Cover not available
Part of
Unlocking the History of English: Pragmatics, prescriptivism and text types
Edited by Luisella Caon, Moragh S. Gordon and Thijs Porck
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 364] 2024
► pp. 33–59

The rise and fall of sentence-internal capitalization in English

A corpus-based approach

| University of Mainz
| University of Düsseldorf
This paper addresses an empirically under-researched aspect of English historical orthography: the rise and fall of sentence-internal capitalization of common nouns. Our corpus study supports previous findings with respect to the developmental course of common noun capitalization, i.e., a steady rise until 1750 with a steep decline thereafter. The analysis of contemporary grammars shows that animacy was a key factor in determining the practice of sentence-internal capitalization. Moreover, the grammaticographic advice parallels the development found in actual usage, suggesting that grammarians did not significantly influence its rise or fall. With respect to its decline, we argue that it was mainly a matter of the printers, who introduced lowercase for practical reasons, once sentence-internal capitalization had been extensively used.
Keywords: sentence-internal capitalization, orthography, grammaticography, animacy graphematics, spelling, English, German, Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evolution of sentence-internal capitalization
  • 3.Sentence-internal capitalization: The case of English
    • 3.1Corpus study
    • 3.2Spelling books and grammars
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.364.02now
References (43)
References
Alston, R. C. 1965–77. A bibliography of the English language from the invention of printing to the year 1800: A systematic record of writings on English, and on other languages in English, based on the collections of the principal libraries of the world. Arnold.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2016. Language between description and prescription. Verbs and verb categories in nineteenth-century grammars of English. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A., G. Gilquin, D. Glynn, M. Hilpert & A. Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, A. & P. Rayson. 2008. VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the postgraduate conference in corpus linguistics. [URL]
Barteld, F., S. Hartmann & R. Szczepaniak. 2016. The usage and spread of sentence-internal capitalization in Early New High German. Folia Lingustica 50(2). 385–412.Google Scholar
Bergmann, R. & N. Nerius. 1998. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen von 1500 bis 1710. Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
Bunčić, D. 2012. The standardization of Polish orthography in the 16th century. In S. Baddeley & A. Voeste (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe, 219–254. Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., H.-J. Diller & J. Tyrkkö. 2011. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET), version 3.0. [URL]
De Smet, H. 2005. A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29. 69–82.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. 1975. Number and case relations in 19th-century British English. De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
Dücker, L. 2020. Großschreibung von Personenbezeichnungen in Hexenverhörprotokollen – eine Analyse von Gender, Lemma und Rolle im Gerichtsprozess. In A. Schütz, R. Szczepaniak & M. Hess (eds.), Forschende Frauen 2020. Beiträge Bamberger Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen, 31–50. Bamberg University Press.Google Scholar
ECEG = Eighteenth-Century English Grammars database, 2010. Compiled by María E. Rodríguez-Gil (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) and Nuria Yáñez-Bouza (The University of Manchester, UK). [URL]
EEBO = Text Creation Partnership (TCP). 2000–2019. Early English Books Online. [URL]
Foxon, D. 1991. Pope and the early eighteenth-century book trade. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gilles, P. 2015. From status to corpus: Codification and implementation of spelling norms in Luxembourgish. In W. V. Davies & E. Ziegler (eds.), Language planning and microlinguistics. From policy to interaction and vice versa, 128–149. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Eighteenth-century English. Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
Gries, S.Th. & A. Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüter, M. 2009. Optimalitätstheoretische Modellierung von Groß- und Kleinschreibung: eine Beispielanalyse englischer Texte um 1730. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28(2). 203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, A. 1981. Die gemäßigte Kleinschreibung im Dänischen. Die Reform von 1948 und ihre Auswirkungen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur germanistischen Linguistik 17, 52–58.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & E. Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husson, A. 1977. La ponctuation: Recherches historiques et actuelles. Centre national de recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
Lundeby, E. & I. Torvik. 1956. Språket vårt gjennom tidene. Kort Norsk språkhistorie. Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Maas, U. 1995. Einige Grundannahmen zur Analyse der Groß- und Kleinschreibung im Deutschen, insbesondere zu ihrer Grammatikalisierung in der Frühen Neuzeit. In G. Lerchner, M. Schröder & U. Fix. (eds.), Chronologische, areale und situative Varietäten des Deutschen in der Sprachhistoriographie: Festschrift für Rudolf Große, 85–100. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007. Die Grammatikalisierung der satzinternen Großschreibung. Zur schriftkulturellen Dimension der Orthographieentwicklung. In A. Redder (ed.), Diskurse und Texte, 385–399. Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Meisenburg, T. 1990. Die großen Buchstaben und was sie bewirken können: Zur Geschichte der Majuskel im Französischen und im Deutschen. In W. Raible (ed.), Erscheinungsformen kultureller Prozesse, 281–315. Narr.Google Scholar
Nowak, J. 2019. Zur Diachronie der satzinternen Großschreibung im Kontrast: Englisch–Niederländisch–Deutsch. In R. Szczepaniak, S. Hartmann & L. Dücker (eds.), Historische Korpuslinguistik, 96–118. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2020. A diachronic comparative study of sentence-internal capitalisation in Dutch and German. In G. De Vogelaer, D. Koster & T. Leuschner (eds.), German and Dutch in contrast: Synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives, 179–212. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Zur Diachronie der satzinternen Großschreibung im Niederländischen. Eine korpusbasierte Studie zum textsortenspezifischen Majuskelgebrauch. In Taal & Tongval 73(2). 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osselton, N. E. 1984. Informal spelling in Early Modern English, 1500–1800. In N. F. Blake & C. Jones (eds.), English historical linguistics: Studies in development, 123–137. CECTAL, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
1985. Spelling-book rules and the capitalization of nouns in the 17th and 18th centuries. In M.-J. Arn & H. Wirtjes (eds.), Historical and editorial studies in medieval and Early Modern English, 49–61. Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Partridge, A. C. 1964. Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan drama. A study of colloquial Contractions, elision, prosody and punctuation. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Schnaar, F. 1907. Die englische Orthographie seit Shakespeare: Mit Berücksichtigung der Grossschreibung und Interpunktion. R. Friedrichs Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power. In A. M. Jaffe, J. Androutsopoulos, M. Sebba & S. Johnson (eds.), Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power (Language and Social Processes 3), 1–19. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepaniak, R. 2011. Gemeinsame Entwicklungspfade in Spracherwerb und Sprachwandel? Kognitive Grundlagen der onto- und historiogenetischen Entwicklung der satzinternen Großschreibung. In K.-M. Köpcke & A. Ziegler (eds.), Grammatik – lehren, lernen, verstehen. Zugänge zur Grammatik des Gegenwartsdeutschen, 341–359. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 1998. Standardization of English spelling: The eighteenth-century printers’ contribution. In J. Fisiak & M. Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 457–470. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Grammar, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voeste, A. 2013. Den Leser im Blick. Die Professionalisierung des Setzerhandwerks im 16. Jahrhundert und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Orthographie der Druckausgaben der »Melusine«. In U. Rautenberg et al. (eds.), Zeichensprachen des literarischen Buchs in der frühen Neuzeit: Die ‚Melusine‘ des Thüring von Ringoltingen, 141–162. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wyndham, G. 1898. The poems of Shakespeare. Edited with an introduction and notes by George Wyndham. Methuen.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. 1999. Animacy and reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar