Article published In:
Historical (socio)pragmatics at present
Edited by Matylda Włodarczyk and Irma Taavitsainen
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2] 2017
► pp. 271294
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.Google Scholar
Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Beetz, Manfred. 1999. “The Polite Answer in Pre-modern German Conversation Culture”. In Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds), Historical Dialogue Analysis, 139–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 2004. “Dynamic Typology and Vernacular Universals”. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets Typology, 127–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cooke, Thomas. 1801. The Universal Letter-Writer; or, New Art of Polite Correspondence. London: Gainsborough.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. “Historical Sociopragmatics: An Introduction”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (2): 179–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina. 2012. “The Study of Correspondence: Theoretical and Methodological Issues”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dossena Marina and Susan Fitzmaurice (eds). 2006. Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Between Linguistic Creativity and Formulaic Restriction: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Nineteenth-century Lower Class Writers’ Private Letters”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony. 2007. “Writing and “the Standard”: England, 1795–1834”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 261: 167–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, Joseph F. 2010. The Essentials of Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Held, Gudrun. 1989. “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8 (2–3): 167–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houston, Robert Allan. 2014. Peasant Petitions: Social Relations and Economic Life on Landed Estates. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Lea and Taru Nordlund. 2012. “Performing Identities and Interaction Through Epistolary Formulae”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 65–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landert, Daniela. 2013. Personalisation in Mass Media Communication: British Online News between Public and Private. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 2009. “Patterns of Interaction: Self-Mention and Addressee Inclusion in the Letters of Nathaniel Bacon and his Correspondents”. In Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala and Minna Palander-Collin (eds), The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800), 53–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peikola, Matti. 2012. “Supplicatory Voices: Genre Properties of the 1692 Petitions in the Salem Witch-Trials”. Studia Neophilologica 84 (1): 106–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal. 2012. “Functions of Epistolary Formulae in Dutch Letters from the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (2): 173–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Street, Brian. 1995. Social Literacies: ‪Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, Matylda. 2013a. “1820 Settler Petitions in the Cape Colony: Genre Dynamics and Materiality”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14 (1): 45–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
. 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.Google Scholar
. 2016. Genre and Literacies: Historical (Socio)pragmatics of the 1820 Settler Petition. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1983. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.Google Scholar
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. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics,  pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

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.