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 [1] 1 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
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.
Laitinen, Lea and Taru Nordlund
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.
Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal
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
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
Cited by 2 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 1 april 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.