Initiating contact in institutional correspondence
Historical (socio)pragmatics of Late Modern English literacies
When addressing family members or friends, letter writers enter a common ground of some sort, where, as research has shown, the rules of everyday interaction apply (
Nurmi and Palander-Colin 2008). In different historical periods, familiar correspondence is thus very much about maintaining existing bonds and about phatic communion. The situation is likely to be very different in the case of institutional recipients, in particular if somebody addresses a given institution for the first time. The data selected for the study, the 1819 applications to the British Colonial Office for the Cape of Good Hope colonisation scheme (TNA 48/41–6), include many letters written by “first timers” (i.e., the encoders who have not addressed the institution before). These letters may provide some insights into the specific participation framework of the first-time writers in their interaction with the institution.
In the paper, I propose that contact initiation may be related to the literacy levels of letter-writers, focusing on what I refer to as “technical literacy”. Based on some parameters thereof, I distinguish between two broad groups of informants, reflecting what may be described as standard and non-standard literacies, respectively. The two groups, I assume, do not operate within the same participation framework and, therefore, display pragmatic and linguistic differences in constructing the initial encounters. Moreover, the analysis of these initiations offers a new perspective on the routinisation of institutional correspondence.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Historical background, data and methodology
- 2.1Data sample
- 2.2Methodology for Late Modern Literacies: evaluation criteria
- 3.Initial encounters in institutional correspondence
- 3.1Initiations in the rhetorical structure and contemporary manuals on the petition
- 3.2William Aldred’s double initiation
- 3.3Parameters of initiations
- 3.4Results
- 3.4.1Initiations vs. technical literacy
- 3.5Literacy versus macro speech act
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusions
- Notes
-
References
References (44)
References
Austin, Francis. 2004. “‘Heaving this Importunity’: The Survival of Opening Formulas in Letters in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”. Historical Sociolinguistics & Sociohistorical Linguistics. Accessed August 2014 at: [URL].
Barton, David. 2007. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. (Second edition.) London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge.
Bax, Marcel. 2010. “Epistolary Presentation Rituals: Face-work, Politeness, and Ritual Display in Early Modern Dutch Letter-Writing”. In Jonathan Culpeper and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Historical (Im)politeness Research, 37–86. Bern: Peter Lang.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, Jack K. 2004. “Dynamic Typology and Vernacular Universals”. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets Typology, 127–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cooke, Thomas. 1801. The Universal Letter-Writer; or, New Art of Polite Correspondence. London: Gainsborough.
Diller, Hans, Hendrik De Smet and Jukka Tyrkkö. 2011. “A European Database of Descriptors of English Electronic Texts”. The European English Messenger 191: 21–35.
Dossena Marina and Susan Fitzmaurice (eds). 2006. Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Elspaß, Stephan. 2007. “‘Everyday Language’ in Emigrant Letters and its Implications for German Historiography – the German Case”. In Stephan Elspaß and Wim Vandenbussche (eds), Lower Class Language Use in the 19th Century, 151–65. Special issue of Multilingua 261.
Fairman, Tony. 2007. “Writing and “the Standard”: England, 1795–1834”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 261: 167–201.
Healey, Joseph F. 2010. The Essentials of Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Held, Gudrun. 1989. “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8 (2–3): 167–206.
Houston, Robert Allan. 2014. Peasant Petitions: Social Relations and Economic Life on Landed Estates. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Landert, Daniela. 2013. Personalisation in Mass Media Communication: British Online News between Public and Private. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2013. “Visual Prosody in Manuscript Letters in the Study of Syntax and Discourse”. In Anneli Meurman-Solin and Jukka Tyrkkö (eds), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data. Helsinki: VARIENG. Accessed August 2014 at: [URL].
Nash, Marjorie D. 1987. The Settler Handbook: A New List of the 1820 Settlers. Diep River: Chameleon Press.
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2001. “Continental Conventions in Early English Correspondence”. In Hans-Jürgen Diller and Manfred Görlach (eds), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, 203–24. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Nurmi, Arja and Minna Palander-Collin. 2008. “Letters as a Text Type: Interaction in Writing”. In Marina Dossena and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds), Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang.
Peikola, Matti. 2012. “Supplicatory Voices: Genre Properties of the 1692 Petitions in the Salem Witch-Trials”. Studia Neophilologica 84 (1): 106–18.
Peires, Jeff. 1989. “The British and the Cape: 1814–1834”. In Richard Elphick and Hermann Giliomee (eds), The Shaping of South African Society, 1652–1840, 472–518. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
Perelman, Les. 1991. “The Medieval Art of Letter Writing: Rhetoric as Institutional Expression”. In Charles Bazerman and James Paradis (eds), Textual Dynamics of the Professions, 97–119. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Sairio, Anni and Minna Nevala. 2013. “Social Dimensions of Layout in Eighteenth-Century Letters and Letter-Writing Manuals”. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English (Volume 141). Accessed January 2015 at: [URL].
Schneider, Klaus P. 1988. Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth.
Sokoll, Thomas. 2006. “Writing for Relief: Rhetoric in English Pauper Letters, 1800–1834”. In Andreas Gestrich, Steven King and Lutz Raphael (eds), Being Poor in Modern Europe: Historical Perspectives 1800–1940, 91–111. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Street, Brian. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.
Svennevig, Jan. 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2012. “New Perspectives, Theories and Methods: Historical Pragmatics”. In Laurel Brinton and Alexander Bergs (eds), Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 1457–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Włodarczyk, Matylda. 2013b. “British Colonial Office Correspondence on the Cape Colony (1820–1821): Metatextual Keywords vs. Analytic Categories”. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 49 (3): 399–428.
Włodarczyk Matylda. 2013c. “Community or Communities of Practice?” In Joanna Kopaczyk and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Communities of Practice in the History of English, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Włodarczyk, Matylda. 2014. “Literacies on the Move to the Cape Colony: The 1820 Settler Database”. Unpublished conference paper presented at
Mobility, Variability and Changing Literacies in Modern Times
. June 2014. Utrecht.
Włodarczyk, Matylda. 2015. “Nineteenth-Century Institutional (Im)Politeness: Responses of the Colonial Office to Letters from William Parker, 1820 settler”. In Marina Dossena (ed.), Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English, 153–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Włodarczyk, Matylda. 2016. Genre and Literacies: Historical (Socio)pragmatics of the 1820 Settler Petition. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Wolfson, Nessa. 1983. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Barron, Anne
2021.
Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability. In
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics,
► pp. 182 ff.
[no author supplied]
2021.
Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics,
► pp. 13 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.