 1888. The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B., Preserved at Belvoir Castle, vols I–II [Historical Manuscripts Commission Twelfth Report Appendix Part IV]. London: Printed for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, by Eyre and Spottiswoode. [CEEC, PCEEC] Sancho  1770?–1780?  20,216 words Edwards, Paul & Rewt, Polly (Eds). 1994. The Letters of Ignatius Sancho. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [CEECE] Secker  1738–1761  31,661 words Jenkins,A.P. (Ed.). 1991. The Correspondence of Thomas Secker, Bishop of Oxford 1737–58 [Oxfordshire Record Society 57]. Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society. [CEECE] Shillingford  1447–1448  13,527 words Moore, Stuart A. (Ed.). 1871/1965. Letters and Papers of John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter 1447–50 [Camden New Series 2]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Signet  1417–1422  15,029 words Fisher, John H., Richardson, Malcolm & Fisher, Jane L. (Eds). 1984. An Anthology of Chancery English. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Smyth  1581–1641  10,346 words Bettey J.H. (Ed.). 1982. Calendar of the Correspondence of the Smyth Family of Ashton Court 1548–1642 [Publications of the Bristol Record Society 35]. Gloucester: Bristol Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Stapylton  1665–1667  3,429 words Hodgson, J.C. (Ed.). 1918. Northumbrian Documents of the 17th and 18th Centuries, Comprising the Register of the Estates of Roman Catholics in Northumderland and the Correspondence of Miles Stapylton [Publications of the Surtees Society 131]. Durham/London: Surtees Society. [CEEC]



Appendix 

Stiffkey  1600?–1610?  899 words Saunders, H.W. (Ed.). 1915. The Official Papers of Sir Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, Norfolk, as Justice of the Peace 1580–1620 [Camden Third Series 26]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Stockwell  1602–1611  26,503 words Rutherford, J. (Ed.). 1932–1933. The Miscellaneous Papers of Captain Thomas Stockwell, 1590–1614, vols I–II [Southampton Record Society 32–33]. Southampton: Cox & Sharland. [CEEC, PCEEC] Stonor  1424–1483  38,006 words Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge (Ed.). 1919. The Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290–1483, vols I–II [Camden Third Series 29–30]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] AND Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge (Ed.). 1924. “Supplementary Stonor letters and papers (1314–1482).” In Camden Miscellany 13 [Camden Third Series 34]. London: Camden Society. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Stuart  1588–1611  31,578 words Steen, Sara Jayne (Ed.). 1994. The Letters of Lady Arabella Stuart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Stubbs  1791–1800  4,274 words Ashton T.S. (Ed.). 1939/1961. An Eighteenth-Century Industrialist. Peter Stubs of Warrington 1756–1806. Manchester: Manchester University Press. [CEECE] Swift  1712–1740  57,439 words Woolley, David (Ed.). 1999–2003. The Correspondence of Jonathan Swift, vols I–III. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang. [CEECE] AND Williams, Harold (Ed.). 1963–1965. The Correspondence of Jonathan Swift, vols IV–V, corrected by David Woolley. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Symcotts  1620?–1660  13,789 words Poynter, F.N.L. & Bishop, W.J. (Eds). 1951. A Seventeenth Century Doctor and His Patients: John Symcotts, 1592?–1662 [The Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 31]. Streatley: Bedfordshire Historial Record Society. [CEECSU] Thynne  1570?–1611  19,574 words Wall, Alison D. (Ed.). 1983. Two Elizabethan Women:  Correspondence of Joan and Maria Thynne 1575–1611 [Wiltshire Record Society 38]. Devizes: Wiltshire Record Society. [CEECSU]

 Appendix

Tixall  1650?–1680  11,545 words Clifford, Arthur (Ed.). 1815. Tixall Letters; or the Correspondence of the Aston Family, and Their Friends, during the Seventeenth Century, vol. II. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Tixall2  1684–1686  392 words Clifford, Arthur (Ed.). 1815. Tixall Letters; or the Correspondence of the Aston Family, and Their Friends, during the Seventeenth Century, vol. II. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown. [CEECE] Twining  1762–1800  57,793 words Walker, Ralph S. (Ed.). 1991. A Selection of Thomas Twining’s Letters 1734–1804. The Record of a Tranquil Life, vols I–II [Studies in British History 25]. Lewiston/ Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. [CEECE] Verstegan  1592–1617  15,493 words Petti, Anthony G. (Ed.). 1959. Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan. (c. 1550–1640) [Publications of the Catholic Record Society 52]. London: Catholic Record Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Wanley  1694–1726  32,725 words Heyworth, P.L. (Ed.). 1989. Letters of Humfrey Wanley, Palaeographer, Anglo-Saxonist, Librarian, 1672–1726. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Warton  1745?–1790?  31,344 words Fairer, David (Ed.). 1995. The Correspondence of Thomas Warton. Athens, GA/London: University of Georgia Press. [CEECE] Wedgewood  1763–1793  35,232 words Farrer, Lady Katherine Euphemia (Ed.). 1903/1973. Letters of Josiah Wedgwood, vols I–II. Manchester:  E.J. Morten for the Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum. [CEECE] AND Farrer, Lady Katherine Euphemia (Ed.). 1906/1973. Correspondence of Josiah Wedgwood 1781–1794, with an Appendix Containing Some Letters on Canals and Bentley’s Pamphlet on Inland Navigation. Manchester: E.J. Morten for the Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum. [CEECE] Wentworth  1597–1629  41,403 words Cooper, J.P. (Ed.). 1973. Wentworth Papers 1597–1628 [Camden Fourth Series 12]. London: Royal Historical Society. [CEEC, PCEEC]



Appendix 

Wentworth2  1705–1739  62,223 words Cartwright, James J. (Ed.). 1883. The Wentworth Papers 1705–1739. Selected from the Private and Family Correspondence of Thomas Wentworth, Lord Raby, Created in 1711 Earl of Strafford, of Stainborough, Co. York. London: Wyman & Sons. [CEECE] WeSa  1632–1642  4,320 words Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (Ed.). 1883/1965. “Four letters of Lord Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, with a poem on his illness.” In The Camden Miscellany, Vol. VIII [Camden New Series 31]. New York:  Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] AND Cartwright, James J. (Ed.). 1883/1965. “Papers relating to the delinquency of Lord Savile 1642–1646.” In The Camden Miscellany, Vol. VIII [Camden New Series 31]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Wharton  1642  8,068 words Ellis, Sir Henry (Ed.). 1854. “Letters from a subaltern officer of the Earl of Essex’s Army, written in the summer and autumn of 1642.” Archaeologia 35:  310–334. [CEEC, CEECS, PCEEC] Willoughby  1520?–1545  10,838 words Welch, Mary A. (Ed.). 1967. “Willoughby letters of the first half of the sixteenth century.” In Nottinghamshire Miscellany, No. 4 [Thoroton Society Record Series 24], 1–98. Nottingham: Thoroton Society. [CEEC, PCEEC] Wilmot  1665–1679?  7,682 words Prinz, Johannes (Ed.). 1927. John Wilmot Earl of Rochester His Life and Writings with His Lordship’s Private Correspondence, Various Other Documents, and a Bibliography of His Works and of the Literature on Him [Palaestra 154]. Leipzig:  Mayer & Müller. [CEEC] Wollstonecraft  1773?–1797?  31,909 words Wardle, Ralph M. (Ed.). 1979. Collected Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft. Ithaca/ London:Cornell University Press. [CEECE] Wood  1565–1576  10,961 words Collinson, Patrick (Ed.). 1960. Letters of Thomas Wood, Puritan, 1566–1577 [Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Special Supplement No. 5 November 1960]. London: Athlone Press. [CEEC]

