Part of
Unlocking the History of English: Pragmatics, prescriptivism and text typesEdited by Luisella Caon, Moragh S. Gordon and Thijs Porck
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 364] 2024
► pp. 198–224
Edited by Luisella Caon, Moragh S. Gordon and Thijs Porck
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 364] 2024
► pp. 198–224
Filled-in petition forms and hand-drafted petitions to the Foundling Hospital
A comparison and the influence of letter-writing manuals
The present study compares filled-in petition forms with hand-drafted petitions addressed to the Foundling Hospital between 1759 and 1815. The focus of the analysis is on the similarities and/or differences between the two types and how they compare to the petition models presented in the letter-writing manuals of the time. The results show that the hand-drafted petitions display more variation in general than the filled-in petition forms, although not as much as expected. The findings suggest that the writers of these petitions were aware of the conventions established at the time even when they had to draft a petition themselves and that their writing did not differ much from the writing of other letter writers of the time.
Keywords: filled-in petition forms, hand-drafted petitions, Foundling Hospital, letter-writing manuals, Late Modern England
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The context of the petitions
- 2.1The Foundling Hospital in eighteenth-century London
- 2.2The petitioners
- 3.Petitions in letter-writing manuals in eighteenth-century Britain
- 4.Spelling in letter writing in Late Modern England
- 5.The present study
- 5.1Data and method
- 5.2Analysis
- 5.2.1Formal aspects: Addresses, introductions and conclusions
- 5.2.1.1Filled-in petitions
- 5.2.1.2Hand-drafted petitions
- 5.2.1.3Filled-in petition forms and hand-drafted petitions compared
- 5.2.1.4Model petitions in manuals and real petitions compared
- 5.2.2Spelling in the filled-in petition forms and the hand-drafted petitions
- 5.2.2.1Spelling in the filled-in petition forms
- 5.2.2.2Spelling in the hand-drafted petitions
- 5.2.2.3Spelling in filled-in petition forms and hand-drafted petitions compared
- 5.2.2.4Spelling in model petitions and in real petitions compared
- 5.2.1Formal aspects: Addresses, introductions and conclusions
- 6.Concluding remarks
-
Acknowledgements -
Notes -
References
References (45)
Auer, A. 2015. Stylistic variation. In A. Auer, D. Schreier & R. J. Watts (eds.), Letter writing and language change, 133–155. Cambridge University Press. 
Auer, A., D. Schreier, & R. J. Watts (eds.). 2015. Letter writing and language change. Cambridge University Press.
Bannet, E. T. 2005. Empire of letters. Cambridge University Press.
Beal, J. 2010. The grocer’s apostrophe: Popular prescriptivism in the 21st century. English Today 26(2). 57–64.
Bergs, A. T. 2007. Letters: A new approach to text typology. In T. Nevalainen & S. K. Tanskanen (eds.), Letter writing, 27–46. John Benjamins.
Berry, H. 2019. Orphans of empire. The fate of London’s foundlings. Oxford University Press.
Brown, G. 1790. The English writer or the whole art of general correspondence […] together with the universal petitioner. Alexander Hogg.
Calvo Cortés, N. 2020. Variations from letter-writing manuals: humble petitions signed by women in Late Modern London. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.), Manners and their transgressions in the history of English, 184–212. John Benjamins.
Cooke, T. 1791. The universal letter-writer or new art of polite correspondence […] to which is added the complete petitioner. W. Osborne, T. Griffin & J.M. Mozley.
Denison, D. 1994. A Corpus of Late Modern English Prose. University of Manchester. [URL].
Dossena, M. & G. del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.). 2012. Letter writing in Late Modern Europe. John Benjamins.
Dossena, M. & I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.). 2008. Studies in Late Modern English correspondence. Peter Lang.
Evans, T. 2005. ‘Unfortunate objects’: Lone mothers in eighteenth-century London. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fairman, T. 2000. English pauper letters 1800–34, and the English language. In D. Barton & N. Hall (eds.), Letter writing as social practice, 63–82. John Benjamins.
Görlach, M. 2001. Eighteenth-century English. Winter.
