Cover not available
Part of
Investigating West Germanic Languages: Studies in honor of Robert B. Howell
Edited by Jennifer Hendriks and B. Richard Page
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 8] 2024
► pp. 164–187

Weaving data strands together

Towards assembling Norwich’s historical urban vernacular

| University of Lausanne
| Leiden University
The important role of historical cities as centers of higher literacy and text production in the standardization processes of written languages has been recognized some time ago by scholars working on different languages. The current article, which is couched in the study of urban vernaculars in the field of historical sociolinguistics, focuses on written language use in Norwich during the period 1422–1760. Within the context of the city’s socio-economic history, the article investigates two linguistic variables, notably the third person present tense forms and periphrastic DO, in the manuscript-based Corpus of Middle English Local Documents (MELD) and An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760 (ETED) and compares them to findings from other urban centers. Despite the restricted data set, the study shows that the supralocalization processes and the speed of change differ from one linguistic feature to another in the different urban datasets. The Norwich data confirms previous findings of other urban datasets that the supralocalization of the morphological feature precedes that of the syntactic feature.
Keywords: Norwich, historical urban vernaculars, supralocalization, third person present tense forms, periphrastic DO
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background information
    • 2.1Supralocalization processes and urbanization
    • 2.2A brief socio-economic history of Norwich
  • 3.Linguistic case studies
    • 3.1Data sources
    • 3.2Third person indicative present tense (singular and plural)
      • 3.2.1Previous literature and method
      • 3.2.2Results and discussion
    • 3.3Periphrastic DO
      • 3.3.1Previous literature and method
      • 3.3.2Results and discussion
  • 4.A first step towards assembling Norwich’s historical urban vernacular
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.8.09aue
References (69)
References
Auer, Anita. 2018. Urban literacies and processes of supralocalization: A historical sociolinguistic perspective. In Braber, Natalie & Sandra Jansen (eds.), Sociolinguistics in England, 13–34. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. Die Stadtsprache Yorks im späten Mittelalter. Ein Baustein zu einer alternativen Standardisierungsgeschichte des Englischen. In Pickl, Simon & Stephan Elspaß (eds.), Historische Soziolinguistik der Stadtsprachen. Kontakt – Variation – Wandel, 81–95. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
. 2019b. Linguistic regionalism in the York Corpus Christi Plays. In Auer, Anita, Denis Renevey, Camille Marshall & Tino Oudesluijs (eds.), Revisiting the Medieval North: Interdisciplinary approaches, 111–122. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 1992. Some perspectives on the origins of standard written English. In van Leuvensteijn, J. A. & J. B. Berns (eds.), Dialect and standard languages in the English, Dutch, German and Norwegian language areas, 71–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Britain, David, Tamsin Blaxter & Adrian Leemann. 2020. East Anglian English in the English dialects app: Regional variation in East Anglian English based on evidence from a smartphone-based survey. English Today 36(3). 14–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CEEC – Corpora of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander Collin at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.
Cherubim, Dieter. 1987. Mehrsprachigkeit in der Stadt der frühen Neuzeit. Am Beispiel Braunschweigs und Hermann Botes. In Schöttker, Detlev & Werner Wunderlich (eds.), Hermen Bote: Braunschweiger Autor zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 97–118. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2014. Old Northumbrian verbal morphosyntax and the (northern) subject rule. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, Roger, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman & Fredericke van der Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on English linguistics: Amsterdam 10–13 April 1985, 45–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana & Wim Vandenbussche. 2003. Research directions in the study of language standardization. In Deumert, Ana & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic standardizations: Past to present, 455–477. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do. The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek & Peter Trudgill (eds.). 2001. East Anglian English. Woodbridge, Suffolk: D.S. Brewer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galloway, David (ed.). 1984. Norwich 1540–1642. Record of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2(2). 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordijn, Cynthia. 2020. Standardisation in Early Modern Norwich: A case study of the third person singular indicative present tense markers. Leiden: Leiden University master’s thesis.Google Scholar
Gordon, Moragh S. 2017. The urban vernacular of Late Medieval and Renaissance Bristol. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2020. Bristol <th>, <þ> and <y>: The North-South divide revisited, 1400–1700. In Wright, Laura (ed.), The multilingual origins of standard English, 191–214. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Moragh S., Tino Oudelsluijs & Anita Auer. 2020. Supralocalization processes in Early Modern English urban vernaculars: New manuscript evidence from Bristol, Coventry and York. International Journal of English Studies 20(2). 47–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14(3). 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J. & Terry Walker. 2011. Genre characteristics. In Kytö, Merja, Peter J. Grund & Terry Walker (eds.), Testifying to language and life in Early Modern England: Including a CD-ROM containing an electronic text edition of depositions 1560–1760 (ETED), 15–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
HC = Helsinki Corpus of English texts. Compiled by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, Leena Kahlas Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö, Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.
Hendriks, Jennifer, Todd Ehresmann, Robert B. Howell & Mike Olson. 2018. Migration and linguistic change in Early Modern Holland: The case of Leiden. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen (Special issue on mobility, variability and changing literacies, edited by Anita Auer & Mikko Laitinen) CXIX 2018. 145–172.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert B. 2006. Immigration and koineisation: The formation of early modern Dutch urban vernaculars. Transactions of the Philological Society 104. 207–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joby, Christopher. 2014. Third-Person singular zero in the Norfolk dialect: A re-assessment. Folia Linguistica Historica 35. 135–171.Google Scholar