 Appendix

Wyatt  1536–1540  25,977 words Muir, Kenneth (Ed.). 1963. Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [CEEC, PCEEC] Young  1707?–1765  25,842 words Pettit, Henry (Ed.). 1971. The Correspondence of Edward Young 1683–1765. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [CEECE] Zouche  1402–1403  1,206 words Payne, Paddy & Barron, Caroline (Eds). 1997. “The letters and life of Elizabeth Despenser, Lady Zouche (d. 1408).” Nottingham Medieval Studies 41: 126–156. [CEECSU]

Name index

A Abbott, Mary  141, 145, 146 Adams, William  224, 225, 227, 229–231, 233 Agha, Asif  59 Aldred, Goodman  56, 57 Allen, Elizabeth  33, 38–40 Allen, Stephen  33 Andersson, Paula  221 Anttila, Raimo  171 Ariès, Philippe  141 Arnovick, Leslie K.  7, 8 Aspinall-Oglander, Cecil  110, 113 Aubrey, John  167, 168, 191 Auer, Anita  127 Auer, Peter  29, 30, 50 Austen, Jane  204, 212, 213 Austin, Frances  207 B Bacon, Jane, Lady  145, 146 Bacon, Nathaniel  17, 18, 53–74, 147 Bacon, Nathaniel2  145, 146 Bacon, Sir Nicholas  60, 61, 63, 64 Bailey, Benjamin  29, 30, 50 Baker, Gillian M.  62 Barabási, A.-L.  123 Barberg, Richard  168 Bax, Marcel M.H.  7 Bax, Randy  109, 118–120 Beal, Joan  126 Beckett, Dan  190 Bell, Allan  54, 78 Bell, Edmund (Mun)  151 Ben-Amos, Ilona Krausman  141, 142 Bennet, H.S.  255 Bentley, Thomas  85, 92–94, 99 Bergh, Gunnar  126 Bergs, Alexander  109, 120

Biber, Douglas  5, 13, 28, 30, 43, 56, 60, 205 Bjørge, Anne Kari  208 Black, Alexander  89, 90 Black, Jeremy  123 Black, Joseph  84–95, 100 Blommaert, Jan  28 Blondeau, Hélène  169, 170, 172, 173 Blunt, Reginald  113 Boscawen, Frances  108, 110–113, 117, 123–125, 128–130, 132 Boswell, James  170 Boulton, Matthew  18, 76, 81–100 Boulton, Matthew Robison  88 Bowers, Garry  33 Boyd, Sally  221 Braunmüller, Kurt  246 Brinton, Laurel  8 Brown, Penelope  77, 80, 149, 150 Bryson, Anna  55–57, 62 Bucholtz, Mary  53, 56 Burbidge, William  208 Burke, Edmund  112, 114, 117, 118, 123–125, 132 Burke, Peter  55, 57, 70 Burney, Charles  17, 27–52 Burney, Charles Jr  33, 34, 38–41, 46 Burney, Fanny  17, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36–41, 44–47 Burney, Sarah  34, 38–40 Busse, Beatrix  57–59 Busse, Ulrich  56, 57, 59 Bybee, Joan L.  171 C Cannon, Garland  221 Caon, Luisella  109 Carleton, Dudley  168 Carter, Bob  2, 4, 11

Carter, Elizabeth  108, 110–115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132 Cartwright, James J.  210 Cashman, Holly  29, 30 Cavendish, Georgiana  200 Cecchetto, Vittorina  80 Cecil, Robert, Sir  224–226 Cecil, William, Lord Burghley  67, 72, 226 Chafe, Wallace  69 Chamberlain, John  19, 165–168, 175–192 Chambers, J.K.  199 Chapone, Hester Mulso  108, 110, 112, 113 Charles I  168 Charles II  168 Charles, Carolus  208 Charlotte, Queen  34 Chaucer, Geoffrey  169 Chen, Rong  80 Cheshire, Jenny  2 Ching, Pong Sin  30 Clark, Herbert  79 Clarke, Norma  108, 110, 113, 118, 124 Clarke, Richard  70 Clift, Elizabeth  204, 207 Clift, William  207 Climenson, Emily J.  112, 113 Clyne, Michael  29 Cocks, Richard  222–227, 229–239, 241–245 Conrad, Susan  56 Cook, James  245 Cooper, Thompson  35 Coppendale, Ralph  225, 227, 241–243 Coupland, Justine  139 Coupland, Nikolas  11, 54, 139 Cressey, Richard  57, 67 Crisp, Samuel  35, 38–41 Croft, William  171

  Name index Cromwell, Gregory  142, 143 Cromwell, Thomas Sir  142 Crowley, Tony  204, 211 Culpeper, Jonathan  153, 160 D D’Arcy, Alexandra  172, 192 Darwin, Charles  81 Darwin, Erasmus  18, 76, 81–83, 85–96, 99, 100 Darwin, Robert Waring  81 Dasher, Richard B.  77 Davis, Norman  255 Davy, Charles  35, 38–40 Daybell, James  141 Defoe, Daniel  210 Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella  96 Denton, Adam  230, 242 Deumert, Ana  2, 4 Docherty, Gerard  139 Dodsley, Robert  201, 203, 212, 213, 215 Donnellan, Anne  111, 114, 115, 117, 118 Donnellan, Keith  86 Dossena, Marina  97 Drury, Stephen  65 Durham, Mercedes  139 E Eaton, William  224, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241–243 Eckert, Penelope  54, 56, 140 Eger, Elizabeth  110, 113, 129 Eggins, Suzanne  2 Elizabeth I  167, 180 Elizabeth II  170 Elizabeth, Princess/Elizabeth Hanover (daughter of George III)  200 Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia  180 Ellegård, Alvar  181 Elyot, Thomas  147 F Fairclough, Norman  54 Fairman, Tony  208 Farrington, Anthony  222–226, 229, 242, 244, 247 Ferraresi, Gisella  246 Fidelman, Carolyn G.  203

Fildes, Valerie  146 Finegan, Edward  5, 30, 43, 60, 200, 205 Finkelpearl, P.J.  167 Fischer, Andreas  220, 221, 247 Fitzmaurice, Susan M.  8, 109, 120, 122, 131 Fleming, George  210 Fodor, Jerry A.  259 Fortune, Liane  139 Foulkes, Paul  139, 140, 161 Franklin, Benjamin  85 Franklin, Michael J.  35 Frois, Luis  238 Fullwood, William  55 G García-Bermejo, Giner  202 Garrick, David  117, 123, 125, 212–214 Garrick, George  214 Gawdy, Philip  19, 165–169, 175–192 Gay, John  212, 215 George III  81, 115, 200 Giles, Howard  54, 139 Goffman, Erving  42, 98, 150 Görlach, Manfred  13 Grant, Kerry S.  33 Gray, Douglas  221, 245–247 Gray, Thomas  212–215 Greenbaum, Sidney  201 Gregory, John  114, 115, 117, 123–125 Greville, Charles  85, 90 Grzega, Joachim  221, 245 Gumperz, John J.  6, 29, 30 H Hakluyt, Richard  231, 238 Hall, Kira  53, 56 Halliday, M.A.K.  54 Hampshire, Gwen  112 Hanks, William F.  78, 79 Hanneman, Robert A.  120 Hansen, Karen V.  120 Harington, John  180 Harley, Robert  210 Harré, Rom  59, 77 Harrington, Jonathan  170 Harrison, William  61 Hassell Smith, A.  56, 62 Hastings, Francis  180