Halsey, K. 2015. The home education of girls in the eighteenth-century novel: ‘The pernicious effects of an improper education’. Oxford Review of Education 41(4). 430–446.
Held, G. 2010. Supplica la Mia Parvidade… Petitions in medieval society: A matter of ritualised or first reflexive politeness? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11(2). 194–218.
Jespersen, O. 1923. Growth and structure of the English language, 4th edn. Appleton & Co.
Johnson, S. 1755. A dictionary of the English language. J & P Knapton.
King, S. 2007. Pauper letters as a source. Family and community history 10(2). 167–70.
Laitinen, M. 2015. Early nineteenth-century pauper letters. In A. Auer, D. Schreier & R. J. Watts (eds.), Letter writing and language change, 185–201. Cambridge University Press.
2018. Indefinite pronouns with singular human reference. In T. Nevalainen, M. Palander-Collin & T. Säily (eds.), Patterns of change in 18th-century English. A sociolinguistic approach, 137–158. John Benjamins.
Levene, A., S. King, A. Tomkins, P. King, T. Nutt, D. A. Symonds & L. Zunshine (eds.). 2006. Narratives of the poor in eighteenth-century Britain. Volume 1: Voices of the poor: Poor law depositions and letters. Taylor & Francis.
Lowth, R. 1762. A short introduction to English grammar. J. Hughs.
McClure, R. K. 1981. The London Foundling Hospital in the eighteenth century. Yale University Press.
Nevalainen, T. 1998. Corpus of Early English Correspondence. VARIENG, University of Helsinki. [URL]
Nevalainen, T. & H. Ramoulin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. Pearson Education.
Nevalainen, T. 2007. Introduction. In T. Nevalainen & S. Tanskanen (eds.), Letter writing, 1–11. John Benjamins.
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. [URL]
Osselton, N. E. 1984. Informal spelling systems in Early Modern English: 1500–1800. CETAL Conference Papers Series 3. 123–137.
Pugh, Gillian. 2007. London’s forgotten children. Thomas Coram and the Foundling Hospital. Tempus.
Sairio, A. 2010. ‘if You think me obstinate I can’t help it’: Exploring the epistolary styles and social roles of Elizabeth Montagu and Sarah Scott. In P. Pahta, M. Nevala, A. Nurmi & M. Palander-Collin (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English, 87–109. John Benjamins.
Sheetz-Nguyen, J. A. 2012. Victorian women, unwed mothers and the London Foundling Hospital. Bloomsbury.
Simonton, D. 2005. Women and education. In H. Barker and E. Chalus (eds.), Women’s history: Britain 1700–1850, an introduction, 33–56. Routledge.
Sokoll, T. (ed.). 2001. Essex pauper letters, 1731–1837 (Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 30). Oxford University Press.
2006. Writing for relief: Rhetoric in English pauper letters, 1800–1834. In A. Gestrich, S. King & R. Lutz (eds.), Being poor in Modern Europe: Historical perspectives 1800–1940, 91–111. Peter Lang.
Stephens, W. B. 1998. Education in Britain, 1750–1914. Red Globe Press London.
The Complete Letter-Writer. 1778. W. Darling.
The Young Secretary’s Guide. 1721. H. Tracey.
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 2011. The bishop’s grammar: Robert Lowth and the rise of prescriptivism. Oxford University Press.
2014. In search of Jane Austen. The language of the letters. Oxford University Press.
Timmis, I. 2018. The pragmatics in the Essex pauper letters, 1731–1837. Corpus Pragmatics 2. 243–263.
Tomkins, A. 2011. ‘I mak Bould to Wrigt’: First-person narratives in the history of poverty in England, c. 1750–1900. History Compass 9(5). 365–373.
Ward, W. 1796. The scripture spelling book, 3rd edn. Ogilvy & Speare.
Williams, S. 2005. ‘A good character for virtue, sobriety, and honesty’: Unmarried mothers’ petitions to the London Foundling Hospital and the rhetoric of need in the early nineteenth century. In A. Levene, T. Nutt & S. Williams (eds.), Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700–1920, 86–101. Palgrave Macmillan.