And since she sent me both blogposts all at once, here is Esther Spaanderman’s second one, also on the Adams Papers: “But as I speak french very imperfectly and she understands not a syllable of English I suppose she did … Continue reading
Esther Spaanderman is the last of my students who owes us her blogposts. Here is the first one:
A while ago, I studied periphrastic do in the letters of John Adams (1735-1826), the second president of the United States. As I was interested in colonial lag, I compared a selection of Adams’ letters to letters by a British contemporary, Horace Walpole (1717-1797). Walpole has already been the subject of other posts in this blog.
One of the linguistic differences I observed in the writings of Walpole and Adams concerns the spelling of the contraction of do not. Adams consistently used a contracted form, whereas Walpole rarely did so. The sample of the Adams correspondence I analysed contained eighteen instances of a contraction of do not, but spelled as dont. In Walpole’s correspondence I found only two instances of the contraction, spelled don’t. According to the OED, the form without the apostrophe has been in use since the 1700s, though from the 1800s onwards it came to be was regarded as non-standard. As for don’t, the OED indicated that this form, which is now the standard, has been in use since 1600.
I noticed in the OED entry on do is that the quotations with dont mostly appear in American sources. One quotation from 1670, for example, is from the Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, and another from the Journal and letters, 1767–1774 by the American Philip Vickers Fithian. This made me wonder whether dont might be somehow associated with early American English. So far, I have been unable to find any evidence for this assumption, but perhaps readers of this blog can help me here. So please let me know if you have ever come across dont (without the apostrophe) in Early or Late Modern English texts. Would it indeed be possible that dont is more common in American texts? Please leave a comment.
Here is Sopio Zhgenti’s second blogpost, once again on Virginia Woolf:
The previous blog post I wrote was about Virginia Woolf and the nicknames she used with people close to her. This time, I would like to continue talking about Virginia and discuss some of the spelling peculiarities that I encountered while studying her letters. It is striking that Virginia in her correspondence with her brother Thoby Stephen omitted apostrophes, whereas in the letters addressed to her half-brother George Duckworth, she did use them. Closer observation showed that apostrophes were most frequently omitted in negative contracted auxiliary verbs. See the examples below:
Letters to Thoby Stephen:
- “I dont know to what species he belongs, but he is very well bred and a great beauty Jack says” (L. 9 1897)
- “However I shant know till we meet at Fritham. I will tell Jack about it if he comes tonight.” (L. 36. 1901)
- “I am so penetrated with Dotty’s [Dorothea’s] style of conversation that I cant help writing exactly like her.” (L. 10, 1897)
- “I was so much more impressed by him than I thought I should be, that I read Cymbeline just to see if there mightnt be more in the great William than I supposed.” (L. 39, 1901)
- “the little King wont have it done, and his mother tries to make him forget and asks him to ride with her in the Park” (L. 39, 1901)
- “And MacKail isnt so precious as I thought”(L.40 1902)
Letters to George Duckworth:
- You don’t say what your address at Porto Fino is, so I shall have to send this after you to Rome. (L.12. 1898)
- Father is stretched at full length snoring on the sofa, and this annoys me so much that I can’t write sense. (L.29. 1900)
What would be the reason for these differences? I don’t think the omission of apostrophes is caused by her illiteracy, as she used correct forms in the letters addressed to George. Moreover, despite the fact that Virginia did not receive any formal education, she had been taught by her father Leslie Stephen. I would therefore expect Virginia to have been aware of rules such as when to use the apostrophe, and therefore find it quite difficult to find an explanation for this difference in usage, except that Virginia had a very close relationship with Thoby and seemed always very excited while writing to him. She wrote many long letters to him, and this excitement may be why, for one reason or another, the correct use of the apostrophe seemed to matter less to her. But I’d be interested to hear about other possible suggestions.
The Adams Family is a popular topic in this blog. Here is another blogpost on them, Martijn Slokker’s last one:
When I wrote my course paper, I worked with the Adams Family Papers, an electronic archive which contains (among other things) the correspondence between John Adams (1735-1826) and his wife Abigail (1744-1818). As a farewell to the course I thought I’d write a short review of the archive and its usefulness as a tool for academic research.
The collection, which is held by the Massachusetts Historical Society, numbers over 1,100 letters, written between 1762 and 1801. The vast majority of the letters in the archive are original letters as received by the addressee. However, there are also a few letterbook copies and draft letters, as well as an 18th-century transcript of a letter. The status of the letters is always marked, making it easy to determine what type of letter you are dealing with.
