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. 154–179

Changing styles of letter-writing?

Evidence from 400 years of early English letters in a POS-tagged corpus

| University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki
| Tampere University
| University of Helsinki
We analyse the social embedding of stylistic change in the frequencies of nouns, lexical verbs and personal pronouns in the Corpora of Early English Correspondence from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. Our visualization methods show that the frequency of nouns exhibits a consistent decrease, while that of verbs and pronouns tends to increase over time. This suggests a colloquialization of the letter genre, which is particularly prominent in letters by women and the upper ranks as well as those written to socially close recipients. In the later eighteenth century, however, there is a convergence across genders and social ranks indicating the development of a shared, polite style among the increasingly highly educated middle and upper classes in the corpus.
Keywords: colloquialization, involved style, stylistic change, genre evolution, correspondence, part-of-speech frequencies, historical sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, information visualization, English language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Analysing colloquialization and involved style
    • 2.2Colloquialization and gendered styles in personal correspondence
  • 3.Material and methods
    • 3.1Material
    • 3.2Methods
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Initial exploration
    • 4.2Results: Diachronic overview
    • 4.3Results: Social categories
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.364.07sai
References (56)
References
ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. 1990–. Originally compiled under the supervision of D. Biber & E. Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich. [URL]
Argamon, S., M. Koppel, J. Fine & A. R. Shimoni. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text 23(3). 321–346.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2009. The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3). 312–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamman, D., J. Eisenstein & T. Schnoebelen. 2014. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 135–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. 2015. Linguistic fingerprints of authors and scribes. In A. Auer, D. Schrier & R. J. Watts (eds.), Letter writing and language change, 114–132. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. On the role of computational, statistical and interpretative techniques in multi-dimensional analyses of register variation: A reply to Watson. Text 15. 341–370.Google Scholar
2001. Dimensions of variation among 18th-century speech-based and written registers. In H.-J. Diller & M. Görlach (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres, 89–109. Winter.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65(3). 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–275. Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & B. Gray. 2011. The historical shift of scientific academic prose in English towards less explicit styles of expression: Writing without verbs. In V. Bhatia, P. Sánchez Hernández & P. Pérez-Paredes (eds.), Researching specialized languages, 11–24. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314–328. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
CEEC = Corpora of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by T. Nevalainen, H. Raumolin-Brunberg, S. Kaislaniemi, J. Keränen, M. Laitinen, M. Nevala, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, T. Säily & A. Sairio at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. [URL]
Culpeper, J. & M. Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., T. Säily & Y. Bizzoni. 2021. Registerial adaptation vs. innovation across situational contexts: 18th century women in transition. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4. 609970. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. 2020. Royal voices: Language and power in Tudor England. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Farrelly, M. & E. Seoane. 2012. Democratization. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 392–401. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, C. 2010. Master and servant law: Chartists, trade unions, radical lawyers and the magistracy in England, 1840–1865. Routledge.Google Scholar
Garrard, J. 2002. Democratisation in Britain: Elites, civil society, and reform since 1800. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardie, A. 2007. Part-of-speech ratios in English corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(1). 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F. & J.-M. Dewaele. 2002. Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science 7(3). 293–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, T., J. Räikkönen & J. Tyrkkö. 2020. Investigating colloquialization in the British parliamentary record in the late 19th and early 20th century. Language Sciences 79. 101270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, T. & T. Vartiainen. Forthcoming. A corpus-pragmatic analysis of linguistic democratisation in the British Hansard: Comparing the two houses. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 25(2).
Hinneburg, A., H. Mannila, S. Kaislaniemi, T. Nevalainen & H. Raumolin-Brunberg. 2007. How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22(2). 137–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. & C. Mair. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2). 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langford, P. 1989. A polite and commercial people: England 1727–1783. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2004. Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (eds.), Advances in corpus linguistics, 61–81. Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 1998. Corpora and the study of the major varieties of English: Issues and results. In H. Lindquist, S. Klintborg, M. Levin & M. Estling (eds.), The major varieties of English, 139–157. Växjö University.Google Scholar
Mair, C. & M. Hundt. 1995. Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43(2). 111–122.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C. 1998. The evolution of English prose 1700–1800: Style, politeness, and print culture. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. British English in the long eighteenth century (1660–1830). In H. Momma & M. Matto (eds.), A companion to the history of the English language, 228–234. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melton, J. v. H. 2001. The rise of the public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T., M. Palander-Collin & T. Säily (eds.). 2018. Patterns of change in 18th-century English: A sociolinguistic approach. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & H. Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. Longman.Google Scholar
Newman, M. L., C. J. Groom, L. D. Handelman & J. W. Pennebaker. 2008. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes 45(3). 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PCEEC = Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, tagged version. 2006. Annotated by A. Nurmi et al. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. University of York and University of Helsinki. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., G. Leech & M. Hodges. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: Some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1). 133–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saario, L. & T. Säily. 2020. POS tagging the CEECE: A manual to accompany the Tagged Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (TCEECE). VARIENG. [URL]
Saario, L., T. Säily, S. Kaislaniemi & T. Nevalainen. 2021. The burden of legacy: Producing the Tagged Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension (TCEECE). Research in Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 104–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T. 2016. Sociolinguistic variation in morphological productivity in eighteenth-century English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Change or variation? Productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. In T. Nevalainen, M. Palander-Collin & T. Säily (eds.), Patterns of change in 18th-century English: A sociolinguistic approach, 197–218. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T., T. Nevalainen & H. Siirtola. 2011. Variation in noun and pronoun frequencies in a sociohistorical corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 26(2). 167–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T., T. Vartiainen & H. Siirtola. 2017. Exploring part-of-speech frequencies in a sociohistorical corpus of English. In T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin & A. Auer (eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics, 23–52. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sairio, A. 2009. Language and letters of the Bluestocking network: Sociolinguistic issues in eighteenth-century epistolary English. Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Sairio, A. & M. Nevala. 2013. Social dimensions of layout in eighteenth-century letters and letter-writing manuals. In A. Meurman-Solin (ed.), Principles and practices for the digital editing and annotation of diachronic data. VARIENG. [URL]
Smitterberg, E. 2008. The progressive and phrasal verbs: Evidence of colloquialization in nineteenth-century English? In T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta & M. Korhonen (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 269–289. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Syntactic change in Late Modern English: Studies on colloquialization and densification. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. & B. Santorini. 2006. The Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. University of York. [URL]
TCEECE = Tagged Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Annotated by L. Saario & T. Säily. Spelling standardized by M. Hakala et al. Compiled by T. Nevalainen et al. at the Department of Languages, University of Helsinki. [URL]
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 2009. An introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, T., T. Säily & M. Hakala. 2013. Variation in pronoun frequencies in early English letters: Gender-based or relationship-based? In J. Tyrkkö, O. Timofeeva & M. Salenius (eds.), Ex philologia lux: Essays in honour of Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, 233–255. Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Whyman, S. E. 2009. The pen and the people: English letter writers 1660–1800. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar