26.1173, Review: Historical Ling; Socioling: Henstra (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1173. Mon Mar 02 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.1173, Review: Historical Ling; Socioling: Henstra (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:30:20
From: Imogen Marcus [imogenmarcus at gmail.com]
Subject: Horace Walpole and his correspondents

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=35970957


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-2571.html

AUTHOR: Froukje  Henstra
TITLE: Horace Walpole and his correspondents
SUBTITLE: Social network analysis in a historical context
SERIES TITLE: LOT Dissertation Series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Imogen Julia Marcus, University of Glasgow

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

In this book, Froukje Henstra focuses on the language of the eighteenth
century author Horace Walpole (1717 – 1797) and his correspondents. For the
purposes of her analysis, Henstra has compiled a corpus of the correspondence
of Walpole and his correspondents, called the Corpus of Horace Walpole’s
Correspondence (henceforth CHWC). She has done this by digitizing much of the
text from the Yale Edition of Horace Walpole’s Correspondence (ed. Lewis 1937
– 1983).  

Henstra has adopted a social network based approach (cf. Milroy 1987), which
she has applied to the results of an analysis of several types of linguistic
variation in the corpus.  She focuses on two types of variation: alternation
between use of “you was” and “you were” for the first person singular form of
the verb BE, the distribution of the verbs BE and HAVE with mutative
intransitive verbs in the perfect, and variation in the use of preterite forms
for the past participle in perfective and passive constructions in the
irregular verb paradigm. She looks at this variation in relation to the
developing linguistic norms of the time, in particular the rise of normative
grammar in England, as codified in Lowth’s grammar, one of the most popular
grammars of the eighteenth century (cf. Auer 2008). 

There are three main aims of Henstra’s study. Firstly, she seeks to test the
validity of the claim that upper-class language use in England in the
eighteenth century conformed to a uniform standard. Secondly, her study seeks
to investigate the extent to which variation between the language use of the
correspondents within the Walpole collection can be explained in a social
network context. Finally, the study seeks to establish the usefulness of the
social network model for historical data, and to determine whether any
improvements could be made to the model. 

The introductory chapter outlines why Walpole and his correspondents, who
included Sir Horace Mann (1706 – 1786), Lady Mary Coke (1727 – 1811) and Henry
Seymour Conway (1719 – 1795), are objects of linguistic interest. Next, it
succinctly describes why Walpole’s letters are a good source for historical
sociolinguistic analysis of the sort presented in the book. It then begins the
work that is taken up in later chapters, namely problematizing the assumption
that Walpole and his correspondents were writers of the standard language.
Henstra points out that Walpole is interesting not just because he provided
the modern day reader with a large sample of contemporary linguistic usage in
the form of letters, but also because he seems to have been a very
linguistically conscious individual. For example, the evidence suggests that
he appears to have consciously rejected non-standard varieties of English.
Finally, the first chapter presents the book’s research questions and outlines
its structure. 

In Chapter 2, Henstra addresses the important issue of how the letters within
the Yale Edition were edited. Like Sairio (2008), Henstra points out that it
is essential to test hypotheses about linguistic influence and the influence
of network structure on existing linguistic data. However, the issue is that
many of these data may have been normalised by previous editors. After
evaluating the edition, Henstra finds that the normalisation was restricted to
spelling and capitalization. She therefore concludes that the edition (and the
corpus that she created from said edition) is suitable for the kind of
analysis undertaken in her study.  

Chapter 3 explores how two upper-class language users, namely Horace Walpole
and Horace Mann, were using strong verb forms. It does this in order to
ascertain how their usage relates to the codified norm. She had expected to
find similar usage in the letters of both men, because they were both part of
the educated upper classes in the eighteenth century. However, what she
actually found was that although the degree of standard usage was greater in
the language of Walpole than in that of Mann, there were also a greater number
of variations in Walpole’s language. This suggests that Walpole had a more
variable idiolect that he used in a more standard way. 

The chapter as a whole strengthens the argument that Warpole’s language usage
reflected the linguistic climate of the eighteenth century, in which ‘the
language was codified as part of the ongoing standardisation process, ‘which
in turn significantly influenced that same linguistic climate, giving rise to
an interest in prescriptivism among the general public’. ‘Mann’s usage can be
interpreted as providing an example of a kind of negative evidence of what was
going on at the time, in displaying usage that was more stable, and did not
develop in line with the changing norm’. Studies undertaken confirm the
premise of Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006) that ‘the input for the norm as
codified in the grammars was influenced by the language of the upper classes
and educated users’.  

