The Linguistics of Spoken

Communication in Early Modern

English Writing: Exploring Bess of
Hardwick's Manuscript Letters 1st
Edition Imogen Marcus (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-linguistics-of-spoken-communication-in-early-mod
ern-english-writing-exploring-bess-of-hardwicks-manuscript-letters-1st-edition-imogen
-marcus-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Dialectics of Orientalism in Early Modern Europe

1st Edition Marcus Keller

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-dialectics-of-orientalism-
in-early-modern-europe-1st-edition-marcus-keller/

Daum s boys Schools and the Republic of Letters in

early modern Germany 1st Edition Alan S. Ross

https://textbookfull.com/product/daum-s-boys-schools-and-the-
republic-of-letters-in-early-modern-germany-1st-edition-alan-s-
ross/

Writing and Communication in Early Egyptian Monasticism

Malcolm Choat

https://textbookfull.com/product/writing-and-communication-in-
early-egyptian-monasticism-malcolm-choat/

The Typographic Imaginary in Early Modern English

Literature Rachel Stenner

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-typographic-imaginary-in-
early-modern-english-literature-rachel-stenner/
Sinister Aesthetics: The Appeal of Evil in Early Modern
English Literature 1st Edition Joel Elliot Slotkin
(Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/sinister-aesthetics-the-appeal-
of-evil-in-early-modern-english-literature-1st-edition-joel-
elliot-slotkin-auth/

The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern English Literature

and Religion Oxford Handbooks Andrew Hiscock

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-early-
modern-english-literature-and-religion-oxford-handbooks-andrew-
hiscock/

Evolving Nature of the English Language Studies in

Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Robert Kieltyka

https://textbookfull.com/product/evolving-nature-of-the-english-
language-studies-in-theoretical-and-applied-linguistics-robert-
kieltyka/

The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication

Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics Guido
Rings

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-
intercultural-communication-cambridge-handbooks-in-language-and-
linguistics-guido-rings/

Conversion and Islam in the Early Modern Mediterranean

The Lure of the Other Routledge Research in Early
Modern History 1st Edition Claire Norton (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/conversion-and-islam-in-the-
early-modern-mediterranean-the-lure-of-the-other-routledge-
research-in-early-modern-history-1st-edition-claire-norton-
 The Linguistics of
S p o k e n C o m m u n i c at i o n i n
E a r ly M o d e r n E n g l i s h W r i t i n g
Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s Manuscript Letters

Imogen Marcus

New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics

New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics

Series editors
Sara Pons-Sanz
School of English, Communication and Philosophy
Cardiff University
Cardiff, UK

Louise Sylvester
Department of English, Linguistics and Cultural Studies
University of Westminster
London, UK
The field of historical linguistics has traditionally been made up of the
theoretical study of the various levels of linguistic analysis: phonology,
morphology, syntax, vocabulary and semantics. However, scholars have
increasingly become aware of the significance of other methods of
applied/culturally aware research which were initially introduced to
examine present day English, e.g. stylistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,
code-switching and other language contact phenomena. This has pro-
duced exciting new avenues for exploration but has inevitably led to spe-
cialization and fragmentation within the field.
This series brings together work in either one or several of these areas,
thus enabling a dialogue within the new conceptualization of language
study and English historical linguistics. The series includes descriptive
and/or theoretical work on the history of English and the way in which it
has been shaped by its contact with other languages in Britain and beyond.
Much of the work published in the series is engaged in redefining the
discipline and its boundaries.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/series/15079
 Imogen Marcus

The Linguistics
of Spoken
Communication
in Early Modern
English Writing
Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s
Manuscript Letters
Imogen Marcus
Department of English, History and Creative Writing
Edge Hill University
Ormskirk, UK

New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics

ISBN 978-3-319-66007-3    ISBN 978-3-319-66008-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66008-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017957574

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Chronicle / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Transcription Policy

The transcriptions of Bess of Hardwick’s letters used in this book were

produced by the AHRC Letters of Bess of Hardwick Project, University
of Glasgow. They are diplomatic transcripts that preserve the spelling,
punctuation, lineation, deletions and word spacing of the original manu-
scripts. A transcription policy, as well as diplomatic and normalised views
of these transcripts, are available at: Bess of Hardwick’s Letters: The Complete
Correspondence, c.1550–1608, ed. by Alison Wiggins, Alan Bryson,
Daniel Starza Smith, Anke Timmermann and Graham Williams,
University of Glasgow, web development by Katherine Rogers, University
of Sheffield Humanities Research Institute (April 2013), http://www.
bessofhardwick.org.
When a whole letter is cited, the original lineation is preserved. When
an excerpt is cited, the original lineation is not preserved. The palaeo-
graphic analyses of the letters set out in Chap. 2 are based on examination
of the original manuscripts (at the British Library, London and Lambeth
Palace Library, London) or of high quality colour images (from Arundel
Castle, West Sussex; Chatsworth House, Derbyshire: The Folger Library,
Washington DC; Hatfield House, Herefordshire; Longleat House,
Wiltshire; Magdalene College, Cambridge and The National Archives,
London).
Individual letters are referred to in the book by the identification num-
bers assigned to them in Bess of Hardwick’s Letters: The Complete
v
vi Transcription Policy

Correspondence, c.1550–1608, edited by Wiggins et al. (April 2013). For

example, the letter that was assigned the identification number 179 is
referred to in the book as ‘ID 179’.
The full archive reference for each letter, which lists archive, letter col-
lection, volume and folio numbers, is included in Chap. 2. In addition to
the full archive reference, the date (if known), place of composition (if
known), recipient and content of each letter is also included in Chap. 2.
For example, ID 107: Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys MS 2503,
pp. 203–06. January 1569. Tutbury, Staffordshire. To Dudley. Letter
conveying information regarding the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots.
 Bess of Hardwick’s Name

Elizabeth Talbot, née Hardwick is referred to in this book by the name

‘Bess of Hardwick’ or ‘Bess’. ‘Bess’ is a name that was used for her during
her own lifetime, rather than being attributed to her later. It is the name
used for her by historians and biographers. Furthermore, seeing as ‘Bess’
changed her name a number of times as a result of her four marriages,
becoming Mrs. Barlow, Lady Cavendish, Lady St Loe, and Elizabeth
Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury in turn, it makes sense to refer to her
simply as ‘Bess’ for the sake of clarity and consistency.

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction   1
1.1 Research Objectives   1
1.2 The Status of Speech and Writing Within Linguistics   8
1.3 Speech Versus Writing: A Grammatical Comparison  10
1.4 Investigating the Linguistics of Spoken Communication
in Early English Writing: My Conceptual Approach  12
1.5 Why Letters?  13
1.6 Why Bess’s Letters?  16
1.7 Historical Discourse Analysis  21
1.8 Overview of the Upcoming Chapters  28
References  31

2 Early Modern English Manuscript Letters as Data:

Distinguishing Between Holograph and Scribal Writing  39
2.1 Introduction  39
2.2 EModE Manuscript Letters as Sources of an Individual’s
Language Use: Data Problems  40
2.2.1 Data Problem 1  40
2.2.2 Data Problem 2  41
2.2.3 Data Problem 3  42

ix
x Contents

2.3 EModE Manuscript Letters as Sources of an Individual’s

Language Use: Analytical Solutions  44
2.3.1 Scribal Profiling Analysis: Stages 1–4  45
2.3.1.1 Stage 1  45
2.3.1.2 Stage 2  46
2.3.1.3 Stage 3  49
2.3.1.4 Stage 4122
2.4 Summary and Conclusions 131
References 133

3 Prose Structure 135
3.1 Introduction 135
3.2 The Notion of ‘the Sentence’ 136
3.3 Methodology 138
3.3.1 Identification of Clause-Level AND, SO,
FOR, BUT139
3.3.2 Differentiation of Discourse Connective and
Grammatical Connective Examples of
Clause-Level AND, BUT, SO and FOR 146
3.3.3 Discourse Connective Examples of AND, BUT,
SO and FOR Potentially Functioning as
Discourse Markers 150
3.4 Results 168
3.4.1 A Comparison of the Hands of the Six
Individual Copyists 168
3.4.1.1 Bess 171
3.4.1.2 Scribe 2185
3.4.1.3 Scribe 4190
3.4.1.4 Scribe 6192
3.4.1.5 Scribe 5194
3.4.1.6 Scribe 3197
3.4.2 A Comparison of the 17 Holograph Letters
and 17 Scribal Letters 201
3.4.3 Discussion of Results 206
3.5 Summary and Concluding Remarks 217
References 220
 Contents
   xi

4 Prose Structure in Its Social Context 225

4.1 Introduction 225
4.2 Letter Recipient Methodology 226
4.3 Letter Recipient Results 228
4.3.1 Recipients of Holograph Letters 229
4.3.2 Recipients of Scribal Letters 231
4.4 Primary Communicative Function Methodology 233
4.5 Primary Communicative Function Results 236
4.5.1 Primary Communicative Functions of the
Holograph Letters 237
4.5.2 Primary Communicative Functions of the
Scribal Letters 238
4.6 Discussion of Results 242
4.7 Summary and Concluding Remarks 250
References 252

5 Lexical Bundles 255
5.1 Introduction 255
5.2 Previous Studies of Lexical Bundles in English 258
5.2.1 Terminology 258
5.2.2 Grammatical and Structural Characteristics
of Lexical Bundles 260
5.2.3 A Functional Taxonomy 262
5.3 Data and Methodology 264
5.3.1 Corpora Used for the Study 264
5.3.2 Methodology 265
5.4 Results and Discussion 267
5.4.1 Lexical Bundles in the Bess Corpus: Scribal
Variation267
5.4.2 Lexical Bundles in the Bess Corpus: Social
Variation274
5.4.2.1 Variation of Frequent Lexical Bundles
in the Bess Corpus, by Letter Recipient 274
5.4.2.2 Variation of Frequent Lexical Bundles
in the Bess Corpus, by Primary
Communicative Function 283
xii Contents

5.4.3 Text Type Variation 288

5.5 Summary and Conclusions 295
References 297

6 Vocatives 299
6.1 Introduction 299
6.2 What Is a Vocative? 300
6.2.1 Vocatives in Early Modern English Letters 301
6.3 Methodology 302
6.4 Results and Discussion 304
6.4.1 Scribal Variation 304
6.4.2 Social Variation 310
6.4.3 Comparison with Other Early Modern
Epistolary Material in CEEC 316
6.5 Conclusion 317
References 318

7 Conclusion 321
7.1 Summary of Findings 321
7.2 Directions for Future Research 326
References 330

Manuscript Sources 333

References 335

Index 351
 Abbreviations

AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council

CED Corpus of English Dialogues
CEEC Corpus of Early English Correspondence
EETS Early English Text Society
EModE Early Modern English
ETED An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760
LALME Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English
ME Middle English
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Online)
OE Old English
OED Oxford English Dictionary (Online)
PDE Present Day English

xiii
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Phonic/graphic medium and conceptual continuum

(Koch 1999: 400). The figure as it appears here is taken
Jucker (2000: 20) and is also included in Culpeper and
Kytö (2010: 11) 11
Fig. 2.1 Image of letter ID 099. Folger, Cavendish-Talbot MSS,
X.d.428 (82). By permission of The Folger Library 69
Fig. 2.2 Image of letter ID 152: Public Records Office, SP 12/183/4,
fols. 7r–8v. By permission of The Public Records Office 86
Fig. 2.3 Image of letter ID 126. Hatfield, Cecil Papers, 250/16
[unfoliated:, ff. 1–2]. By permission of Hatfield House 95
Fig. 2.4 Image of letter ID 129: Hatfield, Cecil Papers, 135/127,
ff. 165–166. By permission of Hatfield House 106
Fig. 2.5 Image of letter ID 139: Hatfield, Cecil Papers, 84/75
[unfoliated, ff. 1–2]. By permission of Hatfield House 114
Fig. 2.6 Image of letter ID 163: British Library, Lansdowne MS 71,
ff. 3r–4v. By permission of The British Library 123
Fig. 2.7 Image of letter ID 160: British Library, Additional, MS
24783, ff. 113r–114v. By permission of The British Library 124
Fig. 2.8 Image of signature present in ID 099. Folger,
Cavendish-Talbot MSS, X.d.428 (82). By permission of
The Folger Library 125

xv
xvi List of Figures

Fig. 2.9 Image of signature present in ID 101. Folger,

Cavendish-Talbot MSS, X.d.428 (84). By permission
of The Folger Library 126
Fig. 2.10 Image of signature present in ID 152, The National
Archives, State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth I, 12/183,
ff 7r–8v (item 4). By permission of The National Archives 126
Fig. 2.11 Image of page 2 of ID 099, Folger, Cavendish-Talbot MSS,
X.d.428 (82). By permission of The Folger Library 128
Fig. 2.12 Images taken from the “Account Book of Sir William
Cavendish and Lady Cavendish, Michaelmas, 1548–50”.
Folger, X.d.486, 2.1, 2.2. By permission of The Folger
Library129
Fig. 3.1 Spectrum: PDE speech/PDE writing 171
Fig. 3.2 Image of ID 123: Hatfield, Cecil Papers, 10/77, fols 137–8.
By permission of Hatfield House 174
Fig. 3.3 Spectrum: PDE speech/PDE writing 208
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Scribe 1 spelling questionnaire 65