Haugen, Einar  221 Haugland, Kari E.  208 Hauyten, John  255, 256 Haverkate, Henk  81 Hawley, Judith  118 Hawoong, Jeong  123 Hazen, Kirk  138, 140 Heine, Bernd  255, 259, 260, 264 Helmbrecht, Johannes  78 Henstra, Froukje  109, 120 Heveningham, John, Sir  148, 153–156, 158, 160 Hinneburg, Alexander  156 Holden, Kyril  221 Holles, John, Earl of Clare  180 Holmqvist, Bengt  177, 178 Houlbrooke, Ralph A.  141, 144, 146 Howard, Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey  180 Huddleston, Rodney D.  126 Hughey, Ruth  148, 149, 155 Hyland, Ken  53, 54 Hymes, Dell  27, 28, 51 I Irvine, Judith T.  54 J Jacobs, Andreas  7, 8 Jenkins, Richard  255 Jewell, Helen M.  143, 149 Johnson, Francis  69 Johnson, John  144, 145, 174 Johnson, Otwell  144, 174 Johnson, Sabine  144, 145 Johnson, Samuel  117, 119, 203, 212, 215 Jones, William  203, 212, 213 Jucker, Andreas H.  7, 8 Juvonen, Teo  20 K Kaislaniemi, Samuli  20, 156, 223, 231 Kastovsky, Dieter  78, 204 Keate, George  214 Keen, Maurice  55 Keir, James  81, 85 Kelsey, Sean  226 Kemmer, Suzanne  221 Kerswill, Paul  139, 140, 171

Name index    Klein, Lawrence  70 Klima, Slava  33, 35, 36 Kohnen, Thomas  159 Krauss, Robert M.  78 Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara  8, 78 Kurki, Tommi  169, 174 Kytö, Merja  177, 178 L La Serre  57 Labov, William  4, 27, 54, 109, 120, 131, 138, 139, 160, 169–174, 192, 201, 203, 206, 208, 209, 211, 215 Laitinen, Mikko  2, 4, 14, 19, 20, 173 Lane-Poole, Stanley  35 Langacker, Ronald  258 Layder, Derek  11 Leech, Geoffrey  9, 201 Leonard, Sterling Andrus  208 Lerner, Gene H.  79 Levinson, Stephen C.  9, 75–77, 80, 149, 150 Lewis, James  222, 223, 227 Li Wei  29, 30, 50 Lightfoot, David W.  171 Lobban, J.H.  35 Lomnor, William  264 Long, Bridget  146 Louden, Mark L.  171 Lowth, Robert  126, 130, 201–203, 206, 207, 212, 214 Lyttleton, George Lord  108, 110–115, 117, 118, 122–125, 128–130, 132 M Macdonald, Cameron L.  120 Macfarlane, Alan  255 Majeed, Javed  246 Malet, Thomas  168 Man, Martin  68 Mannila, Heikki  156 Manser, Richard  69 Marshall, Catherine R.  79 Marshall, Jonathan  120 Massarella, Derek  222–225, 229, 237, 244, 247 McConchie, R.W.  231, 246 McConnell-Ginet, Sally  56 McGrath, Patrick  219, 221, 224 McNeil, Maureen  81

Mettinger, Arthur  204, 217 Meurman-Solin, Anneli  182 Mey, Jacob  9, 10 Miller, Christopher  221 Milroy, James  4, 109 Milroy, Lesley  30, 109, 118–120, 174 Milton, Giles  224 Montagu, Edward  111, 115, 117, 118, 123, 128–130, 132 Montagu, Elizabeth (née Robinson)  18, 19, 34, 107–132 Montagu, John, Earl of Sandwich  35, 36, 38–40 Montgomery, María F.  202 Montgomery, Michael  202 More, Hannah  107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 117 Morgan, Basil  225 Morita, Emi  77 Mühlhäusler, Peter  59, 77 Mullan, John  170 Murphy, Gregory L.  79 Murray, Lindley  201, 207 Muysken, Pieter  29 Myers, Sylvia Harcstark  110, 112–114 Myers-Scotton, Carol  221 N Nahkola, Kari  169, 173, 191, 192 Napoli, Ernesto  77 Nevala, Minna  2, 10, 13, 14, 18, 38, 45, 55, 56, 58, 59, 68, 80, 93, 96, 113, 117, 143, 154, 155, 202 Nevalainen, Terttu  2, 4, 5, 14, 19, 38, 62, 109, 137, 138, 142, 149, 153, 155, 156, 159, 166, 169, 172–180, 186, 187, 190–192, 202, 209, 221, 259 Nicholls, Mark  167 North, Montagu  36, 38–40, 43 North, Roger, Lord  56, 57, 66, 67 Nurmi, Arja  2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35, 41, 44, 47, 60, 80, 97, 153, 173, 181–185, 228

O Ochs, Elinor  80 O’Day, Rosemary  141, 144 Ogura, Mieko  177, 180, 181 Östman, Jan-Ola  9 Oxinden, Henry  180 P Pahta, Päivi  17, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35, 41, 45, 47, 221, 228, 247 Palander-Collin, Minna  2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 38, 45, 60, 62, 63, 78, 97, 138, 142 Palethorpe, Sallyanne  170 Paston, Agnes  255, 261, 263 Paston, Edmund  148 Paston, Edmund (d. 1449)  256 Paston, Edward  156, 158 Paston, John I (1421–1466)  141, 256, 257, 261, 264–268 Paston, John II (1442–1479)  20, 141, 253–256, 261–276 Paston, John III (1444–1503)  141, 257, 261–268 Paston, Katherine, Lady (née Knyvett)  4, 19, 137, 139, 148–161 Paston, Margaret (née Mautby)  256, 261–264 Paston, Margery (née Brews)  261 Paston, Thomas (b. 1614)  148 Paston, William (b. 1610)  4, 137, 148–153, 155–161 Paston, William (1378–1444)  255, 256, 261 Paunonen, Heikki  169, 191 Peitsara, Kirsti  204 Pennington, Matthew  113 Pepys, Samuel  204 Phillips, Susanna  32, 34, 35, 38–40, 42, 43 Pinney, John  210 Pinney, Nathaniel  210 Piozzi, Hester see Thrale Plumpton, Dorothy  143, 144 Plumpton, Robert, Sir  143 Podhajecka, Mirosława  221 Pohl, Nicole  110, 113

  Name index Pope, Alexander  212, 215 Poplack, Shana  221, 246 Portland, Duchess of  111, 115, 129 Postles, Dave  56 Priestley, Joseph  81, 89, 202 Prince of Wales, George Augustus Frederick  200 Pullum, Geoffrey K.  126 Pulteney, William, Lord Bath  108, 110–112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123–126, 128–130, 132 Purchas, Samuel  231, 237, 239, 244 Q Quirk, Randolph  201, 204 R Ralegh, Walter  19, 165–168, 175–192 Rampton, Ben  28 Ranowe, Austen  66, 67 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena  2, 4, 5, 14, 19, 38, 62, 109, 137, 138, 149, 153, 155, 156, 159, 166, 169, 172–180, 186, 187, 190–192, 209, 259 Ravid, Dorit  56 Réka, Albert  123 Reppen, Randi  56 Rickford, John R.  54 Riddle, Mark  120 Riess, Ludwig  238, 244 Rizzo, Betty  114 Roberts, Julie  138–140 Robinson, Elizabeth Drake  111 Robinson, Matthew Sr  111, 115, 129 Robison, John  84, 90, 91, 95 Robison, Mrs  94, 95, 99 Rodger, N.A.M.  36 Rogers, Pat  34 Rohde, Ada  221, 245, 246 Romaine, Suzanne  4 Rosenbach, Anette  260 Rosenthal, Joel T.  259 Rowe, Joe  167 Russe, John  266 Rydén, Mats  186

S Saanilahti, Marja  169, 173, 191, 192 Sairio, Anni  18, 34, 58, 91, 113, 118, 120, 125, 127 Sambrook, James  35 Sankoff, David  221 Sankoff, Gillian  169–173 Saris, John  239, 244 Satow, Ernest Mason  244, 245 Schegloff, Emanuel A.  78, 79 Schellenberg, Betty A.  110, 113 Schendl, Herbert  30, 175 Schilling-Estes, Natalie  2 Schmidgen, Wolfram  255, 259 Scott, Mike  153 Scott, Sarah  111, 115, 117, 118, 123–125, 127, 130, 132 Sealey, Alison  2, 4, 11 Seppänen, Aimo  126 Serjeantson, Mary S.  221 Seward, Anna  82, 85 Shakespeare, William  58, 108, 115, 118, 125, 126, 169, 170 Shenstone, William  201 Sherlock, John  208 Shetzer, Heidi  203 Siebenhaar, Beat  169 Sifianou, Maria  77 Silverstein, Michael  259 Skaffari, Janne  221 Slade, Diana  2 Slobin, Dan I.  171 Small, William  81, 95 Smith, D. Vance  255 Smith, Jennifer  139, 140, 160, 161 Smith, Samuel  70 Smith-Bannister, Scott  141 Smythe, Thomas Sir  225, 230, 235 Stefanowitsch, Anatol  221 Stein, Dieter  7, 9, 169, 179, 260 Stillingfleet, Benjamin  111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 123–125, 127, 130, 132 Stone, Jeanne C. Fawtier  5, 61 Stone, Lawrence  5, 61, 141, 143 Stroinska, Magda  80 Stubbs, Peter  208 Sundby, Bertil  208 Sundgren, Eva  169, 170 Svartvik, Jan  201

T Taavitsainen, Irma  8 Tadmor, Naomi  119 Tagliamonte, Sali A.  4, 172, 192 Tann, Jennifer  82, 83 Tannen, Deborah  69 Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa  159 Taylor, John  257–260 Thatcher, Margaret  170 Thomas, Jenny  9 Thornell, Christina  221 Thrale, Hester Lynch  34–40, 42, 43, 118, 119 Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid  107, 109, 130, 131, 201–207, 211, 215 Tokugawa, Ieyasu  225, 233 Tolchinsky, Liliana  56 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs  8, 77 Trevithick, Richard  87, 88 Troide, Lars  33, 34 Trotter, David  219, 236, 246 Trudgill, Peter  156, 178, 180 Tuttoft, Jane  147 Twining, Thomas  17, 28, 31, 32, 35–41, 44, 46–49 Tytler, Izumi K.  229 U Uglow, Jenny  81–84, 100 V Verschueren, Jef  9 Vesey, Elizabeth  108, 110–112, 115, 117, 122–124, 129, 132 Vezzosi, Letizia  260 Vickery, Amanda  118 Vincent, Susan  145 Voigts, Linda E.  142 W Wagstaff, John  32–34 Walker, Terry  59, 74, 154 Walpole, Horace  108, 110, 120, 213, 214 Walpole, Robert  170 Wang, William S-Y.  177, 180, 181 Warschauer, Mark  203 Watson, Catherine I.  170 Watt, Dominic  139 Watt, Gregory  89, 90 Watt, James  18, 76, 81, 83–100

Name index    Wedgwood, Josiah  81, 82, 85, 89, 92, 95 Weinreich, Uriel  221, 246 Wentworth, Peter  210 Wenzel, Siegfrid  30 Wickham, Richard  224, 227, 229, 230, 233, 234, 237–239, 241–243 Williams, Ann  139, 140 Williams, Frances  115 Williams, Penry  167 Wilson, Andrew J.  78

Wilson, Harold  170 Wilson, Thomas  86–88, 90, 92, 93, 99 Wilson, Thomas Sir  224–226, 235 Wollstonecraft, Mary  212, 214 Wordsworth, William  170 Wright, Laura  30, 219 Wrightson, Keith  55, 56, 61, 255 Wyld, Henry Cecil  178

Y Yagisawa, Takashi  77 Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria  126, 127 Young, Edward  115, 212, 214, 215 Z Zeitlyn, David  78

Subject index

A accommodation (theory)  139, 180, 192 address form  18, 55–59, 63–68, 70, 77, 79, 88, 94, 96, 97, 99, 113, 143, 159, 160, 220 addressee  7, 33, 54, 55, 59–71, 75–80, 92–99, 200, 213 addressee inclusion  17, 18, 53, 54, 58, 60, 63–66, 71 adult-to-adult communication  139, 140, 148, 149, 153–155, 160, 161 age  4, 28, 77, 78, 113, 120, 139, 140, 168, 169, 171–173, 191 age-grading  170, 172 apparent time  19, 171, 172, 193 appropriateness  28, 126 appropriation  219, 245–248 ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers)  20, 127, 205, 206, 211, 216 audience design  54, 78 auxiliary do  165, 173, 181–185, 190 awareness  64, 127 conscious  161 public  173 social  173, 207, 209 B bilingualism  221 Bluestockings  5, 18, 107–132 borrowing  32, 171, 219–221, 228, 229, 231, 237, 244–248 C caregiver language  137–140, 153, 159, 161 CEEC (Corpus of Early English Correspondence)  1, 12,

14–16, 60, 137, 138, 166, 228, 229, 261, 279–302 CEECE (Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension)  14, 31, 32, 85, 205, 279–302 CEECS (Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler)  14, 279–302 CEECS2  153–155 CEECSU (Corpus of Early English Correspondence Supplement)  14, 166, 222, 226, 279–302 PCEEC (Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence)  14, 279–302 change communal  19, 170–172, 182, 183, 191, 193 from above  173, 187, 208, 209, 211 from below  173, 178, 206, 208–211, 214, 215 generational  19, 170–172, 191, 193 idiolectal  169–173, 183, 191 lifespan  19, 170–172, 190, 193 child-directed discourse  19, 139, 140, 148, 149, 154, 155, 159–161 civility of speech and writing  55–58, 66, 68, 71 code-mixing  9, 29 code-switching  6, 9, 17, 27–32, 36–50, 221, 228, 229 communicative situation  12, 28–30, 55, 75, 78–80, 97 communicative strategy  40, 183, 185 context  3–12, 28, 77, 78, 80, 97–99, 119 contextualisation cue  30

conversation analysis  29, 30 conversational activity  28, 30, 31 conversational turn  30 correspondence family  12, 16, 33–35, 37–41, 61, 62, 64, 69, 72, 110, 111, 178 official  16 personal  1, 5, 13, 19, 50, 60, 86, 137, 138, 142, 148, 153, 166, 203, 206, 207 private  14, 144 D diachronic  3, 7, 8, 10, 31, 50, 171, 172, 200, 202–205, 209, 211 discourse  8, 54 context of  28 friendly  53, 69, 71 humiliative  53, 71 style  6, 19, 57, 58, 66, 68–71 discourse-organising functions  30, 42 discursive practice  54, 57 distance  59, 63, 75, 76, 78, 97–99 emotional  119 geographical  1, 13, 114, 223 intimacy  121, 122, 131 social  17, 30, 35, 96, 123 temporal  1 E Early Modern England  55–58, 61, 141, 142, 146, 147, 172 Early Modern English  54, 58, 113, 126, 137, 173, 177, 180, 181, 191, 209 East India Company  20, 219–223, 248 education  4, 5, 12, 16, 33, 34, 36, 47, 53, 55, 56, 64, 66,

  Subject index 70, 113, 140, 141, 143, 153, 159, 210, 215 eighteenth-century England  119, 123 F face  18, 76, 79, 80, 93, 94, 97, 99 face-to-face  5, 11, 12 family  12, 16, 39, 49, 61, 64, 119, 121, 140, 141, 146, 160, 255, 262–264, 274 extended  69 member  33, 60, 62, 88, 110, 124, 141, 150, 272 nuclear  138, 142 royal  176 first person  58, 59, 63–68, 71, 72, 80 form of address, see address form French  17, 34–38, 40, 42, 45, 49, 50, 147, 172, 210, 219 friend  12, 16, 57, 58, 67, 86–92, 96–98, 119, 130, 167, 271 friendship  13, 18, 57, 58, 69, 71, 89, 93, 96, 110, 113, 115, 117–122 functions of language  6, 17 G gender  2, 4, 5, 12, 15, 20, 28, 59, 61, 78, 113, 120, 128, 130, 138, 173, 182, 190, 203, 208–211, 215 gender paradox  209, 211 gentleman  17, 53, 55, 66, 67, 84, 89, 100, 143, 147, 253, 266 gentry  5, 18, 62–64, 66, 70–72, 96, 109, 116, 118, 149, 167, 168, 190, 253 lower  57, 62, 71, 72, 96, 111, 123, 128 upper  62, 64, 71, 72 geographical mobility  12, 110, 113 German  36, 37, 40, 201 grammarian  210 grammaticalization  8, 59, 77, 80, 258, 274 Greek  34, 35, 37, 40, 47, 84 greetings  44, 94, 150, 155, 160

H has vs hath  156 have  154–156, 179, 185, 254, 257, 259, 263, 265, 266, 269–276 HC (Helsinki Corpus)  137, 162 historical code-switching  31 historical sociolinguistics  1, 6, 10, 169, 204 honorific(s)  77, 220, 232, 233, 248 humour  46, 82, 150, 151, 160 I i  59, 60, 63, 66–69, 93 ideational level/function  30, 54 identity  11, 17, 20, 28, 33, 50, 54, 70, 78, 80, 152, 160, 180, 192, 253–255, 258, 264, 274 identity work  17, 50 idiolectal change  169, 170, 183, 191 idiolectal stability  166, 169–171, 176 indexicality  59, 77, 78 informal language  130 informal register/style  13, 16, 50, 69, 138, 206 information absolute  77 as letter content  13 deictic  78 on correspondents  10, 12, 16 relational  77 sociocultural/ socio-historical  76, 247 socio-linguistic  9, 187 in-group  18, 30, 49, 58, 88, 90, 95–98, 131, 234 interaction  6, 9, 10, 14, 28, 30, 31, 36, 50, 53, 54, 77, 78, 80, 98, 113, 114, 117, 118, 123, 139, 220, 222, 246 frequency of  113, 114, 118, 119, 121 patterns of  5, 53, 57, 58, 60, 65–70 interactional routine  41 interactional sociolinguistics  1, 3, 5, 14, 16, 27, 29

interlocutor  28 interpersonal level  30, 78 interpersonal relations  75, 76, 99, 266 intimacy  17, 30, 40, 46, 48, 59, 63, 96, 117, 121, 122, 131, 138, 155, 160 intraspeaker variation  28, 78 Italian  35–38, 40, 48, 221 J Japan(ese)  20, 219–248 K keyword (analysis)  149, 153–155, 159, 160 L language acquisition  139, 146, 171, 172, 191 language alternation  29 language change  3, 5–10, 18, 19, 108, 109, 169, 209, 215 communal  170, 171, 182, 183, 191, 193 completed  175, 215 from above  173, 187, 208 from below  173, 178, 206, 208, 209, 211, 214, 215 generational  171 in progress, ongoing  138, 139, 149, 156, 158, 161, 170, 172–174, 185, 190–192 mid-range  215 new and vigorous  109, 174 language community  140, 149, 158, 160 language contact  29, 172, 219, 221, 247, 248 language professional  203, 211–215 Late Modern English  3, 75, 96, 126, 177 Latin  34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 44, 82, 84, 126, 147, 152, 210, 219 leavetaking  41, 44 letters, see correspondence letters as research material  12–16 letter-writing conventions  30 manuals  12, 55 practices  57

Subject index    lifespan changes  170, 171, 190 linguistic resources  9, 27, 28, 54 literacy  12, 15, 53, 56, 60, 64, 139 loanwords  220, 246 London  32, 34, 35, 83, 84, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 122, 123, 144, 146, 159, 167, 168, 172, 176, 178, 179, 180, 182, 187–190, 192, 207, 225–229 longitudinal study  169, 170, 188 Lunar men  76, 81–85, 90, 91 M macro  2–6, 10, 11, 30 merchant(s)  30, 35, 62–65, 70, 71, 144, 174, 179, 210, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 228, 229, 230, 237, 248 metadiscursive comment  30, 42 micro  2–4, 10, 11, 28, 30, 220, 248 multilingualism  27, 29, 220 N negation analytic  157 multiple  155, 157, 158 with do-periphrasis  181, 184, 185 network strength scale  107, 109, 118–125, 131, 132 nobility  59, 61–66, 71, 128, 147, 173 non-gentry  5, 190 nonstandard (language)  15, 153, 172, 200, 201, 204, 208, 211, 215 Norfolk  17, 35, 56, 62, 139, 147–149, 156, 158, 167, 168, 253, 261, 262 norm(s)  140, 142, 208, 211, 212, 215 normative grammar/ grammarians  127, 200, 201, 203, 204, 209, 212, 215 O object of the gerund  157, 158 out-group  88, 97, 98

P pattern(s) of interaction  5, 53, 57, 58, 60, 65–70 personal correspondence  1, 13, 19, 50, 138, 153, 206, 207 pied piping  109, 125–130 politeness  8, 70, 79–81 formulae/phrases  30, 57, 67, 68, negative  80, 150, 152 positive  150, 155, 160 theory  79–81, 149, 150 possession concept of  253–261, 267, 270, 274, 275 ownership  255, 256 possessive constructions  253–255, 257, 259, 260, 262–268, 269–273 possessive pronouns  257, 265, 268, 272 possessive relation  253, 257, 260, 261, 264, 267, 268, 270–274 possessive my/thy vs mine/thine  190, 191 power  8, 11, 30, 59, 78, 81, 96, 119, 123, 159, 231, 265 pragmatics  1, 3, 6–10 historical  3, 6–10 prefabricated chunk  41, 49 preposition stranding  109, 125–130 Present-day English  44, 47, 53, 126, 200, 201, 258, 275 prestige  30, 199–204, 207–211, 215 prestige marker  200 presupposition  6, 30 professional(s)  18, 30, 62–65, 70, 71, 96, 109, 179, 203 pronoun first-person  58, 60, 63, 65, 66, 69–71, 80, 157, 175 possessive  257, 265, 268, 272 relative  127, 155, 157, 156, 173, 186–190 second-person  58, 60, 63, 65, 69, 70, 79, 154, 155, 157, 160, 175, 200, 206 third-person  58, 69, 63, 65, 76, 79, 80, 92–95

proximity  76, 88, 92, 97, 120, 121, 131, 259 Q quotation  30, 41, 45, 47, 148, 238–239, 242, 244 R real time  171, 215 reconstructed dialogue  30 referential term(s), also reference form(s)  76, 78, 79, 86, 88, 96, 97, 99 non-recognitional  78 recognitional  78 register  13, 29, 54, 56, 60, 153, 154, 159, 173 acquisition  138 formal  69 informal  16 spoken/speech-related  60 variation  16, 138, 140, 148, 175, 183 written  60, 69 repertoire  18, 27, 36–41, 55, 56, 161 reported speech  30 role participant  78 situational  76 social  6, 31, 54–56, 76, 79, 99, 141, 151, 159, 161 Royal Court  167, 176 royal family  176 Royal Society  33, 34 S -s vs -th (third-person singular suffix)  4, 19, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 165, 169, 173, 176–181, 190, 192 S-curve  174, 181, 215 s-genitive  254, 257, 259, 263, 265, 268, 270–275 sampling  15 second person  20, 53, 58–60, 63–65, 68–72, 79, 150, 151, 153–155, 157, 160, 175, 181, 200–202, 204, 206, 207, 212 self-mention  17, 18, 53, 54, 58, 60, 63–66, 71

  Subject index servant(s)  6, 18, 57, 58, 60–64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 79, 93, 143, 146, 150, 214, 231, 260, 265, 271–273 shared knowledge  78, 79, 98 social aspirer  183, 185 background  61, 62, 66 group  18, 60, 76, 77, 190 identity  18, 28, 76, 199 inferior  18, 56–58, 60, 63–67, 123, 142 mobility  5, 16, 61 network  6, 18, 28, 91, 100, 108, 109, 112, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 131, 174 practice  54, 138, 140 rank  5, 16, 19, 41, 54, 60, 62, 64, 65, 121, 130, 131, 141, 143, 146, 167, 175, 179, 265 relationship  9, 11, 13, 53, 54, 59, 61, 77, 99, 120, 255, 256, 265 role  6, 31, 54–56, 75, 76, 79, 99, 141, 151, 159, 161 status  10, 16, 18, 50, 59, 98, 113, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130–132, 142, 190 superior  18, 19, 53, 59, 60, 62, 64–66, 68, 107, 123, 131, 143, 265 theory  2, 10, 11 variable  9, 15, 16, 130, 131 social conventions  10, 76, 79, 81 social deixis  18, 75–77, 99 social distance  17, 30, 35, 96, 123 social hierarchy  57, 63, 77, 98 social identity features  28 social network analysis  18, 108, 109, 112, 116, 131 social status/social rank clergy  30, 35, 96, 124, 228

gentry  5, 18, 57, 62–64, 66, 70–72, 96, 109, 111, 116, 118, 123, 128, 149, 167, 168, 190, 253 merchants  20, 30, 35, 62–66, 70–72, 144, 174, 179, 210, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 228–234, 236–240, 243, 244, 247, 248, 266 nobility  59, 61–66, 71, 128, 147, 173 non-gentry  5, 180 professions  18, 20, 30, 62–65, 70–72, 96, 109, 179 sociolinguistic competence  19, 138–140, 148 sociolinguistic stereotype  201 sociolinguistics correlational  1, 3, 4 historical  1, 6, 10, 169, 204 interactional  1, 3, 5, 14, 16, 27, 29 patterns  202 present-day  3, 169, 203 Spanish  35, 37, 40, 167, 168, 219, 236, 247 speech acts directives  19, 149, 150, 154, 159 greetings  44, 150, 160 praise  150, 160 spoken language  4, 5, 7, 13, 53, 130, 178 stance  13, 18, 27, 30, 42, 45, 58 standard  13, 19, 20, 126, 140, 153, 154, 160, 161, 169, 172, 199, 201, 204, 211, 214 stigmatisation  20, 126, 199–201, 203, 204, 208, 215 style/speech style  6, 12, 18, 19, 27, 28, 50, 53, 54, 56–58, 60, 64, 66, 70, 71, 78, 92, 94, 126, 130, 142, 173, 181, 190

style-shifting  12, 30, 53, 54, 66, 71 stylistic literacy  12, 53, 60, 64 synchronic  3, 7, 8, 219 T title  13, 53, 55–59, 62, 63, 66, 70–71, 77, 96, 97, 155, 231 U utterance  30, 41, 43, 45, 59, 76, 94, 95, 171 V variable linguistic  50, 107, 113, 149, 182, 200, 203 social  9, 15, 16, 131 variation gender  60, 138 individual  19, 68, 166, 190 regional  159, 182 register  16, 138, 148, 175, 183 verbal repertoire  27 W which vs the which  4, 155, 157, 158, 186, 187 written language  13, 64 Y you  4, 53, 54, 58–60, 63–65, 67–69, 79, 93, 94, 96, 155, 173, 204, 212, 213, 254, 265–267, 269–276 you was  20, 199–216 you were  20, 199–216 your honour  59, 63 your ladyship  59, 63 your lordship  54, 57–60, 63, 66, 71 your worship  58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70–72

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 188 Giltrow, Janet and Dieter Stein (eds.): Genres in the Internet. Issues in the theory of genre. Expected Forthcoming 187 Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.): Early Modern English News Discourse. Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse. vii, 221 pp. + index. Expected June 2009 186 Callies, Marcus: Information Highlighting in Advanced Learner English. The syntax–pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. xviii, 293 pp. Expected May 2009 185 Mazzon, Gabriella: Interactive Dialogue Sequences in Middle English Drama. ix, 226 pp. Expected April 2009 184 Stenström, Anna-Brita and Annette Myre Jørgensen (eds.): Youngspeak in a Multilingual Perspective. vi, 204 pp. + index. Expected May 2009 183 Nurmi, Arja, Minna Nevala and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.): The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800). 2009. vii, 312 pp. 182 Lee, Seung-Hee: Requests and Responses in Calls for Service. Expected Forthcoming 181 Maschler, Yael: Metalanguage in Interaction. Hebrew discourse markers. xiv, 248 pp. + index. Expected June 2009 180 Jones, Kimberly and Tsuyoshi Ono (eds.): Style Shifting in Japanese. 2008. vii, 335 pp. 179 Simões Lucas Freitas, Elsa: Taboo in Advertising. 2008. xix, 214 pp. 178 Schneider, Klaus P. and Anne Barron (eds.): Variational Pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. 2008. vii, 371 pp. 177 Rue, Yong-Ju and Grace Zhang: Request Strategies. A comparative study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. 2008. xv, 320 pp. 176 Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.): Speech Acts in the History of English. 2008. viii, 318 pp. 175 Gómez González, María de los Ángeles, J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Elsa M. González Álvarez (eds.): Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison. 2008. xxii, 364 pp. 174 Heyd, Theresa: Email Hoaxes. Form, function, genre ecology. 2008. vii, 239 pp. 173 Zanotto, Mara Sophia, Lynne Cameron and Marilda C. Cavalcanti (eds.): Confronting Metaphor in Use. An applied linguistic approach. 2008. vii, 315 pp. 172 Benz, Anton and Peter Kühnlein (eds.): Constraints in Discourse. 2008. vii, 292 pp. 171 Félix-Brasdefer, J. César: Politeness in Mexico and the United States. A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. 2008. xiv, 195 pp. 170 Oakley, Todd and Anders Hougaard (eds.): Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. 2008. vi, 262 pp. 169 Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout and William Rozycki (eds.): Contrastive Rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. 2008. viii, 324 pp. 168 Proost, Kristel: Conceptual Structure in Lexical Items. The lexicalisation of communication concepts in English, German and Dutch. 2007. xii, 304 pp. 167 Bousfield, Derek: Impoliteness in Interaction. 2008. xiii, 281 pp. 166 Nakane, Ikuko: Silence in Intercultural Communication. Perceptions and performance. 2007. xii, 240 pp. 165 Bublitz, Wolfram and Axel Hübler (eds.): Metapragmatics in Use. 2007. viii, 301 pp. 164 Englebretson, Robert (ed.): Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. 2007. viii, 323 pp. 163 Lytra, Vally: Play Frames and Social Identities. Contact encounters in a Greek primary school. 2007. xii, 300 pp. 162 Fetzer, Anita (ed.): Context and Appropriateness. Micro meets macro. 2007. vi, 265 pp. 161 Celle, Agnès and Ruth Huart (eds.): Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. 2007. viii, 212 pp. 160 Fetzer, Anita and Gerda Eva Lauerbach (eds.): Political Discourse in the Media. Cross-cultural perspectives. 2007. viii, 379 pp. 159 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Creativity in Japanese Discourse. Exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective, and voice. 2007. xvi, 356 pp.

158 Walker, Terry: Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues. Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. 2007. xx, 339 pp. 157 Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda: The Language of Business Studies Lectures. A corpus-assisted analysis. 2007. xvi, 236 pp. 156 Vega Moreno, Rosa E.: Creativity and Convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. 2007. xii, 249 pp. 155 Hedberg, Nancy and Ron Zacharski (eds.): The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface. Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. 2007. viii, 345 pp. 154 Hübler, Axel: The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. 2007. x, 281 pp. 153 Arnovick, Leslie K.: Written Reliquaries. The resonance of orality in medieval English texts. 2006. xii, 292 pp. 152 Warren, Martin: Features of Naturalness in Conversation. 2006. x, 272 pp. 151 Suzuki, Satoko (ed.): Emotive Communication in Japanese. 2006. x, 234 pp. 150 Busse, Beatrix: Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. 2006. xviii, 525 pp. 149 Locher, Miriam A.: Advice Online. Advice-giving in an American Internet health column. 2006. xvi, 277 pp. 148 Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl and Torodd Kinn: Academic Voices. Across languages and disciplines. 2006. x, 309 pp. 147 Hinrichs, Lars: Codeswitching on the Web. English and Jamaican Creole in e-mail communication. 2006. x, 302 pp. 146 Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa: Collaborating towards Coherence. Lexical cohesion in English discourse. 2006. ix, 192 pp. 145 Kurhila, Salla: Second Language Interaction. 2006. vii, 257 pp. 144 Bührig, Kristin and Jan D. ten Thije (eds.): Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. 2006. vi, 339 pp. 143 Baker, Carolyn, Michael Emmison and Alan Firth (eds.): Calling for Help. Language and social interaction in telephone helplines. 2005. xviii, 352 pp. 142 Sidnell, Jack: Talk and Practical Epistemology. The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. 2005. xvi, 255 pp. 141 Zhu, Yunxia: Written Communication across Cultures. A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. 2005. xviii, 216 pp. 140 Butler, Christopher S., María de los Ángeles Gómez González and Susana M. Doval-Suárez (eds.): The Dynamics of Language Use. Functional and contrastive perspectives. 2005. xvi, 413 pp. 139 Lakoff, Robin T. and Sachiko Ide (eds.): Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. 2005. xii, 342 pp. 138 Müller, Simone: Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. 2005. xviii, 290 pp. 137 Morita, Emi: Negotiation of Contingent Talk. The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. 2005. xvi, 240 pp. 136 Sassen, Claudia: Linguistic Dimensions of Crisis Talk. Formalising structures in a controlled language. 2005. ix, 230 pp. 135 Archer, Dawn: Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). A sociopragmatic analysis. 2005. xiv, 374 pp. 134 Skaffari, Janne, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen and Brita Wårvik (eds.): Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. 2005. x, 418 pp. 133 Marnette, Sophie: Speech and Thought Presentation in French. Concepts and strategies. 2005. xiv, 379 pp. 132 Onodera, Noriko O.: Japanese Discourse Markers. Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. 2004. xiv, 253 pp. 131 Janoschka, Anja: Web Advertising. New forms of communication on the Internet. 2004. xiv, 230 pp. 130 Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen (eds.): Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. 2005. x, 257 pp. 129 Taboada, María Teresa: Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. 2004. xvii, 264 pp. 128 Cordella, Marisa: The Dynamic Consultation. A discourse analytical study of doctor–patient communication. 2004. xvi, 254 pp.

127 Brisard, Frank, Michael Meeuwis and Bart Vandenabeele (eds.): Seduction, Community, Speech. A Festschrift for Herman Parret. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 126 Wu, Yi’an: Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese. Text and Cognition. 2004. xviii, 236 pp. 125 Lerner, Gene H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. 2004. x, 302 pp. 124 Vine, Bernadette: Getting Things Done at Work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. 2004. x, 278 pp. 123 Márquez Reiter, Rosina and María Elena Placencia (eds.): Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. 2004. xvi, 383 pp. 122 González, Montserrat: Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. The case of English and Catalan. 2004. xvi, 410 pp. 121 Fetzer, Anita: Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality meets appropriateness. 2004. x, 272 pp. 120 Aijmer, Karin and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.): Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. 2004. viii, 279 pp. 119 Hiltunen, Risto and Janne Skaffari (eds.): Discourse Perspectives on English. Medieval to modern. 2003. viii, 243 pp. 118 Cheng, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. 2003. xii, 279 pp. 117 Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. 2004. xvi, 260 pp. 116 Grant, Colin B. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. 2003. viii, 330 pp. 115 Kärkkäinen, Elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. 2003. xii, 213 pp. 114 Kühnlein, Peter, Hannes Rieser and Henk Zeevat (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. xii, 400 pp. 113 Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. xii, 285 pp. 112 Lenz, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. xiv, 279 pp. 111 Ensink, Titus and Christoph Sauer (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. viii, 227 pp. 110 Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. viii, 343 pp. 109 Mayes, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. xiv, 228 pp. 108 Barron, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. xviii, 403 pp. 107 Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. viii, 446 pp. 106 Busse, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. xiv, 344 pp. 105 Blackwell, Sarah: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. xvi, 303 pp. 104 Beeching, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. x, 251 pp. 103 Fetzer, Anita and Christiane Meierkord (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. vi, 300 pp. 102 Leafgren, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. xii, 252 pp. 101 Luke, K. K. and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. x, 295 pp. 100 Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. and Ken Turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. viii, 496 pp. 99 Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. and Ken Turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. xii, 388 pp. 98 Duszak, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. viii, 522 pp. 97 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. xiv, 481 pp. 96 Haverkate, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002. vi, 241 pp.