Chapter 4 gives a good overview of previous studies in historical
sociolinguistics that have utilised the social network analysis model,
including early work such as Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1991) and later work in
which the original model was refined, such as Bax (2002). She concludes the
chapter by suggesting that social network analysis needs to be predominantly
quantitative and objective, because a qualitative approach leaves too much
potential for free interpretation of what could be unclear and/or inconclusive
results. 

In Chapters 5 and 6, Henstra focuses on two specific network clusters in the
greater Walpole network. Chapter 5 concentrates on the Walpole Family Network,
and describes how an adapted Network Strength Scale was applied to it. Henstra
is careful to point out that there are many gaps in the data , which have the
effect of creating a certain amount of uncertainty in most of the total
network strength scores. Despite this, some interesting results emerge from
the analysis, including the fact that in this particular network cluster,
usage of “you was” and “you were” is about equally divided, a finding in line
with Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s analysis of this feature as a bridge phenomena
(2002b). Maria Walpole was in an interesting informant in relation to
variation in use of be and have in perfective constructions with various
mutative intransitive verbs such as “change”, “come” and “arrive” (cf. Ryden
and Brorstrom 1987: 234 – 65), because her usage of these features was found
to be the most innovative of all the members of the Walpole Family Network.
The conclusion of the chapter suggests that the analysis of linguistic
influence within this particular network was hindered by the issue of
incomplete data. Furthermore, Henstra suggests that Fitzmaurice’s notion of a
coalition formation may be a more useful approach to family networks of this
sort. 

Chapter 6 applies social network analysis to the Walpole Eton Network Cluster,
which consists of Walpole’s friends from Eton as opposed to his family
members.  In this chapter, Henstra adapts the classical network strength scale
by combining it with a version of linguistic involvement analysis (cf. Chafe
(1985), Palander-Collin (1999a, 1999b) and Sairio (2005)). By doing this, she
creates what she calls an involvement strength scale. Similar results were
obtained for this cluster as were obtained for the family network cluster, in
that the results of the “be/have” variation with certain verbs show a number
of gaps, and a number of either zero or very low token counts. 

Henstra’s discussion of the results therefore suggests how the model for
historical social network analysis could be revised in order to yield more
token counts. Specifically, she suggests that it would be useful to adopt a
combination model when dealing with historical data. This model would ideally
combine the classical network strength model with linguistically based methods
such as involvement analysis. A combination model of this sort would be a more
layered model that would provide the researcher with a more complex (and
therefore true to life) representation of reality than either the classical
Network Strength Scale or the linguistic involvement model can provide on
their own.   

The conclusions of the study in relation to both functionality of social
network analysis in an historical context and the presupposed uniformity of
upper-class language use in Walpole’s network are presented in Chapter 7.
Henstra addresses the issue of low token counts, and the other issue of the
relatively small amount of background data available, which meant that it was
difficult to socially embed the data that was produced in the study. She also
shows how her study has successfully challenged the assumption that upper
class language use in eighteenth century England was uniformly standard. She
highlights the fact that there were important differences in usage among
members of Walpole’s social network, differences that could be accounted for
when a micro-level approach was taken. The book closes with a re-emphasis that
for best results, future studies should endeavour to adopt combination models
in which sociometric, cognitive and linguistic data are all taken into
account. 

EVALUATION

Henstra’s book expertly meets its three goals. It provides strong evidence
that any claims about a uniform standard at this point in the development of
the English language need to be problematized. It clearly explains the
variation between the language use of the correspondents within the Walpole
collection in a social network context, whilst simultaneously pointing out the
limits of the social network model as it stands. Finally, it suggests
improvements to the said model which would increase its functionality. Indeed,
the real strength of Henstra’s book lies in its recognition that the social
network model as it currently exists is not a particularly useful tool to
explain linguistic variation on a micro-level, at least in an historical
context. This is due to the fact that it often fails to produce statistically
significant results when applied to historical data. The suggested adaptation
of this model for application in a socio-historical context (i.e. to combine
it with other, more linguistically-orientated models) is innovative, and will
be of immense value to scholars working within the field of historical
sociolinguistics. The book will also be of interest to linguists interested in
the development of strong verb forms in the history of English more generally,
to literary scholars interested in correspondence networks in the eighteenth
century, and to historians interested in the biographical details of Horace
Walpole’s life. 

