Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics
Edited by Tanja Säily, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin and Anita Auer
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 7] 2017
► pp. 187–213

“A graphic system which leads its own linguistic life”?

Epistolary spelling in English, 1400–1800

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Helsinki
Traditional accounts of the history of English spelling are primarily based on printed texts. According to them, English orthography developed from great diversity in Late Middle English to modern standard spelling by 1800. Studies have also revealed a split between public and private spelling practices. This paper charts the history of epistolary spelling in Early Modern English using the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. We counter potential editorial interference in the corpus by two methods. First, we focus on frequent variables; and second, we use smaller, manuscript-based resources to verify our findings. The results reveal, for the first time, long-term trends in the history of English private spelling.
Keywords: historical corpora, corpus linguistics, Early Modern English, Late Modern English, letter-writing, orthography, spelling, standardisation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Materials and methods
  • 3.Consonant variation: <l> vs. <ll>
    • 3.1 always
    • 3.2-ful
  • 4.Vowel variation: <ei> vs. <ie>
    • 4.1 friend
    • 4.2 believe
    • 4.3 receive
  • 5.The standardisation of epistolary spelling
    • 5.1Idiolectal variation dominates in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
    • 5.2Generational change in the seventeenth century
    • 5.3Emerging standards in the eighteenth century
  • 6.Conclusions
    • 6.1On the reliability of CEEC for research on spelling
    • 6.2Overlapping waves of change
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.7.08kai
References (32)
References
Basu, Anupam & Stephen Pentecost. 2014. EEBO N-gram browser. St. Louis: Humanities Digital Workshop, Washington University. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2012. Evidence from sources after 1500. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 63–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503) (Topics in English Linguistics 51). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowen, Edwin W. 1894. The ie-sound in accented syllables in English. The American Journal of Philology 15. 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by the CEEC project team under Terttu Nevalainen at the Department of English, University of Helsinki. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)
Danielsson, Bror. 1963. John Hart’s works on English orthography and pronunciation, 1551, 1569, 1570, Part 2, Phonology. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
EEBO-TCP = Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Phase II texts available to subscribers only. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)
eLALME = Benskin, Michael, Margaret Laing, Vasilis Karaiskos & Keith Williamson. An electronic version of a Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)
Evans, Mel. 2013. The language of Queen Elizabeth I: A sociolinguistic perspective on royal style and identity (Transactions of the Philological Society Monograph Series 45). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graham, Walter (ed.). 1941. The letters of Joseph Addison. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kaislaniemi, Samuli. 2014. Did English spelling variation end in the 1630s? Copious but not compendious. [URL] (26 March, 2017.)Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea & Taru Nordlund. 2012. Performing identities and interaction through epistolary formulae. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella De Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 65–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2000. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.), Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 1476–1776, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. H. 1944. Jonathan Swift and the English spelling. Studies in Philology 41. 79–85.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna & Arja Nurmi. 2013. The Corpora of Early English Correspondence (CEEC400). In Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds.), Principles and practices for the digital editing and annotation of diachronic data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2017. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1984. Informal spelling systems in Early Modern English: 1500–1800. In Norman F. Blake & Charles Jones (eds.), English historical linguistics. Studies in development, 123–137. Sheffield: Department of English Language, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Terttu Nevalainen. 2007. Historical sociolinguistics: The Corpus of Early English Correspondence . In Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan & Hermann L. Moisl (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. 2, Diachronic databases, 148–171. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Pre-print available at [URL] (31 March, 2017.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna. 2016. Orthographic regularization in Early Modern English printed books. Grapheme distribution and vowel length indication. In Cinzia Russi (ed.), Current trends in historical sociolinguistics, 165–193. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna & Paul Rössler. 2012. Orthographic variables. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 213–236. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert & Marijke J. van der Wal. 2014. Letters as loot. A sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch (Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni. 2009. Language and letters of the Bluestocking network. Sociolinguistic issues in eighteenth-century epistolary English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 75). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Tanja Säily & Terttu Nevalainen. 2016. “My languishinge spirits” or “my languishing spirits”? Charting editorial interference and orthographical reliability in modern editions of English historical letters. Paper presented at the 4th conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE 4), Poznań, 18–21 September 2016.
Salmon, Vivian. 1999. Orthography and punctuation 1476–1776. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 1476–1776, 13–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scragg, D. G. 1974. A history of English spelling. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2011. The Bishop’s grammar. Robert Lowth and the rise of prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. In search of Jane Austen. The language of the letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vosters, Rik & Laura Villa (eds.). 2015. The historical sociolinguistics of spelling. Special issue: Written Language & Literacy 18(2).Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik, Gijsbert Rutten, Marijke van der Wal & Wim Vandenbussche. 2012. Spelling and identity in the Southern Netherlands (1750–1830). In Alexandra Jaffe, Mark Sebba, Jannis Androutsopoulos & Sally Johnson (eds.), Orthography as social action. Scripts, spelling, identity and power (Language and Social Processes 3), 135–169. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Alison, Alan Bryson, Daniel Starza Smith, Anke Timmermann & Graham Williams (eds.). 2013. Bess of Hardwick’s letters: The complete correspondence, c.1550–1608. Version 1.0. University of Glasgow. Web development by Katherine Rogers, University of Sheffield Humanities Research Institute. [URL] (31 March, 2017.)Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Grund, Peter J., Matti Peikola, Johanna Rastas & Wen Xin
2021. The &lt;u&gt; and &lt;v&gt; Alternation in the History of English. American Speech 96:2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Saario, Lassi, Tanja Säily, Samuli Kaislaniemi & Terttu Nevalainen
2021. The burden of legacy: Producing the Tagged Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (TCEECE). Research in Corpus Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Hickey, Raymond
2019. Chapter 1. Mining emigrant correspondence for linguistic insights. In Keeping in Touch [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 10], DOI logo
Sairio, Anni, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Anna Merikallio & Terttu Nevalainen
2018. Charting orthographical reliability in a corpus of English historical letters. ICAME Journal 42:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.