95 Fitzmaurice, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. viii, 263 pp. 94 McIlvenny, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. x, 332 pp. 93 Baron, Bettina and Helga Kotthoff (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002. xxiv, 357 pp. 92 Gardner, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. xxii, 281 pp. 91 Gross, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. xxviii, 341 pp. 90 Kenesei, István and Robert M. Harnish (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. xxii, 352 pp. 89 Itakura, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. xviii, 231 pp. 88 Bayraktaroğlu, Arın and Maria Sifianou (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. xiv, 439 pp. 87 Mushin, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. xviii, 244 pp. 86 Ifantidou, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. xii, 225 pp. 85 Collins, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. xx, 384 pp. 84 Andersen, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. ix, 352 pp. 83 Márquez Reiter, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. xviii, 225 pp. 82 Khalil, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. x, 274 pp. 81 Di Luzio, Aldo, Susanne Günthner and Franca Orletti (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. xvi, 341 pp. 80 Ungerer, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. xiv, 286 pp. 79 Andersen, Gisle and Thorstein Fretheim (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. viii, 273 pp. 78 Sell, Roger D.: Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. xiv, 348 pp. 77 Vanderveken, Daniel and Susumu Kubo (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. vi, 328 pp. 76 Matsui, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. xii, 251 pp. 75 Pilkington, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. xiv, 214 pp. 74 Trosborg, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. xvi, 256 pp. 73 Hester, Stephen K. and David Francis (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. viii, 326 pp. 72 Marmaridou, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. xii, 322 pp. 71 Gómez González, María de los Ángeles: The Theme–Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. xxiv, 438 pp. 70 Sorjonen, Marja-Leena: Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. 2001. x, 330 pp. 69 Noh, Eun-Ju: Metarepresentation. A relevance-theory approach. 2000. xii, 242 pp. 68 Arnovick, Leslie K.: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 2000. xii, 196 pp. 67 Taavitsainen, Irma, Gunnel Melchers and Päivi Pahta (eds.): Writing in Nonstandard English. 2000. viii, 404 pp. 66 Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. viii, 478 pp. 65 Cooren, François: The Organizing Property of Communication. 2000. xvi, 272 pp. 64 Svennevig, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 2000. x, 384 pp. 63 Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk and Eija Ventola (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. xiv, 300 pp. 62 Tzanne, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. xiv, 263 pp. 61 Mills, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. xviii, 251 pp.

60 Jacobs, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. xviii, 428 pp. 59 Kamio, Akio and Ken-ichi Takami (eds.): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. x, 398 pp. 58 Rouchota, Villy and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. 1998. xii, 368 pp. 57 Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv (eds.): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. 1998. x, 363 pp. 56 Tanaka, Hiroko: Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. 2000. xiv, 242 pp. 55 Allwood, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds.): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. 1999. x, 201 pp. 54 Hyland, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. 1998. x, 308 pp. 53 Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. 1998. xii, 418 pp. 52 Gillis, Steven and Annick De Houwer (eds.): The Acquisition of Dutch. With a Preface by Catherine E. Snow. 1998. xvi, 444 pp. 51 Boulima, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. 1999. xiv, 338 pp. 50 Grenoble, Lenore A.: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. 1998. xviii, 338 pp. 49 Kurzon, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. 1998. vi, 162 pp. 48 Kamio, Akio: Territory of Information. 1997. xiv, 227 pp. 47 Chesterman, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. 1998. viii, 230 pp. 46 Georgakopoulou, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. 1997. xvii, 282 pp. 45 Paltridge, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. 1997. x, 192 pp. 44 Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Sandra J. Harris: Managing Language. The discourse of corporate meetings. 1997. ix, 295 pp. 43 Janssen, Theo and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. 1996. x, 312 pp. 42 Kotthoff, Helga and Ruth Wodak (eds.): Communicating Gender in Context. 1997. xxvi, 424 pp. 41 Ventola, Eija and Anna Mauranen (eds.): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. 1996. xiv, 258 pp. 40 Diamond, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. 1996. viii, 184 pp. 39 Herring, Susan C. (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. 1996. viii, 326 pp. 38 Fretheim, Thorstein and Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.): Reference and Referent Accessibility. 1996. xii, 312 pp. 37 Carston, Robyn and Seiji Uchida (eds.): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. 1998. x, 300 pp. 36 Chilton, Paul, Mikhail V. Ilyin and Jacob L. Mey (eds.): Political Discourse in Transition in Europe 1989–1991. 1998. xi, 272 pp. 35 Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. 1995. xvi, 624 pp. 34 Barbe, Katharina: Irony in Context. 1995. x, 208 pp. 33 Goossens, Louis, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie SimonVandenbergen and Johan Vanparys: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. 1995. xii, 254 pp. 32 Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. In honor of Charles J. Fillmore. 1996. x, 322 pp. 31 Wildgen, Wolfgang: Process, Image, and Meaning. A realistic model of the meaning of sentences and narrative texts. 1994. xii, 281 pp. 30 Wortham, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. 1994. xiv, 178 pp. 29 Barsky, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other. Discourse theory and the Convention refugee hearing. 1994. x, 272 pp. 28 Van de Walle, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. A pilot study in linguistic politeness. 1993. xii, 454 pp.

27 Suter, Hans-Jürg: The Wedding Report. A prototypical approach to the study of traditional text types. 1993. xii, 314 pp. 26 Stygall, Gail: Trial Language. Differential discourse processing and discursive formation. 1994. xii, 226 pp. 25 Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. 1993. x, 346 pp. 24 Maynard, Senko K.: Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. 1993. x, 315 pp. 23 Fortescue, Michael, Peter Harder and Lars Kristoffersen (eds.): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. 1992. xiii, 444 pp. 22 Auer, Peter and Aldo Di Luzio (eds.): The Contextualization of Language. 1992. xvi, 402 pp. 21 Searle, John R., Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. 1992. vi, 154 pp. 20 Nuyts, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. 1991. xii, 399 pp. 19 Baker, Carolyn and Allan Luke (eds.): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. 1991. xxi, 287 pp. 18 Johnstone, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. 1991. viii, 130 pp. 17 Piéraut-Le Bonniec, Gilberte and Marlene Dolitsky (eds.): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Some aspects of contemporary French-language psycholinguistics research. 1991. vi, 342 pp. 16 Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Discourse Description. Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. 1992. xiii, 409 pp. 15 Komter, Martha L.: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. A study of talks, tasks and ideas. 1991. viii, 252 pp. 14 Schwartz, Ursula V.: Young Children's Dyadic Pretend Play. A communication analysis of plot structure and plot generative strategies. 1991. vi, 151 pp. 13 Nuyts, Jan, A. Machtelt Bolkestein and Co Vet (eds.): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. A functional view. 1990. xii, 348 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. 1991. viii, 338 pp. 11 Luong, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. 1990. x, 213 pp. 10 Murray, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. 1991. xii, 176 pp. 9 Luke, K. K.: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. 1990. xvi, 329 pp. 8 Young, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code. A study of academic English. 1991. ix, 304 pp. 7 Lindenfeld, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Marketplaces. 1990. viii, 173 pp. 6:3 Blommaert, Jan and Jef Verschueren (eds.): The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 3: The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. 1991. viii, 249 pp. 6:2 Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 2: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. 1991. viii, 339 pp. 6:1 Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Pragmatics at Issue. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Volume 1: Pragmatics at Issue. 1991. viii, 314 pp. 5 Thelin, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. 1990. xvi, 490 pp. 4 Raffler-Engel, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor–Patient Interaction. 1989. xxxviii, 294 pp. 3 Oleksy, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. 1988. xiv, 282 pp. 2 Barton, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents. A theory of grammatical structure and pragmatic interpretation. 1990. xviii, 247 pp. 1 Walter, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre. An ethnographic study of what it means to those who use it. 1988. xvii, 264 pp.