Cover not available
Part of
Reference and Identity in Public Discourses
Edited by Ursula Lutzky and Minna Nevala
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 306] 2019
► pp. 67–96

“Right trusty and well-beloved”

The socio-pragmatics of gender, power and stance in sixteenth-century English letters

| Edge Hill University
| University of Leicester
The paper investigates how high-ranking early modern women letter-writers negotiated the social tension between their subordinate position as women, and their positions of power, in the linguistic construction of their epistolary identities. We focus on the letters of four Tudor women: Kathryn Parr, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Elizabeth Talbot. We consider how each woman’s use of self-reference compares with contemporary epistolary theory and practice, interpreted using the concept of stance which offers a way of understanding how indexical meaning arises from the convergence of multiple linguistic forms in particular contexts. Our analysis finds that scribal status and recipient rank shape the women’s linguistic choices, and that gender is a significant, but not the only, dimension of their epistolary identities.
Keywords: stance, gender, early modern women, correspondence, self-reference, address forms, pronouns, register
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Stance and subjectivity
    • 2.2Historical correspondence
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Pronominal distribution: EWL and PCEEC
    • 4.2Holograph and scribal identities in the EWL
    • 4.3Letter recipient and function in EWL
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.306.03mar
References (61)
References
Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. “Literary Language.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, ed. by Roger Lass, 539–653. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akkerman, Nadine. 2018. Invisible Agents: Women and Espionage in Seventeenth-Century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allinson, Rayne. 2012. A Monarchy of Letters: Royal Correspondence and English Diplomacy in the Reign of Elizabeth I. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco. 2009. “Stance Marking and Register in Middle English Charms.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English 45: 13–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc (version 3.5.6). Windows. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL] (accessed 15 April 2019).
Barnes, Sonia. 2018. “Copula Variation in Asturian Spanish and the Multidimensionality of Stancetaking in Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 22 (1): 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, Alistair. 2017. VARD 2 (version 2.5.4). Lancaster: UCREL, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1989. “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 9 (1): 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
British Library Lansdowne MS Vol. 8.
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkette, Allison. 2016. “Linguistic and Object-Based Stance-Taking in Appalachian Interviews.” Language in Society 45 (3): 331–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dambrogio, Jana, and Daniel Starza-Smith. 2017. Dictionary of Letterlocking. [URL] (accessed 15 April 2019).
Day, Angel. 1592. The English Secretorie, or, Plaine and Direct Method, for the Enditing of All Manner of Epistles or Letters. Imprinted at London: By Richard Iones, dwelling at the Rose and Crowne neere Holborne Bridge.Google Scholar
Daybell, James. 2012. The Material Letter in Early Modern England. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina. 2006. “Doing Business in Nineteenth-Century Scotland: Expressing Authority, Conveying Stance.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 49 (3): 246–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina, and Susan M. Fitzmaurice (eds). 2006. Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna (ed). 2002. Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eales, Jacqueline. 1998. Women in Early Modern England, 1500–1700. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1985. Collected Works of Erasmus. […] 4: Literary and Educational Writings De Pueris Instituendis, de Recta Pronuntiatione. Translated by Charles Fantazzi, and Brian McGregor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Mel. 2013. The Language of Queen Elizabeth I: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Royal Style and Identity. Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2016. “By the Queen: Collaborative Authorship in the Scribal Letters of Queen Elizabeth I.” In Women and Epistolary Agency in Early Modern Culture, ed. by James Daybell, and Andrew Gordon, 36–54. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Styling Power: A Corpus Linguistic Approach to the Correspondence of Queen Elizabeth I.” In Elizabeth I in Writing, ed. by Donatella Montini, and Iolanda Plescia, 59–82. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1994. “Conversationalization of Public Discourse and the Authority of the Consumer.” In The Authority of the Consumer, ed. by Nicholas Abercrombie, Russell Keat, and Nigel Whiteley, 235–248. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Historical Construction of Interlocutor Stance: From Stance Markers to Discourse Markers.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 427–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulwood, William. 1568. The Enimie of Idlenesse Teaching the Maner and Stile How to Endite, Compose and Write All Sorts of Epistles and Letters. Imprinted at London: By Henry Bynneman, for Leonard Maylard.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan. 2002. “A Semiotics of the Public/Private Distinction.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 13 (1): 77–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber. 2012. “Current Conceptions of Stance.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 15–33. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hearne, Thomas. 1716. Sylloge epistolarum, a variis Angliæ principibus scriptarum. Oxonii e Theatro Sheldoniano.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Eleanor. 2015. “Reading, Writing, and Initialing: Female Literacy in Early Modern London.” Journal of British Studies 54 (3): 553–577.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2007. “Using a Corpus to Investigate Stance Quantitatively and Qualitatively.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 27–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. “Introduction: The Sociolinguistics of Stance.” In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Alexandra Jaffe, 3–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2009. “Stance as the Explanation for Patterns of Sociolinguistic Variation.” In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Alexandra Jaffe, 171–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2000. “Phonology and Morphology.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language, ed. by Roger Lass, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leaper, Campbell, and Rachael D. Robnett. 2011. “Women Are More Likely Than Men to Use Tentative Language, Aren’t They? A Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 35 (1): 129–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, Lynne. 1999. Shakespeare and Social Dialogue: Dramatic Language and Elizabethan Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Imogen. 2017. The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing: Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s Manuscript Letters. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2011. Gender, Sexuality, and Meaning: Linguistic Practice and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, and Robert Podesva. 2009. “Style, Indexicality, and the Social Meaning of Tag Questions.” Language in Society 38 (4): 447–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People. Cambridge, MA.: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1998. “Social Mobility and the Decline of Multiple Negation in Early Modern English.” In Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996), ed. by Jacek Fisiak, and Marcin Krygier, 263–291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja, Minna Nevala, and Minna Palander-Collin (eds). 2009. The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. “Indexing Gender.” In Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 335–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OED Online. 2018. “Commend, V.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Palander-Collin, Minna. 2010. “Correspondence.” In Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 651–678. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Variation and Change in Patterns of Self-Reference in Early English Correspondence.” In Historical Sociopragmatics, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, 83–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (ed). 2014. Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Malcolm. 2001. “The Fading Influence of the Medieval Ars Dictaminis in England After 1400.” Rhetorica 19 (2): 225–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike, and Chris Tribble. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 1993. Language, Ideology, and Point of View. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell, Julia. 2010. “From Sociolinguistic Variation to Socially Strategic Stylisation.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (5): 630–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Elizabeth. 2015. The Correspondence of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia Volume 1: 1603–1631, ed. by Nadine Akkerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2003. “Best Patterns for Your Imitation: Early Modern Letter Writing Instruction and Real Correspondence.” In Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern, ed. by Risto Hiltunen, and Janne Skaffari, 167–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Alison. 2017. Bess of Hardwick’s Letters: Language, Materiality and Early Modern Epistolary Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, Graham T. 2014. Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015. Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Mazzon, Gabriella
2022. Chapter 10. Shifting responsibility in passing information. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 358], ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.