Table 2.2 Scribe 2 spelling questionnaire 82
Table 2.3 Scribe 3 spelling questionnaire 93
Table 2.4 Scribe 4 spelling questionnaire 104
Table 2.5 Scribe 5 spelling questionnaire 112
Table 2.6 Scribe 6 spelling questionnaire 121
Table 3.1 Clause-level lexical features acting as connectives in order
of frequency in Bess of Hardwick’s holograph letters 144
Table 3.2 Salient sentence-initial clause-level connectives in order
of frequency in Bess of Hardwick’s holograph letters 145
Table 5.1 Lexical bundles vs. non-recurrent expressions in the
Longman Spoken and Written English corpus 260
Table 5.2 Distribution of functional types of lexical bundles across
register in the Longman corpus 263
Table 5.3 20 most frequent three-word lexical bundles in the
holograph letters (5341 words) 267
Table 5.4 20 most frequent three-word lexical bundles in the scribal
letters (13222 words) 268
Table 5.5 Functional classification of most frequent lexical bundles
in the holograph letters and in the scribal letters (data sets
seen separately) 272
Table 5.6 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according
to letter recipient in the holograph letters 277

xvii
xviii List of Tables

Table 5.7 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according

to socially superior letter recipient in the scribal letters 279
Table 5.8 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according
to socially equal letter recipient in the scribal letters 279
Table 5.9 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according
to socially inferior letter recipient in the scribal letters 279
Table 5.10 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according
to primary communicative function of letter in the
holograph letters 284
Table 5.11 Variation of functional types of lexical bundles according
to primary communicative function of letter in the scribal
letters286
Table 5.12 The 20 most frequent lexical bundles in the Bess corpus
(18563 words) 289
Table 5.13 The 20 most frequent lexical bundles in the CEEC
(2,597,795 words) 290
Table 5.14 Functional characteristics of bundles in the Bess corpus
and the CEEC 292
Table 6.1 Distribution of different kinds of vocatives across the
holograph and scribal sub-corpora in the Bess corpus 305
Table 6.2 Grammatical position of vocatives across the holograph
and scribal sub-corpora in the Bess corpus 305
Table 6.3 Kinship/friendship terms in the holograph letters 306
Table 6.4 Kinship/friendship terms in the scribal letters 306
Table 6.5 Familiarizers, including first name terms in the holograph
letters307
Table 6.6 Endearments in the holograph letters 307
Table 6.7 Endearments in the scribal letters 308
Table 6.8 Titles and honorifics in the holograph letters 308
Table 6.9 Titles and honorifics in the scribal letters 309
Table 6.10 Mixed terms in the holograph letters 310
Table 6.11 Mixed terms in the scribal letters 310
Table 6.12 Frequency comparison of four vocatives across the Bess
corpus and CEEC 316
 1
Introduction

1.1 Research Objectives

English was in a transitional state during the early modern period,
1500–1750. In particular, the surviving textual evidence suggests that
while written English prose from the period contains some linguistic fea-
tures characteristic of modern day spoken communication, such as the
use of clause-level AND as a marker of structure and cohesion, it is also
characterized by complexity, with sixteenth century documents especially
showing an increased tendency to favour subordination. The written
prose in this transcript of a holograph letter from Elizabeth Talbot, née
Hardwick (commonly known as Bess of Hardwick and henceforth
referred to as Bess) demonstrates what is described above.

1 my good Lord I fynde my selfe so meche bouend to

2 your L[ordship] for all your honorabell fauores as I can
3 not but acknolege that I take a sengeuler comforte
4 theryn, and holde my selfe ryght hapey for
5 the great benyfytte of so fast a frend/ thynkeng[e]
6 yt my parte to desyre knolege yn what statt

© The Author(s) 2018 1

I. Marcus, The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern
English Writing, New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66008-0_1
2 I. Marcus

7 of helthe your L[ordship] ys/ for whych respecte I thog

8 chefely thought good to sende and here by also
9 to aduertys that my Lo[rd] of Leycester be fore
10 my comynge to courte aponted one vary good
11 chamber w[i]t[h] some of other Letyll rome to be made
12 redy for me beynge parte of hys owne logynge
13 wereof I reste vary glade for that I hade rather
14 haue albeyett neuer so letyll a corner w[i]t[h] yn the
15 courte then greater easement forder of. har
16 magystye vouchsafed moust gracyous speche
17 and acseptance of my deuty, and as I haue alwaye
18 so I shall thyngke my selfe moust humbley bonde
19 trewly to honore sarue and prey for har magystye
20 wyhyle I leue. good my lo[rd] for that I hope shortely
21 to se you at courte I wyll now ceasse assurynge
22 I wysshe your L[ordship] and al your as to myselfe
23 al hapey welfare w[i]t[h] mouste harty comendacy[on]s
24 to your L[ordship] my good lady your wyffe and good
25 lady oxfort w[i]t[h] har letyll swette lady I end
26 recmond the xxiiij of october
       your good L[ordships] moust assured E Shrouesbury

The written prose in this letter transcript is, like much early modern
English written prose, somewhat difficult for a present day silent reader
to process. The present day silent reader will automatically look for clear
visual markers of where sentences begin and end in a written piece of
text. They will then use these markers to aid their comprehension of the
text. However, there is no clear, regularized, visual signposting of sen-
tence boundaries in the above letter transcript. It is therefore not entirely
clear to the present day silent reader where the sentences in the transcript
begin and end. For example, is ‘thynkeng[e] yt my parte’ on line 5 the
start of a single sentence? If so, does this sentence end with the full stop
following the word ‘of ’ on line 15? Furthermore, if this is a single sen-
tence, why is its beginning not marked with a capital letter, and why does
it contain such a large number of subordinate clauses?
Scholars have occasionally described early modern English (henceforth
EModE) written sentences in relatively pejorative terms. Houston
 Introduction 3

describes the prose of the period as being made up of ‘incremental’ sen-

tences that constitute ‘the very opposite of a classical period: there is no
syntactic suspension and often the drift of thought meanders on with
little regard for any logical relation to its point of departure’ (1988: 28).
Görlach refers to ‘the clumsiness and imperfect structure’ (1991: 121) of
the EModE sentence, while Robinson refers to the ‘real English monster
sentence’ as ‘a sixteenth-century phenomenon, caused by the unsuccess-
ful grafting of Latin syntax on to English’ (1998: 112). However, the way
in which oral features co-exist with features more characteristic of the
written mode in this prose has rarely been researched in a systematic way.
Using a corpus of manuscript letters from Bess of Hardwick dating from
1553 to 1608 as a primary data source, and referring to other epistolary
materials from the time, this book offers an investigation of how oral
features function within early modern epistolary prose.
The first question that needs to be asked as part of this investigation is:
what do we mean by the word ‘sentence’? This book argues that we have
a historically conditioned understanding of what an English ‘sentence’
actually is. A good way of demonstrating this is by briefly comparing how
English sentences are understood and defined in the present day with
how they were understood and defined during the early modern period.
The OED defines a PDE sentence as: ‘A series of words in connected
speech or writing, forming the grammatically complete expression of a
single thought; in popular use often, such a portion of a composition or
utterance as extends from one full stop to another’.1 If this definition is
unpacked, it can be seen that a PDE sentence is commonly understood
to be unit of meaning in either speech or writing. However, although the
word can refer to units of meaning in both the spoken and written modes,
the fact that the definition states that ‘in popular use often, such a por-
tion of a composition or utterance as extends from one full stop to
another’ suggests that the sentence is a form which is more associated
with the written than the spoken mode in PDE. In other words, the word
‘sentence’ is broadly understood to refer to a graphological unit that is
signalled to the reader with visual marking devices such as punctuation
marks and capital letters.
In a strictly grammatical context, most modern-day grammarians of
English would agree that a PDE sentence can be defined as ‘the verbal
4 I. Marcus

expression of a proposition, question, command, or request, containing

normally a subject and a predicate (though either of these may be o­ mitted
by ellipsis)’.2 Furthermore, in relation to present day written English,
grammarians normally recognize three types of grammatical sentence:
simple, compound and complex. A simple sentence is a sentence that
contains a single clause. For example: John plays football for Liverpool. A
compound sentence contains coordinated main clauses. For example:
Debbie bought the wine and Ben cooked the meal. A complex sentence
contains a main clause and at least one subordinate clause. For example:
Your dinner is cold because you were late. The subordinate clause in that
sentence is: because you were late.3
However, during the early modern period, the word ‘sentence’ was
much more associated with its Latin relative ‘sententia’, defined by the
OED quite simply as ‘a thought or reflection’.4 Therefore, despite the fact
that, as Lehto (2010) found, sixteenth century documents written in ver-
nacular English increasingly favour subordination, a ‘sentence’ was pri-
marily understood to be a unit of meaning or sense, rather than a
graphological or syntactic unit. Indeed, Robinson makes a crucial point,
which is that during the Early modern period, ‘sentence is indeed mean-
ing and a sentence is a unit of meaning, but not necessarily a syntactic
one’ (1998: 16).
So how do we get from EModE sentences and prose, to PDE sentences
and prose? How does PDE written prose, and the standard written
English sentence as we know it today, arise? Culpeper and Kytö suggest
that:

before the mid-late seventeenth century, written communication in English

was likely to have been aided by ‘(a) grammatical features (notably, clause
boundaries), (b) a variety of punctuation marks, and (c) lexical features
(notably, conjunctions). In other words, features similar to today’s spoken
communication are likely to have guided earlier written communication’.
(2010: 168)

However, Treip (1970: 49–50), Lennard (1995: 67), Robinson (1998:

33–34) and more recently Culpeper and Kytö (2010: 168) all suggest
that at some point between 1650 and 1700, the sentence begins to be
 Introduction 5

conceived as a unit that is primarily defined ‘visually and syntactically’

(Lennard 1995: 67), i.e. as a visual, graphological unit that exists on the
page. Culpeper and Kytö empirically investigate how this change is mani-
fested linguistically, focusing on the frequency and function of a specific
lexical feature, clause-level AND, which was often used as an explicit
marker of structure and cohesion in early English prose.
Culpeper and Kytö note that clause-level AND is ‘the most frequent
conjunction in the historical written texts’ (2010: 168) contained within
the CED, the data source for their research. However, there is a scholarly
awareness that the incidence of clause-level AND has decreased in certain
varieties of English since the Early modern period. Culpeper and Kytö
seek to provide an explanation for why this decrease took place. They
suggest that developments in punctuation may have ‘played a key role’
(2010: 168) and put forward the hypothesis that:

in terms of the frequency and function of clause-level AND, historical texts

used to have a closer resemblance to modern speech than modern writing,
before developments around the mid-late seventeenth century. (2010: 168)

They outline the preliminary research on words collocating with

clause-level AND undertaken in order to test the hypothesis (cf. 2010:
169–170). This was quantitative analysis that involved the selection of
five words that collocate immediately to the right of AND: THEN,
THEREFORE, WHEN, THUS and BECAUSE in a range of texts over
time.5 Culpeper and Kytö calculate what proportion of these words col-
locate with clause-level AND. They suggest that the results show up ‘a
strong similarity between the historical texts – regardless of whether they
were speech-related or not – and modern speech’ (2010: 170). They
therefore suggest that this preliminary research supports the hypothesis
put forward. The research presented in Chap. 3 of this book will inter-
rogate the accuracy of Culpeper and Kytö’s hypothesis (2010: 168)
regarding clause-level AND by asking: to what extent does EModE prose
reflect the structure and cohesion of PDE speech, and how does the use
of lexical features play a part in this?
If one is seeking to ascertain the extent to which EModE prose reflects
the structure and cohesion of PDE speech, it is sensible to focus on
6 I. Marcus

whether it contains the explicit markers of structure and cohesion that

are found in speech. These markers function as linkers between the
­different parts of a particular piece of discourse, whether it is spoken or
written. Therefore, if one studies markers, one ends up discovering how
the surrounding discourse is structured as a whole. Furthermore, although
there is an increasingly established and coherent research programme
into the communicative functions of linguistic features in the history of
English (cf. e.g. Enkvist (1972, 1987), Brinton (1990), Fleischmann
(1990), Wårvik (1995, 2011), Blake (1992), Taavitsainen (1995),
Fludernik (1995), Brinton (1996), Rissanen (1999), Lenker (2000),
Blockley (2001), Jucker (2002), Fitzmaurice (2004), Dorgeloh (2004),
Hiltunen (2006), Moore (2006), Jucker (2006), Mendez-Naya (2006),
Meurman-Solin (2007), Lutzky (2008, 2012), Los and Kemenade
(2009), Person (2009), Gehweiler (2010) and Culpeper and Kytö
(2010)), there is a need for more research into linguistic features func-
tioning as discourse markers in early English texts, as scholars such as
Jucker (2002) and Culpeper and Kytö (2010) point out.
The research presented in Chap. 3 will also engage with what Culpeper
and Kytö state is the implication of their hypothesis regarding clause-­
level AND, namely that:

as far as the use of AND is concerned, there has been a move away from
oral style to visual or literate style, due to the evolving concept of the sen-
tence and the role played by AND in relation to it. (2010: 168–9)