The archive is divided into six parts that mark important periods in the John Adams’ life:
- 1762-1774, letters written during courtship and early legal career
- 1774-1777, letters written during Continental Congress
- 1778-1779, letters written during the diplomatic mission to France
- 1779-1789, letters written during diplomatic missions to Europe
- 1789-1796, letters written during vice presidency
- 1796-1801, letters written during presidency
The letters are listed in chronological order in each of these sections and it is also possible to display lists with only John’s or Abigail’s letters. Furthermore, the archive has a handy search function, which allows you to find specific words and phrases you may be researching.
The letters themselves are presented in two forms: a transcription and an image of the original document. The transcriptions appear to follow the original documents as closely as possible, including capitalization, non-standard spellings, strike-throughs and insertions, although it is mentioned that certain changes have been made in order to improve legibility; this includes punctuation changes and shorthand being expanded. The transcriptions further include supplied text in the following format: [blue text in brackets]. This format is used to clarify, correct and complete passages and can be a useful tool when studying the letters as it provides the reader with information that may not have been available otherwise.
Unfortunately, there are also ways in which the transcriptions do not match the original manuscripts: the line breaks do not match and, while the transcriptions in general match the original documents very well, I did encounter some problems with missing self-corrections. I will give an example of this below.
“It began raining hard about two hours before we reach’d the city, continued through the Night, and all day yesterday, a mere flood.” (Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 19 February 1801)
This is the transcription as it appears in the archive. However, if you look at the original manuscript (4th line from the bottom of the page), you can see that originally the text read as follows: “it began raining hard about? / about two hours before we reach’d the city, continued through the / Night, and all day yesterday, a mere flood”. The transcription does not include the erased about, which looks as though it was either struck out because it was misspelled or because it did not fit on the line properly.
I found several of these transcription errors in the archive. The most frequent mistakes seem to occur with insertions that are not marked as such in the transcriptions, which was unfortunate since self-corrections were the topic of my paper.
Overall, I think the Adams Family Papers electronic archive an excellent resource for the study of letters; however, it appears you cannot always rely on the transcriptions when studying specific letter writing features like self-corrections. Luckily the archive always provides you with the original manuscripts in cases like this. Using these manuscripts is more time consuming of course, but it does allow you to work as accurately as possible. My list of pros and cons for using the archive looks as follow:
- Easy navigation
- Search function
- Original manuscripts are available alongside the transcriptions
- Transcriptions attempt to be true to the original letters
- Archive indicates what type of letter you are dealing with
- Archive fully accessible to everyone who is interested
Transcriptions are sometimes not 100% accurate
Merel Kohsiek’s second blog post is on a comparison between the language of Charlotte Brontë and that of Jane Austen:
For my analysis of the language of grief in Charlotte Brontë’s letters (see also my previous blog post), I did a keyword analysis with the help of WordSmith Tools in which I used Jane Austen’s (1775-1817) letters as a reference corpus. One of the results was that very had was a negative key. In other words, Charlotte Brontë used the word relatively little in comparison to the reference corpus. However, another explanation is also possible: the author of the reference corpus uses the word relatively often. Though all this was a bit off topic for my essay, it was still a question that occupied my mind.
Throughout her letters, Austen used the word very as often as 1,241 times. This frequency ranks it as the 19th most frequently used word in her letters. Strikingly, very is not even one of the hundred most common words in English. The eighteen words that occur more often than very are all among the hundred common ones. The next item that is not among the common words is much. Both much and very are quantifiers. This leads us to the question what this could mean for Jane Austen’s language.
A concordance search resulted in a number of clusters or set phrases Austen used the word very in. I include the first fifteen results below, where I have categorized them as ‘descriptions of people,’ ‘politeness’ and ‘other.’
Descriptions of people: I am very, She is very, Am very much, I was very
Politeness: Very glad to, Very much obliged, Much obliged to, Be very glad, Obliged to you, Am very glad
Other: Had a very, A very good, Is a very, To be very, It is very
Though I categorized some utterances as descriptions of people and others as politeness, they do not mutually exclude one another. Depending on context, I am very, am very much and I was very can all be part of a politeness phrase. All in all, this leads me to conclude that Austen’s frequent use of the word very is part of her means to be very polite in her letters. It would be wrong to assume that this means that Austen used a lot of negative politeness, as the following passage from a letter to her brother Francis (Frank) shows.
My dearest Frank
The 11th of this month brought me your letter & I assure you I thought it very well worth its 2s/3d. — I am very much obliged to you for filling me so long a sheet a paper, you are a good one to traffic with in that way, You pay most liberally; — my Letter was a scratch of a note compared with yours — & then you write so even, so clear both in style & Penmanship, so much to the point & give so much real intelligence that it is enough to kill one (Letter 90, 25 September 1813)
Austen’s use of very, even in the formulaic I am very much obliged, is meant as a marker of positive politeness toward her brother.
In sum, I was right to assume that the fact that very came up as a negative key for Brontë had more to do with Austen’s letters as a reference corpus than with Brontë’s language.