Article published in:
Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English
Edited by Marina Dossena
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 4] 2015
► pp. 153–177

Nineteenth-century institutional (im)politeness

Responses of the Colonial Office to letters from William Parker, 1820 settler

| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland
This contribution aims to assess the possibility of filtering reflexive, i.e. intentional and strategic linguistic choices from the politic and highly conventionalised language of historical letters (see Wood 2009). As I would like to argue, an analysis of some “backstage” epistolary data could be helpful in tracing the former type of behaviour. The contribution presents a case study into the responses of the British government agency, the Colonial Office, to the letters from Mr William Parker, a Cape of Good Hope emigration scheme candidate (1819). The small set of letters addressed to Parker are weighed against a larger volume of the internal correspondence of the Colonial Office (1819–1823). Following Held (1989), the universal tension between the parties involved in communication, i.e. the clash between the needs of ego vs. alter, is used as a diagnostic of the orientation of (im)politeness norms and strategies in the analysed data. The results of this investigation are confirmed by means of a corpus tool, the UCREL semantic tagger, USAS (see Rayson 2009; Archer 2014). Its application shows that it is sensitive to those linguistic manifestations of the pragmatic space of a specific speech act property which is characteristic of the responses of the Colonial Office.
Published online: 12 February 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.4.08wlo
References

Primary sources

Theal, George McCall
1897–1905 Records of the Cape Colony (1793–1869). (Volumes 12, 13 and 15). London: Public Record Office.Google Scholar
War and Colonial Department and Colonial Office: Cape of Good Hope (Cape Colony), Original correspondence
TNA. CO 48/41, 48/44, 48/45.

Secondary sources

Archer, Dawn
2014 Exploring pragmatic phenomena in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities and the problems. In Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker & Jukka Tuominen (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 277–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Banton, Mandy
2008 Administering the Empire, 1801-1968: A Guide to the records of the Colonial Office in the National Archives of the UK. London: Institute of Historical Research/The National Archives of the UK.Google Scholar
Bax, Marcel
2010 Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in Early Modern Dutch letter-writing. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness, 37–85. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011 An evolutionary take on (im)politeness. In Marcel Bax & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Understanding historical (im)politeness. Special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12(1/2). 255–282.Google Scholar
Dickason, Graham Brian
1973 Irish settlers to the Cape: History of the Clanwilliam 1820 settlers from Cork Harbour. Cape Town: A. A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella
2008 Two polite speech acts from a diachronic perspective: Aspects of the realisation of requesting and undertaking commitments in the nineteenth-century commercial ommunity. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Speech acts in the history of English, 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina
2010 Building trust through (self-)appraisal in nineteenth-century business correspondence. In Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English, 191–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 The study of correspondence: Theoretical and methodological issues. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elspaβ, Stephan
2012a The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In Juan M. Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 156–169. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b Between linguistic creativity and formulaic restriction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on nineteenth-century lower class writers’ private letters. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony
2003 Letters of the English labouring classes 1800–34 and the English language. In Marina Dossena & Charles Jones (eds), Insights into Late Modern English, 265–282. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan
2010 Changes in the meanings of politeness in eighteenth-century England: Discourse analysis and historical evidence. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness, 87–116. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Held, Grudrun
1989 On the role of maximization in verbal politeness. Multilingua 8(2–3). 167–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Held, Gudrun
2010 “Supplica la mia parvidade” Petitions in medieval society – A matter of ritualized politeness? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11(2). 194–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H
2010 ‘In curteisie was set ful muchel hir lest’: Politeness in Middle English. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness, 175–200. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012 Changes in politeness cultures. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 422–433. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen
2000 Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1. 67–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Brian
1996 Henry Goulburn 1784–1856. A political biography. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z
2013 Historical politeness. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. & Michael Haugh
2013 Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laidlaw, Zoë
2005 Colonial connections 1815–1845: Patronage, the information revolution and the colonial government. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1989 The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8(2/3). 101–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lester, Alan
2001 Imperial networks: Creating identities in nineteenth–century South Africa and Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martineau, France
2013 Written documents: What they tell us about linguistic usage. In 
Marijke J. van der Wal & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Touching the past: Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, 129–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, Tom
1981 Longman lexicon of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nash, Marjorie D
1987 The Settler handbook: A New list of the 1820 Settlers. Diep River: 
Chameleon Press.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna
2009 Referential terms and expressions in eighteenth-century letters: A case study on the Lunar Men of Birmigham. In Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), The language of daily life in England (1400–1800), 75–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Politeness. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 419–450. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
1995 Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English correspondence. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 541–601. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna
2010 Correspondence. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavistainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 677–703. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul
2009 Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Dept., Lancaster University, http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/wmatrix/ (accessed 15 August 2013).
Taavitsainen, Irma & Andreas H. Jucker
2010 Expressive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth-century English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change, 159–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Włodarczyk, Matylda
2013a British Colonial Office correspondence on the Cape Colony (1820–1821): Metatextual keywords vs. analytic categories. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 49(3). 399–428.Google Scholar
2013b 1820 settler petitions in the Cape Colony: Genre dynamics and materiality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(1). 45–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013c Self-reference and ego involvement in the 1820 settler petition as a leaking genre. In Marijke J. van der Wal & Gijsbert J. Rutten (eds.), Touching the past: Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, 201–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Johanna
2009 Structures and expectations: A systematic analysis of Margaret Paston’s formulaic and expressive language. In Jonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical sociopragmatics. Special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2). 187–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar