Cover not available
Part of
Keeping in Touch: Emigrant letters across the English-speaking world
Edited by Raymond Hickey
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 10] 2019
► pp. 1–24

Chapter 1
Mining emigrant correspondence for linguistic insights

The examination of emigrant letters shows that a judicious exploitation of this material can yield a variety of insights regarding the linguistic structure of varieties at the time of letter writing, despite a number of caveats which must be borne in mind. The diagnostic value of vernacular correspondence would appear to be considerable in that it assists scholars in completing a picture of variety development over the past few centuries. A wide spectrum of letters helps to establish the profile of vernacular English as it was transported to different overseas locations in the later colonial period.
Keywords: emigrant letters, insights and caveats, availability of personal correspondence, vernacular features
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contextualising emigrant letters
    • 2.1The sender and writer
    • 2.2Why emigrant letters are different
    • 2.3Emigrant letters, memory and personal identity
  • 3.The nature of emigrant correspondence
    • 3.1Contact with home
    • 3.2Taxonomy of letter recipients
  • 4.Caveats regarding emigrant letters
  • 5.Testing hypotheses about the development of varieties
  • 6.Available emigrant letters
  • 7.The linguistic analysis of emigrant correspondence
    • 7.1Spelling and punctuation
    • 7.2Annie’s story
      • 7.2.1Authorship and education
      • 7.2.2Emigrant letters and the postal service
    • 7.3Annie Carroll as letter writer
      • 7.3.1Indications of Irish pronunciations
      • 7.3.2Linguistic features of correspondence
  • 8.Structure of volume
    • 8.1The language of emigrant correspondence
    • 8.2The language of the Irish emigrant experience
    • 8.3Vernacular correspondence: Widening the scope
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.10.01hic
References (58)
References
Auer, Anita, Daniel Schreier, Richard J. Watts (eds) 2015. Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander T. 2007. Letters. A new approach to text typology. In: Nevalainen and Tanskanen (eds), pp.27–46.Google Scholar
Bermejo-Giner, Maria G. and Michael Montgomery 1997. Regional British English in the nineteenth century: Evidence from emigrant letters. In: Alan Thomas (ed.) Issues and Methods in Dialectology. Bangor: University of North Wales Press, pp.167–183.Google Scholar
Copenhaver, Rebecca 2006. Thomas Reid’s theory of memory, History of Philosophy Quarterly 23.2: 171–187.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan 2015. Emerging standards in the colonies: variation and the Canadian letter writer. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds), pp.101–113.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina 2007. “As this leaves me at present”. Formulaic usage, politeness and social proximity in nineteenth-century Scottish emigrants’ letters. In: Elspaß et al. (eds), pp.13–29.Google Scholar
2012a. “I write you these few lines”: Metacommunication and pragmatics in nineteenth-century Scottish emigrants’ letters. In: Ulrich Busse and Axel Hübler (eds) Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English. A Contribution to Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.45–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b. The study of correspondence: Theoretical and methodological issues. In: Dossena and Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), pp.13–30.Google Scholar
2014. Towards a corpus of nineteenth-century correspondence. Linguistica e Filologia 18: 195–214.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds) 2012. Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Susan Fitzmaurice (eds) 2006. Business and Official Correspondence. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Ingrid Tieken Boon-van Ostade (eds) 2009. Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence. Methodology and Data. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar 1953. The Auxiliary ‘Do’. The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan 2002. Standard German in the nineteenth-century? (Counter-)evidence from the private correspondence of “ordinary people”. In: Andrew R. Linn and Nicola McLelland (eds) Standardization. Studies from the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.43–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Between linguistic creativity and formulaic restriction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on nineteenth-century lower class writers’ private letters. In: Dossena and Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), pp.45–64.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Nils, Joachim Scharloth and Wim Vandenbussche (eds) 2007. Germanic Language Histories from Below (1700–2000). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony 2003. Letters of the English labouring classes 1800–34 and the English language. In: Marina Dossena and Charles Jones (eds) Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp.265–282.Google Scholar
Fens-de Zeeuw, Lyda 2008. The letter-writing manual in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: from polite to practical. In: Dossena and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds), pp.163–192.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan 2004. The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A Pragmatic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015. English aristocratic letters. In: Auer et al. (eds), pp.101–113.Google Scholar
2010. Coalitions, networks, and discourse communities in Augustan England: The Spectator and the early eighteenth-century essay. In: Raymond Hickey (ed.) Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.106–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, David 2006. Irish emigration and the art of letter-writing. In: Elliott, Bruce S, David A. Gerber and Suzanne M. Sinke (eds) 2006. Letters across Borders. The epistolary practices of international migrants. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.97–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golden, Catherine J. 2009. Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in Letter Writing. Gainesville, FL:University Press of Florida. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre 2015. Assessing variability and change in early English letters. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds), pp.14–34.Google Scholar
(eds) 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond 2007. Irish English. History and Present-day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Irish English in early modern drama. The birth of a linguistic stereotype. In: Raymond Hickey (ed.) Varieties of English in Writing. The Written Word as Linguistic Evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Vernacular reports from the colonies. Letters back home by Irish emigrants, in: Nicholas Brownlees (ed.) The Language of Discovery. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hindley, Reg 1991. The Death of the Irish Language. A qualified obituary. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Houston, Cecil J. and William J. Smyth 1990. Irish Emigration and Canadian Settlement: patterns, links, and letters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Stanley B. and Shaun Nichols 2012. Memory and the sense of personal identity, Mind 121: 677–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lesser, Harry 1978. Reid’s criticism of Hume’s theory of personal identity, Hume Studies 4: 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin 2014. “I dont care one cent what Ø goying on in great Britten” BE-deletion in Irish English. American Speech 89.4: 441–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin and Carolina P. Amador-Moreno 2012. “I will be expecting a letter from you before this reaches you”. A corpus-based study of shall/will variation in Irish English correspondence. In: Dossena and Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), pp.179–204.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael 1995. The linguistic value of Ulster emigrant letters. Ulster Folklife 41: 1–15.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 1999. Making the best use of “bad” data: evidence for sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100.4: 499–533.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds) 2007. Letter Writing. Originally published as a special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5.2 (2004). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg 2017 [2003]. Historical Sociolinguistics. Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. Second edition. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nobels, Judith and Marijke van der Wal 2009. Tackling the writer-sender problem. The newly developed Leiden Identification Procedure (LIP)’, Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics, [URL]. Last accessed, December 2018.Google Scholar
Palma, A. B. 1964. Memory and personal identity, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 42.1: 53–68. Published online 2006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, John 2008. Personal identity, memory, and the problem of circularity, in: Perry, John (ed.) Personal Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp.136–155.Google Scholar
Piccirillo, Ryan A. 2010. The Lockean memory theory of personal identity: Definition, objection, response, Inquiries 2.8 (online publication).Google Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas 2015. Archaism and dialect in Irish emigrant letters. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds), pp.223–239.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana (ed.) 2000. The English History of African American Vernacular English. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rickford, John 1998. The creole origins of African American Vernacular English: Evidence from copula absence. In: Salikoko S. Mufwene, John R. Rickford and Guy Bailey (eds) African American English. London: Routledge, 1998, pp.154–199.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal 2014. Letters as Loot: a sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Anna Maria Merikallio, Terttu Nevalainen 2018. Charting orthographical reliability in a corpus of English historical letters, ICAME Journal 42: 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaislaniemi, Samuli , Mel Evans, Teo Juvonen and Anni Sairio 2017. “A graphic system which leads its own linguistic life”?: Epistolary spelling in English, 1400-1800. In: Tanja Säily, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin and Anita Auer (eds) Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.187–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2004. The English dialect heritage of the southern United States. In: Raymond Hickey (ed.) Legacies of Colonial English. Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.262–309.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. and Michael B. Montgomery 2001. On the trail of early nonstandard grammar: An electronic corpus of Southern U.S. antebellum overseers’ letters, American Speech 76: 388–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrier, Arnold 1958. Ireland and the Irish Emigration, 1850–1900. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Sydney S. 1959. Personal identity and memory, Journal of Philosophy 56.22: 868–822. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staff, Frank 1993. The Penny Post 1680-1918. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 1987. The Auxiliary do in Eighteenth-century English. A Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken Boon-von Ostade, Ingrid 2005. Eighteenth-century English letters. In search of the vernacular. Linguistica e Filologia 21: 113–146.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard 2015. Setting the scene: letters, standards and historical sociolinguistics. In: Auer et al. (eds), pp.1–13.Google Scholar
Wilson, Anne and Michael Ross 2003. The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side, Memory 11.2: 137–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Eisenbruch, Miriam A.
2022. The subjunctive in Renaissance French. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hickey, Raymond
2020. Contact and Language Shift. In The Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.