Henstra contextualizes her research within the framework of previous work that
has applied social network analysis both in a modern context (Milroy 1987) and
in an historical context (e.g. Sairio 2005). However, a shortcoming of the
book is that the chapters that focus heavily on previous work can tend towards
being overly descriptive and not led by the author’s argument. This is
particularly true of Chapter 4. ‘Social network analysis and the history of
English’. This is a relatively long chapter, and because it is not argument
led, it can at times become quite dense to read. Furthermore, although it is a
valuable chapter, giving as it does a thorough overview of how social network
analysis has been applied in an historical context, it could have perhaps come
earlier in the book. Specifically, placing it before Chapters 3 and 5, two
predominantly analytical chapters, would have made more sense from a reader’s
perspective, particularly as it is discussing methodological issues. 

The other shortcoming of the book is that it possibly covers too much ground
in terms of number of informants and different network clusters. There are
three analytical chapters, (3, 5 and 6), which all look at different
informants and in the case of the latter two chapters, different network
clusters (although they all have Horace Walpole in common). The study could
have been improved by a slightly narrower focus on fewer informants and/or
clusters. This narrower focus would perhaps  have allowed Henstra to do more
with her innovative involvement strength scale, or would perhaps  have allowed
more micro-level analysis of what she identifies as important differences in
usage among individual informants in particular network clusters. Despite
these issues, Henstra’s book makes a thorough, well-researched and valuable
contribution to the field of historical sociolinguistics. It provides a
fascinating insight into the different networks that Walpole belonged to. It
also throws some much-needed light on his language use and the language use of
his correspondents at a time when immense changes were taking place within the
English language.

REFERENCES

Auer, Anita (2008). “The Development of the Progressive in the 19th Century
English: A Quantitative Study.” Language Variation and Change 10, 123 – 52. 

Bax, Randy C. (2002). “Linguistic accommodation; the correspondence between
Samuel Johnson and Hester Lynch Thrale”. In: Fanego, Teresa, Belen Mendez-Naya
and Elena Seoane (eds.). Sounds, Words, Texts and Change, Selected papers from
the 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7-11 September 2000, Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 9-23.    

Chafe, Wallace (1985). “Linguistic Differences produced by Differences between
Speaking and Writing.” In: Olson, Torrance,  and Hildyard (eds.), Literacy,
Language and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Palander-Collin, Minna (1999a). Grammaticalization Social Embedding. I THINK
and METHINKS in Middle and early Modern English. Helsinki: Societe
Neophilologique.  

Palander-Collin, Minna (1999b). “Male and Female Styles in 17th-Century
Correspondence: I think”. Language variation and change 11. 123 – 141.   

Milroy, Lesley (1987). Language and Social Networks. Second edition. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell. 

Sairio, Anni. (2005). “‘Sam of Streatham Park’ A linguistic study of Dr.
Johnson’s membership of the Thrale family”. In: Palander-Collin, Minna and
Minna Nevala (eds.) Letters and letter writing, special issue of EJES, 9.1, 21
– 35. 

Sairio, Anni. 2008. “A social network study of the eighteenth century
Bluestockings: the progressive and preposition stranding in their letters” in
HSL/SHL 8. Via: http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/articles.htm

Ryden and Brorstrom (1987). The be/have variation with intransitives in
English: With special reference to the late modern period. Stockholm: Almqvist
and Wiksell International. 

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (1991). 'Samuel Richardson's role as linguistic
innovator: A sociolinguistic analysis'. In: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and
John Frankis (eds.), Language: Usage and Description. Studies Presented to
N.E. Osselton on the Occasion of his Retirement. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA:
Rodopi. 47-57. 

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2002b). “You was and eighteenth century
normative grammar”. In: Lenz, Katja and Ruth Mohlig (eds.) Of Dyuersite and
Chaunge of Language: Essays Presented to Manfred Gorlach on the Occasion of
his 65th Birthday. Heidelberg: C. Winter Universitatsverlag, 88 – 102.   

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. (2006). “Eighteenth century prescriptivism and
the norms of correctness”. In: Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds.),
Blackwell Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dr. Imogen Marcus is an historical linguist currently working as the
post-doctoral research assistant on a new project investigating the bi-lingual
lexicon of pre-modern England, based at Birmingham City University. Her
research interests include historical semantics, pragmatics and
sociolinguistics.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1173	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/