Culpeper and Kytö suggest this trend is a development ‘in the opposite
direction of the general pattern of drift towards more oral styles described
by Biber and Finegan (1989, 1992)’ (2010: 168). Chapter 3 engages with
the differing views of Culpeper and Kytö and Biber and Finegan regard-
ing what both sets of researchers refer to as ‘oral style’. It asks: Was there
a move away from an oral style towards a more visual style in English due
to the evolving concept of the sentence? If so, why do Culpeper and Kytö
seem to find the opposite to Biber and Finegan?
In order to fully explore the presence of oral features in English episto-
lary prose dating from the early modern period, Chap. 5 will look into
the presence of lexical bundles, recurrent multi-word expressions that are
 Introduction 7

frequently found in modern day spoken language. Meanwhile Chap. 6

will focus on vocatives, which are usually noun phrases used to specify
the addressee of a message, found by Biber et al. (1999: 1108–1113) to
be characteristic of PDE conversational speech.
Furthermore, the book will couch the linguistic analyses it presents
within the socio-historical context of early modern England. It will ask:
how did people within Early modern England view the changes that were
taking place within the English language between 1500 and 1750? Hope
persuasively argues that regional varieties of English were not stigmatized
during the early modern period, because ‘everyone in Early modern
Britain had a regionally marked accent, and there was no standard, or
ideology of standardization, from which to find it remarkable that some-
one spoke differently’ (2010: 122). In relation to regional variation at a
phonological and morphological level, he states that region is ‘nowhere
relevant; social role and status are generated by profession’ (2010: 110).
He warns against the dangers of ‘simply assuming that rural = lower class
= stigmatized’ (2010: 116).6
The research presented in this book questions whether Hope’s argu-
ment in relation to variation at the phonological and morphological lev-
els of language also applies to lexical and structural variation. For example,
were speech-like aspects of prose structure viewed as more colloquial,
vulgar and lower class, and was their use stigmatized as a result? Did
people writing in English modify the extent to which their writing
reflected the structure and cohesion of PDE speech according to situation
and purpose?
Through the investigation of attitudes towards speech-like writing in
Early modern England, this book aims to contribute to our under-
standing of the process of standardization in English. EModE was made
up of a number of diffuse varieties. Nevalainen succinctly describes
EModE as ‘un-localisable in its written form, and lexically and stylisti-
cally enriched by foreign models, yet grammatically to a large extent
unregulated by prescriptive forces’ (2006: 42).7 However, an ideology
of standardization that emphasizes uniformity, purity, self-containment
and importantly the concept of social prestige has had a strong influ-
ence on scholars who have previously worked on the history of English.8
This has meant that the diffuse nature of EModE, and the process of
8 I. Marcus

standardization that English has gone through (and is still going

through) has not always been accurately represented in English histori-
cal linguistics (cf. e.g. Milroy 2000). By adopting a process-based view
of standardization (cf. e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1999), this book prob-
lematizes previous narratives of language history that have emphasized
uniformity, purity and prestige. In so doing, it hopes to add to our col-
lective understanding of both early modern English and the growth of
present day standard English.

1.2  he Status of Speech and Writing

T
Within Linguistics
In linguistics, including historical linguistics, there has traditionally
been a tendency to see speech as more important and worthy of study
than writing. Saussure (2011 [1914]) created a distinction between
‘langue’, i.e. the abstract system of signs that constitute language, and
‘parole’, the way in which people actually use that system. Writing does
not come into this distinction at all, because it is viewed as merely the
representation of speech. Indeed, Saussure was more interested in
‘langue’ than ‘parole’. This focus on the abstract linguistic system was
shared by Chomsky, who created a distinction between ‘competence’,
i.e. individual language user’s idealised capacity, and ‘performance’,
how they actually use language.
For much of the twentieth century, scholars within historical lin-
guistics have by and large adopted the structuralist model. Lass (1999:
11), in a volume dealing with the history of the English language
between 1476 and 1776, pits ‘language proper’ against ‘its written
representation’:

In terms of the language proper, rather than its written representation, our
period is marked by a series of major transformations that define the transi-
tion to ‘modern’ English. (1999:11)

It is clear that Lass sees ‘language proper’, the equivalent of Saussure’s

idealised ‘la langue’, as the thing really worthy of study. Gradually how-
 Introduction 9

ever, particularly within the last twenty years, there has been a shift within
historical linguistics, towards an acknowledgement that ‘real’ language
use and the factors that influence it should be taken into account, and the
sub-fields of historical sociolinguistics and historical pragmatics fields
with which my study is aligned, have becoming increasingly well
­established. In historical sociolinguistics, studying language variation and
change within its social context is central (cf e.g. Nevalainen and
Raumolin-Brunberg 2016), as is a consideration of speaker identity, how
communities of speakers use particular forms, contemporary perceptions
of language use, multilingualism and language contact.
The related field of historical pragmatics also sees language as a societal
phenomenon and crucially, as something that should be seen within its
context, regardless of whether it is communicated verbally or in writing.
Indeed, for Levinson, a key aspect of pragmatics is the study of ‘the utter-
ance’, which he views as ‘the issuance of a sentence, a sentence-analogue,
or sentence fragment, in an actual context (1983: 18). He does not state
that spoken language is primary; he states that context is primary.
Historical pragmatics investigates the socio-historical and pragmatic
aspects of historical texts, focusing on aspects such as conversational prin-
ciples or on diachronic processes across time that often have pragmatic
dimensions, such as grammaticalization. It therefore does not see writing
or the written mode as secondary or in any way less worthy of study. On
the contrary, many studies within the field are explicitly concerned with
what Williams (2013: 221) calls the ‘communicative spaces within writ-
ing’. They are interested in the complex, fragmentary nature of early writ-
ing, in inter-sentential relations, and in the context within which the text
or texts emerged.
Pragmatics has often taken a much more functionalist approach to
grammar, as opposed to the formalist approach adopted by generative
linguists such as Chomsky. Whilst Leech (1995 [1983] Chap. 3) con-
ceives of grammar as essentially formalist and pragmatics is functionalist,
the present study takes a Hallidayian view that function is to be:

interpreted not just as the use of language but as a fundamental property of

language itself, something that is basic to the evolution of the semantic
system. (Halliday and Hasan, 1989 (1985): 17)
10 I. Marcus

Indeed, an examination of discourse function sits at the heart of the

linguistic analysis presented in the later chapters of the book.

1.3  peech Versus Writing: A Grammatical

S
Comparison
This section addresses the question: should speech and writing be
viewed as grammatical dichotomous, or as on a continuum? In relation
to present day English (henceforth PDE), the former view, i.e. that the
grammar of speech is notably distinct from the grammar of writing, is
held by some scholars (cf. e.g. Brazil 1995, Hughes 1996 and Hughes
and McCarthy 1998). The traditional approach within the history of
English has also been to view speech and writing as grammatically dis-
tinct. However, one issue with this approach is that if you think linguis-
tic change takes place in speech before it becomes apparent in writing,
you may become frustrated, because according to this view, the spoken
language of the past cannot be accessed. Wyld’s solution to this was to
first ‘define’ spoken language and then proceed to investigate it in his-
torical texts (cf. Wyld 1936 [1920]). Whilst this is a sound solution in
theory, it does not take account of the complexity and crossovers that
exist within early English writing, for example between text types. Is a
sermon writing because it is written down, or speech because it written
to be read aloud?
This book takes a different view from that of Wyld, adopting the posi-
tion that spoken and written communication, both in PDE and in earlier
states of the language, are on a grammatical continuum. In other words,
they share a common grammatical framework, and there are certain lin-
guistic features that are prototypically found in each medium. This view
is also taken, in relation to PDE, by Quirk et al. (1985) and Halliday
(1989: 79), with Biber et al. (1999) and Leech (2000) continuing the
tradition. For example, although imperatives are found in both PDE
speech and writing, they have been found by Biber et al. (1999: 221) to
be much more prevalent in PDE speech. Furthermore, scholars who take
the position that PDE speech and writing share a common grammatical
 Introduction 11

framework tend to acknowledge that PDE speech has a tendency towards

‘simplified, loosely integrated, and disjunctive construction, giving gram-
matical structure a lesser role in the overall communication process than
is characteristic of writing’ (Leech 2000: 676).9
The current study aligns itself with the work of these scholars, and with
that of Koch (1999) and Koch and Oesterreicher (1985–1986; 1990),
which is in part based on Soll’s (1985) work. The idea behind Koch and
Oesterreicher’s work is that there is a conceptual continuum between the
phonic medium, which contains ‘the language of communicative imme-
diacy’ and at the graphic medium, which is characterised by the language
of ‘communicative distance’ (Fig.1.1).
This model allows Koch and Oesterreicher to take into account text
types such as sermons and indeed letters, which although written down
are often characterised by linguistic features of communicative immedi-
acy (these text types would be in Area C on the diagram). Although the
current study does not adopt Koch and Oesterreicher’s model, it does
acknowledge its importance as a way of conceptualising the language
contained within data such as EModE personal correspondence.
The position that speech and writing are essentially different mani-
festations of the same grammatical system is adopted in this book
because the research presented is principally concerned with the extent
to which the writing contained within EModE letters reflects spoken
communication. As Leech points out, ‘the view that written texts are
speech-like to varying degrees, and that spoken texts resemble written
texts to varying degrees (as statistically demonstrated by Biber (1988),
for example), can be accommodated more easily in this model than in
one that insists on a radically different approach to spoken grammar’
(Leech 2000: 692).

C Graphic D
Communicative Communicative
immediacy A Phonic B distance

Fig. 1.1 Phonic/graphic medium and conceptual continuum (Koch 1999: 400).
The figure as it appears here is taken Jucker (2000: 20) and is also included in
Culpeper and Kytö (2010: 11)
12 I. Marcus

1.4 Investigating the Linguistics of Spoken

Communication in Early English Writing:
My Conceptual Approach
This book investigates the oral nature of the written prose contained
within early modern English manuscript letters by looking for prototypi-
cal linguistic features of PDE speech in the EModE writing contained
within them. A potential criticism of this contrastive approach is that
there is no guarantee that PDE speech reflects EModE speech. Whilst
this is true, we cannot be certain of what spoken interaction during the
early modern period was like because there is no pre-nineteenth century
recorded speech data. One way to try and ascertain what speech was like
during this period is by reading contemporary sources that describe the
language of the time. Whilst we know from research such as Fox (2000)
that speech and writing were not conceived of in a binary way in the
sixteenth century, the books that described the language of the time do
not describe the grammatical characteristics of speech in any great detail.
Nor do they cover morphology or syntax in any great depth. The books
by grammarians of the time that do exist such as Hart’s An Orthographie
(1569), tend to focus on other features of language. For example, Hart’s
book focuses on spelling, whilst The dictionary of syr Thomas Eliot knyght
(1538) is a bilingual dictionary of English and Latin.
Another option, and the primary one taken in this book, is to look for
characteristic features of PDE speech in the writing. In the absence of
historical speech data, it is common in modern historical linguistics to
apply the uniformitarian principle, which states that ‘knowledge of pro-
cesses that operated in the past can be inferred by observing on-going
processes in the present’ (Trudgill 2015: 133). Although this approach
does have some similarities to the Wyldian, ‘diagnostic’ approach of look-
ing for features of spoken interaction, there are some key differences.
Firstly, PDE speech is presented as a benchmark, or a control in the cur-
rent study. The study is not putting forward a case that the written prose
within EModE letters is somehow ‘like’ PDE speech. Secondly, the cur-
rent study sees the spoken and written modes as existing on a continuum,
with overlap and messiness, whereas Wyld saw them as binary. Thirdly,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
2177 Meher Charles Cav 16 F June
19
Mercenner 90 June
2049
Charles A 16
June
2637 Merritt F, S’t 89 F
29
44 Sept
7464 Merg F
K 1
24 Sept
9145 Meyers A, Corpl
H 18
24 Aug
5608 Meyers J
K 14
116 June
2097 Meyers J K
C 17
25 Aug
5432 Myers Samuel
A 12
16 Sept
9188 Miller F, Corpl
B 18
July
3139 Miller H 92 F
10
21 Nov
11721 Miller J
C 1
June
2257 Miller J M, S’t 31 I
21
92 Sept
9795 Miller M
A 27
16 Aug
4515 Miller Mac Cav
C 18
July
3955 Mills N 11 K
25
Oct
10721 Mills S Cav 14 F
14
7989 Mind D 8D Sept
 6
92 April
381 Mitchan A
E 5
89 Oct
11617 Mitchell J R
G 27
22 Sept
9753 Mix C
C 25
Aug
4680 Mixwell L B 38 F
4
21 Aug
4526 Monecal J
G 2
June
2646 Morehead J 9E
29
16 June
2539 Morley H Cav
M 26
89 Sept
9187 Moran F
C 18
11 Aug
7428 Moran W
C 31
48 Oct
10645 Morbley B
H 11
Aug
6402 Mounty R 6B
21
July
3263 Morris B Cav 8F
13
15 April
816 Morris J
H 30
66 May
1320 Morris James
K 23
42 Mch
12757 Nossman S 65
G 12
Mulford W R, 23 July
2993 64
S’t - 7
2834 Mulkey D 89 July
D 3
Nov
11900 Munz P 14 I
7
16 Mch
50 Myers Charles Cav
B 16
July
3080 Myers C H, Cor 24 F
9
Aug
5038 Myers F Cav 16 L
8
May
1407 Myers P 24 F
27
65 April
438 Nashen Ed
A 8
16 April
283 Neal Joseph
K 1
Needham L H, 42 Sept
7439
S’t K 1
Sept
9531 Nelson J, Cor 3K
22
Sept
8166 Newberg H 22 F
8
April
299 Newberg Wm Art 2M
1
123 Aug
5778 Newby E
A 15
25 Sept
8129 Newlan H
B 8
82 Aug
4896 Nicely F
A 6
Aug
6945 Nicholas L C 14 F
26
7847 Nicholsan R H 123 Sept
 B 4
108 Aug
7086 Nugent T
E 28
120 Jan
12460 Nully C 65
A 15
Obevre O B, 112 Aug
6519 64
Cor C 22
89 Oct
10851 O’Brian D
C 13
24 Oct
11274 Ochley Wm
K 20
July
3847 O’Connor M 2F
24
O’Dean June
1921 78 F
Thomas 14
June
1533 O’David J H 9A
1
Sept
7751 O’Donnell 34 I
3
July
3609 Odom W 7G
19
16 May
1502 Oglesby D Cav
M 31
May
1214 O’Keefe M Art 2G
19
Sept
7856 Olderfield J R Cav 6B
5
Sept
9196 Oley O S, Cor 21 I
18
108 Sept
10042 Oleny A
K 29
112 Sept
9885 Olson J
K 27
6098 Olson J 89 Aug
D 18
16 April
30 O’Neil D Cav
K 19
Oct
10469 Osborn J W 9H
7
89 Aug
6774 Oss
D 25
July
4123 Ottway D Cav 8A
28
120 Sept
8414 Owens C
- 11
Oct
10279 O’Mine D J, Cor Cav 9E
3
Aug
5541 Padon C 12 F
13
88 Aug
6095 Paine S
B 18
120 July
3408 Paisley F F
E 16
114 Aug
6301 Parshall J M
A 20
14 Dec
12357 Parkhurst B
H 30
Patridge W J, Aug
6303 30 F
S’t 20
Feb
12677 Patterson F J 14 F 65
19
14 April
393 Penny James Cav 64
D 6
114 Feb
12707 Penny W 65
F 26
7700 Peeter H M 107 Sept 64
 C 3
89 June
2621 Perkins A E
A 28
89 Aug
4853 Perry George
G 6
Sept
9313 Perry J Cav 9G
20
July
3953 Perry N Cav 1B
18
112 Nov
12179 Peterson J B
I 27
June
1686 Pettas Wm 65 I
6
Aug
5889 Pettijohn J 21 F
16
Feb
12594 Philbrook A, S’t Cav 17 F 65
5
April
410 Phillips W, Cor Cav 16 L 64
6
Aug
4887 Pierce C, Cor Cav 6H
6
May
1505 Pierce W B Cav 8H
31
July
3764 Place S 44 F
22
14 Sept
10059 Palmerly H
D 30
Porterlange 24 July
3679
Wm K 24
127 June
1862 Pollard F
A 12
Sept
9602 Post George Cav 7L
23
5783 Powell A 122 Aug
C 15
16 July
3058 Powell D Cav
K 9
44 July
3422 Powers James
C 16
Mch
23 Preston C W Cav 8M
8
79 Aug
6007 Price J M
D 17
30 Sept
9059 Prickett F
E 17
Feb
12597 Pratt W 16 F 65
6
103 Oct
10893 Prime D 64
K 14
122 Sept
7972 Puck John
D 5
27 May
1143 Puhrer Fred
A 16
89 Oct
10412 Pyner T
D 6
52 Oct
10531 Quinn P
A 8
July
3039 Ralston John 79 I
8
24 May
1011 Ramsay J C
B 10
45 June
1765 Ramsay A B
K 9
79 Mch
12763 Ramsey T 65
A 12
10772 Randall C F 124 Oct 64
 I 12
Rankin W A, Sept
8578 Cav 1 I
Cor 12
Feb
12680 Ransom J Cav 4B 65
19
Sept
7604 Reany J H, S’t Cav 6B 64
2
112 Aug
5968 Redmont John
H 17
Sept
8571 Reed A 98 I
12
26 July
3496 Reed D
H 18
34 Dec
12324 Richardson T
E 23
June
1616 Richards H 79 I
4
16 July
3809 Rickold W
G 23
Rictor Charles, 82 July
2836
Cor H 3
Sept
8632 Ripley J 9B
13
14 Sept
7748 Riller D Art
D 3
June
2074 Roberts W W Cav 16 I
17
36 Sept
8410 Robinson E H
A 11
Robinson H B, Aug
4460 Cav 6B
S’t 1
79 Aug
6080 Robinson J B
A 18
10751 Roder F Cav 16 Oct
G 12
96 June
2596 Rodenberger N
E 29
Oct
10184 Roferty J O Cav 6H
1
12 April
747 Rodgers O
A 26
65 June
1807 Rogers Silas
D 10
16 June
7228 Rogers Geo Cav
G 29
103 April
528 Rolla E J
G 13
113 July
4389 Rosecrans H
A 31
Oct
11473 Ross J W 45 F
26
113 Sept
8465 Ross Thomas
K 11
100 April
306 Rudd Eras, S’t
K 2
May
1294 Rudd F Cav 16 L
23
89 June
2557 Ryan M
A 27
27 June
2000 Saddle M
G 15
Sept
9345 Saler J B, S’t 14 F
20
19 Oct
10512 Sandler L, Cor
D 8
11289 Sargeant M, S’t 14 Oct
 K 22
13 June
1902 Savage P P
- 13
35 Sept
9915 Sanin B
C 28
23 Sept
7558 Schrider D
A 2
44 Aug
7163 Schrider John
K 29
24 July
3493 Schaunoller C
H 17
Oct
10359 Schurtz 44 F
5
June
1573 Scitaz Victor Cav 16 L
3
28 Oct
11077 Scott H
G 17
64 Aug
4524 Scuyner N, Cor
G 2
11 Oct
12034 See S
G 15
44 June
1787 Seeley Charles
G 10
Sept
9325 Sern C Cav 8D
20
112 Aug
4872 Serens R B
I 6
38 May
1333 Setters Geo H
G 24
61 April
12827 Seward R 65
E 8
39 Aug
5350 Seybert A J 64
E 11
9322 Shadrach G H Cav 7C Sept
20
44 June
1661 Shanback Ed
E 6
113 Sept
8861 Shark L F
D 15
Nov
12149 Sharp A Cav 7B
24
22 June
2579 Sharp A H
A 27
June
1899 Sharp E D T 89
13
89 June
2647 Shaw J
E 29
98 Aug
7315 Shaw Joseph
D 30
Sheeby John, 42 July
4135
S’t G 28
Sept
8386 Sherwood J F Cav 16 I
10
Aug
7270 Shields J A “ 6E
30
Nov
12046 Siebert H C “ 7M
16
Oct
10441 Siffle H “ 7M
7
89 June
2430 Silkwood H M
D 24
June
1717 Silter John Cav 16 I
9
42 Mar
12713 Simmons W D 65
H 1
7630 Simpson C 14 Sept 64
 D 2
42 Apr
12834 Simmons M A 65
H 17
107 Apr
309 Sipple A 64
E 2
14 Jan
12890 Skinner H 65
C 4
16 Sept
10082 Skinner Wm 64
G 30
96 June
2585 Slasher H, Cor
E 28
Oct
10663 Slick P 9E
11
16 Sept
9402 Smith C W
K 24
53 Aug
5960 Smith George
E 17
Apr
362 Smith Jno B Cav 7L
2
115 Feb
12566 Smith J S 65
D 1
28 Oct
10866 Smith N P 64
G 13
114 Oct
10975 Smith O
H 15
16 Aug
4659 Smith Wm Cav
M 3
Sept
8223 Snyder B “ 6B
8
Sept
8079 Sommers W 40 F
7
82 June
2165 Soms
A 19
4283 Spangler H J Cav 16 L July
30
113 Sept
9092 Spindler W
F 18
79 Oct
11359 Spurlock A
E 23
Aug
4598 Sprague W Cav 8K
3
112 June
1667 Springer M
E 6
92 Nov
12132 Steilhoult A
H 23
96 June
2532 Standsfield H
H 26
78 June
1718 Stark F
H 8
May
1018 Stegall J Cav 16 L
11
44 Oct
10737 Stevens S
D 11
Aug
6292 Stewart F 78 I
20
Aug
4878 Stillwell F H 79 L
6
June
1640 Stillwell James 38 I
5
14 Oct
10828 Stine A
H 13
89 Aug
4724 Stopes S W
E 4
89 Sept
8451 Storem A
D 11
12190 Storem C 98 Nov
 C 28
Oct
10440 Strand John 9H
6
Sept
8549 Striker J 11 K
12
15 Apr
12822 Stringer P 65
B 5
95 Sept
9013 Strong S M 64
B 17
40 May
855 Stune S L
G 3
Sept
8615 Sullivan J Cav 16 I
13
15 Jan
12482 Sullivan M 65
E 17
Sept
9325 Sunn C Cav 8D 64
20
Nov
11808 Suter B F “ 4L
4
Aug
5515 Sutton M “ 9M
13
July
4442 Swanson P 9K
31
15 Mar
12725 Steinhaus J 65
B 3
Aug
6292 Stewart F 78 I 64
20
24 Jan
12557 Swarts E, Cor 65
G 30
Aug
6105 Swartz A Cav 7M 64
18
89 Apr
505 Sweet Wm
E 12
10515 Tanner J -A Oct
8
16 Apr
502 Taylor Geo Cav
M 12
Sept
10036 Taylor H, Cor “ 7 I
29
Apr
809 Taylor James “ 4F
30
Jan
12526 Taylor M P 14 I 65
26
100 June
1825 Temple I 64
H 10
16 Aug
4466 Terry John Cav
M 1
64 Jan
12137 Thayer D 65
E 12
16 June
2415 Thomas A 64
A 24
24 Oct
10411 Thompson D
K 6
10 Aug
6491 Thompson F
B 22
Aug
7128 Thompson G G Cav 1M 63
28
June
2453 Thompson John “ 16 I 64
25
Aug
6831 Thompson T 2M
25
79 Oct
10347 Thornsburg N C
A 5
16 Sept
8863 Thorn J Cav
K 15
9833 Thurmain J 84 Sept
 E 27
16 Mar
46 Tuiler W Cav
D 15
19 July
3064 Topp A
C 9
Apr
547 Trailer Van B Cav 16 I
14
Oct
11550 Trask J J “ 7B
27
16 Apr
751 Trowbridge L “ 64
M 26
June
1915 Trout E 21 F
14
19 June
2502 Turnerholm S H
K 26
38 July
3032 Tucker E
B 8
Mar
12736 Tucker J 7F 65
6
Oct
10832 Tucker J P Cav 8G 64
13
120 Oct
10988 Turner S
A 16
Oct
11091 Underwood D 11 E
18
16 Aug
5183 Vase Cav
H 9
May
1078 Vaugh James “ 16 L
14
Sept
7765 Vincent L D “ 7G
4
May
1026 Voris Ross “ 16 I
11
3271 Volter George 9C July
13
24 July
2015 Vought Wm
H 15
24 Aug
5638 Vox Wm
E 14
112 Aug
6767 Waddle J, S’t
C 24
July
2964 Wahl M Cav 16 I
6
31 Sept
9218 Walker George
K 19
15 Nov
12072 Ward R S
C 18
Nov
11345 Ward G B Cav 7E
23
16 June
2488 Ward W J “
M 26
120 Jan
12392 Wareck N 65
D 4
93 Sept
7895 Warkwich J 64
C 5
Aug
5898 Watts Wm Cav 16 L
16
95 Nov
11619 Waterman L
D 28
Aug
6173 Weaver G Cav 16 L
19
93 Sept
9317 Weaver Alex
A 20
Apr
742 Weeks Benj Cav 16 L
26
10785 Weedman J W, 38 I Oct
 Cor 12
56 Aug
4941 Weinmiller J, S’t
G 7
Sept
10001 Welch John 7E
29
Nov
11751 Welch L 24 F
2
95 Sept
10085 Welch G, S’t
A 30
Wentworth 27 July
4358
Chas D 31
Aug
7426 Westbrook B D Cav 6B
31
23 July
3067 Whalin M
B 9
21 July
3910 Wham T
G 24
Sept
9184 Wheeler J 61 F
18
96 May
92 Wheelock A
H 10
16 May
1496 Whitmore B Cav
D 31
104 June
1699 Whitmore L
I 7
89 Aug
5998 Whitney J F
G 17
Sept
8713 Whipp Chas Cav 9E
14
Aug
5613 Wildberger P “ 6B
14
May
5158 Wiley T 7M
15
12732 Wiley W P 32 Mar 65
C 5
81 Feb
12671 Wilkes R
A 18
Sept
7840 Wilhelm G A 9C 64
4
16 Mar
90 Will Gustavus Cav
E 21
36 Sept
9785 Will J
B 26
22 Sept
8310 Williams A
H 10
49 July
3254 Williams E
D 13
15 Oct
10899 Williams G W Bat
- 14
15 Oct
11497 Williams G B
B 26
84 Mar
12780 Willis A P 65
A 15
16 Aug
4737 Wilson D Cav 64
M 4
Sept
9531 Wilson J, Cor -K
22
Nov
11712 Wilson W, S’t 89 F
15
May
1130 Wimmer G Cav 16 I
15
16 May
989 Wink Lewis “
C 10
125 Sept
8755 Winning D
C 14
6079 Winters Wm 24 Aug
 H 18
74 July
3743 Wismer J, Cor
G 21
June
2301 Wing John Cav 7H
22
21 Sept
8815 Wood
G 15
May
1042 Woodcock R Cav 16 L
12
Workman July
3695 7G
James 21
21 Oct
10582 Worthy A A 64
K 10
35 June
2664 Wright J W
C 28
59 Aug
5265 Wright M
E 10
120 Dec
12309 Yates J
E 19
24 Oct
10766 Yagle C
B 12
June
2391 Zimmerman P Art 1 -
24
Mar
72 Zoran Philip 44 I
20
Total
850.

INDIANA.
116 Apr
571 Allen Jesse, Cor 64
K 15