. 2015. The Dutch language in Britain (1550–1702): A social history of the use of Dutch in Early Modern Britain. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Third-person singular zero in Norfolk English: An addendum. Folia Linguistica Historica 37. 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keene, Derek. 2000. Metropolitan values: Migration, mobility and cultural norms, London 1100–1700. In Wright, Laura (ed.), The development of Standard English (1300–1800), 93–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kermode, Jenny. 2000. The greater towns 1300–1540. In Palliser, David Michael (ed.), The Cambridge urban history of Britain, vol. I, 600–1540, 441–465. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1993. Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5. 113–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Peter J. Grund & Terry Walker. 2011. Testifying to language and life in early modern England. Including a CD-ROM containing an electronic text edition of depositions 1560–1760 (ETED). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3: 1476–1776, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liddy, Christian D. 2017. Contesting the city: The politics of citizenship in English towns, 1250–1530. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattheier, Klaus J. 1981. Wege und Umwege zur neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache. Überlegungen zur Entstehung und Durchsetzung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache unter dem Einfluß sich wandelnder Sprachwertsysteme, veranschaulicht am Beispiel von Köln. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 9. 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Historische Soziolinguistik: Ein Forschungsansatz für eine künftige europäische Sprachgeschichte. In Bister-Broosen, Helga (ed.), Beiträge zur historischen Stadtsprachenforschung, 223–234. Wien: Praesens.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A. 1983. Present indicative plural forms in the Later Middle English of the North Midlands. In Grey, Douglas & Eric G. Stanley (eds.), Middle English studies: Presented to Norman Davis in honour of his seventieth birthday, 235–244. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
MELD = A Corpus of Middle English Local Documents, version 2017.1, December 2020. Compiled by Merja Stenroos, Kjetil V. Thengs and Geir Bergstrøm. University of Stavanger. [URL]
Mihm, Arend. 1994. Zur Konvergenz von Sprachvarietäten und sozialen Kategorien in der stadtsprachlichen Überlieferung des Spätmittelalters. In Brandt, Gisela (ed.), Historische Soziolinguistik des Deutschen I. Forschungsansätze – Korpusbildung – Fallstudie, 17–25. Stuttgart: Hans-Dieter Heinz.Google Scholar
. 2007. Sprachwandel im Spiegel der Schriftlichkeit. In Elmentaler, Michael, Jürgen Biehl, Beate Henn-Memmesheimer & Jürgen-Matthias Springer (eds.), Studien zum Zeugniswert der historischen Schreibsprachen des 11. bis 17. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2002. Writing good southerne: Local and supralocal norms in the Plumpton letter collection. Language Variation and Change 14. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Processes of supralocalization and the rise of Standard English in the Early Modern period. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & Chris McCully (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies, 329–371. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2018. Going to completion: The diffusion of verbal –s. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Minna Palander-Collin & Tanja Säily (eds.), Patterns of Change in 18th-century English: A Sociolinguistic Approach, 97–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg & Peter Trudgill. 2001. Chapters in the social history of East Anglian English: The case of the third-person singular. In Fisiak, Jacek & Peter Trudgill (eds.), East Anglian English, 187–204. Woodbridge, Suffolk: D. S. Brewer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A social history of periphrastic DO. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ormond, W. Mark, Bart Lambert & Jonathan Mackman. 2019. Immigrant England, 1300–1550. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Oudesluijs, Tino. 2019. Language variation and change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Coventry. Lausanne, Switzerland: University of Lausanne dissertation.Google Scholar
Oudesluijs, Tino & Anita Auer. 2019. Geographical variation in Late Medieval administrative documents: Evidence from York and Coventry. In Stenroos, Merja, Martti Mäkinen, Kjetil Vikhamar Thengs & Oliver Martin Traxel (eds.), Essays and Studies in Middle English – 10th International Conference on Middle English, 111–133. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Oudesluijs, Tino, Moragh S. Gordon & Anita Auer. 2022. Urbanisation, supralocalization and the development of periphrastic DO in Early Modern England. In Dietz, Feike, Marjo J. van Koppen, Cora J. van den Coppe, Marijn P. van Schraagen & Joanna Wall (eds.), Journal of Historical Syntax (Special Issue on Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Morphosyntactic Variation in Early Modern West Germanic 6(13–18), 1–25.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18. 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 321–342. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Anna Merikallio & Terttu Nevalainen. 2018. Charting orthographical reliability in a corpus of English historical letters. ICAME Journal 42(1). 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schendl, Herbert. 1994. The third person plural present indicative in Early Modern English. In Britton, D. (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English historical linguistics, 143–160. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Söderlund, Anders. 2017. Periphrastic do in English witness depositions 1560–1760. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16(1). 244–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed.) 2008. Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2010. Investigations in sociohistorical linguistics: Stories of colonisation and contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The role of Dutch in the development of East Anglian English. Taal & Tongval 65(1). 11–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. East Anglian English. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, Roland & Wim Vandenbussche. 2000. Historische Sociolinguïstiek: Het ‘Brugge-project’. Taal en Tongval 52(1). 258–276.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2002. Third person plural present tense markers in London prisoners’ depositions, 1562–1623. American Speech 77(3). 242–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. A pilot study on the singular definite articles le and la in fifteenth-century London mixed-language business writing. In Ingham, Richard (ed), The Anglo-Norman language and its contexts, 130–142. York: York Medieval Press and The Boydell Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright Laura. 2012. On variation and change in London medieval mixed-language business documents. In Stenroos, Merja, Martti Mäkinen & Inge Særheim (eds.), Language contact and development around the North Sea, 99–115. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2015. Some more on the history of present-tense –s, do and zero: West Oxfordshire, 1837. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1(1). 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A multilingual approach to the history of Standard English. In Pahta, Päivi, Janne Skaffari & Laura Wright (eds.), Multilingual practices in language history: English and beyond, 339–358. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2000. The development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2020. The multilingual origins of Standard English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar