26.1457, Review: Sociolinguistics: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1457. Tue Mar 17 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.1457, Review: Sociolinguistics: Tieken-Boon van Ostade (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

*************    LINGUIST List 2015 Fund Drive    *************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

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


Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:04:28
From: Dorota Lockyer [dlockyer at alumni.ubc.ca]
Subject: In Search of Jane Austen

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=35970537


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-1453.html

AUTHOR: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade
TITLE: In Search of Jane Austen
SUBTITLE: The Language of the Letters
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Dorota Lockyer, University of British Columbia

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

This monograph aims to provide a comprehensive historical sociolinguistic
reconstruction of Jane Austen’s linguistic identity by a corpus-based study of
the spelling, grammar and words in  her letters. The monograph differs from
traditional literary and linguistic studies of Jane Austen’s works by focusing
on her letters which, for the purpose of this study, are claimed to be the
closest representation of her private language, idiolect, and spoken language
that scholars have been able to find. The monograph is divided into nine
chapters, including the introduction and conclusion, and also four appendices,
references and an index. 

The introductory first chapter grounds the study in the previous literature
(namely Phillipps 1970; Page 1972; Burrows 1987) and provides an overview and
aims for the study. The author gives a general overview of the language of
Austen’s letters (1.2), a brief introduction to the sociolinguistic analysis
of Austen’s language and her letters (1.3 and 1.4), which leads to a
discussion of the single-author, focussed corpus (1.5), and ends with the
author placing the study in a wider perspective. This provides a clear entry
point to the next chapters that discuss Austen’s practice of writing letters
and her social network (1.6). Thus, the author situates her study within the
relevant literature, sociolinguistic and corpus linguistic methods, and
socio-historical context. The fact that “[id]iolectal studies are rare within
historical sociolinguistics” (22) is acknowledged, and the author comments on
“how fruitful it will be to focus on a much neglected topic, the language Jane
Austen used in her letters - her ‘own’ language, in other words” (25).

Chapter 2, entitled ‘Letter-Writing’, covers the social function of
letter-writing, the surviving and lost letters written by and to Austen (2.2),
letter-writing materials such as pens and envelopes that were used by Austen
and others during that period (2.3), the postal system (2.4), the activity of
letter-writing as a social activity (2.5) and the dependence on the post
(2.6). Overall, one of the main aims of the chapter is to “trace any evidence
for the existence of letters either from or addressed to Jane Austen in
addition to the ones we already know about” (51).

Chapter 3, ‘A Social Network of Letter-Writers’, moves from Austen’s letters
to her social network, primarily “to be able to isolate her different styles
of writing and thus to describe her variation in language use in as much
sociolinguistic detail as possible” (51). The chapter begins with an
introduction of those persons whom Austen wrote letters to and received
letters from (3.1). In (3.2), the author shows, by year and number, the
addressees of attested and unattested letters sent based on the nature of
their relationship to Austen (e.g. relative – close – same generation). Next,
the author discusses letter writing formulas of the time (3.3). She examines
formality (3.3.1), opening formulas such as ‘Sir/Madam’ or ‘My dear
sister/cousin’ (3.3.2), closing formulas, including the word
‘affectionate(ly)’ (3.3.3) and dating/signing letters (3.3.4). The chapter
closes with section (3.4) on Austen’s correspondence network and the lost
letters in order to provide “important information for the reconstruction of
[Austen’s] social network” (75).

In Chapter 4, ‘The Letters as Corpus,’ the author describes the letters used
as the corpus for the study. First, the introduction enumerates the letters or
sections from letters which are included and excluded from the corpus (e.g.
verse, French expressions, rhymes and indirect speech). For example, a
complete letter had to be removed because it was written entirely in reversed
spelling, while other instances required “removing other bits and pieces of
text from the letters” (81). As a result, the complete letter corpus contained
144,002 words that are analyzed with the Wordsmith Tools software. Next, the
types of letters are discussed in more detail. The differences between copied
and holograph letters (4.2) are followed by discussion of Austen’s
self-corrections (4.3) and her use of short forms, which include abbreviated
and contracted forms (4.4) and dashes and capitalisation (4.5). Last, the
author discusses the two corpora (holograph and non-holograph letters) used
for analysis based on changes added to the copies by the copyists.

In Chapter 5, ‘The Language of the Letters: Spelling’, the author turns to an
analysis of Austen’s spelling, investigating “the extent to which [Austen] was
consistent in her spelling practice and whether she was a conservative
speller… [and] whether her spelling changed as a result of the fact that she
became a published author and was confronted with the spelling conventions
used by the printer” (111). The question of whether Austen’s variation in
spelling “correlates with formality of style...[or] whether she adapted her
spelling when writing to the younger generation in her family” (111) is also
mentioned. To answer these questions, the author first discusses the dual
spelling system (5.2) comprised of a public spelling standard and a private
one. In section (5.3), the author turns to ‘Epistolary Spelling’, particularly
of contractions, phonetic spellings and “a category labelled ‘retention of
older spellings’” (113). The author’s analysis shows that contractions “were
characteristic of Jane Austen’s own spelling system” (115), particularly
contractions of THOUGH and THROUGH, and variable spelling features that were
common in eighteenth-century letters (e.g. ‘beleive’ / ‘believe’). Additional
variable spelling features are discussed in (5.4), including a major group of
“single- and two-word variants of compound pronouns and adverbs” (121), such
as ‘some body’ / ‘somebody’. The author concludes that Austen’s spelling was
consistent and idiosyncratic, even though it changed over time, particularly
after she became a published author. In section (5.5), ‘Problems with the
Apostrophe’, the author concludes that Austen “was somehow aware of the
existence of a rule for the use of the apostrophe but that she had not quite
internalised it herself” (125). The last two subsections of the chapter take a
step back and consider spelling as evidence of pronunciation (particularly of
Austen’s dialect).

Chapter 6, ‘The Language of the Letters: Words’, begins with Phillipps’s
(1970: 103) question “whether Jane Austen can be considered ‘an innovator in
English’” (131). To help answer this question, the author begins with a review
of previous research on the vocabulary from Austen’s novels that reflect
“Austen’s own linguistic fingerprint” (132) but also can be antedated by
Austen’s letters. Next, the author examines Austen’s quotations in the Oxford
English Dictionary (6.2), which at this time is still undergoing revision.
Although the author considers Austen’s ‘first instances’ in the OED to be
incomplete (e.g. lacking ‘anti-English’ and ‘out of hum’), the author calls
for an update for several words, including ‘feu’ and ‘noonshine’. These
example words support the claim that Austen creatively “engaged in all types
of word-formation processes that are commonly found in English today:
prefixation, suffixation, conversion, and compounding” (141), with the prefix
‘un-’ being most commonly used to create new words. These ‘first words’ were
also found in Austen’s letters to her closest friends and family; thus,
“linguistic creativity was therefore a feature that typically characterised
her most private writing” (148). As in the previous chapter, the author
describes Austen’s innovation of new words as not particularly unusual or
numerous, and most likely due to the fact that she was not geographically or
socially mobile and thus not as exposed to many features compared to many of
her contemporaries. Similarly, (6.4) demonstrates that Austen used so-called
vulgar words and intensifiers relatively rarely, and only to the younger
generation or to her sister Cassandra. This finding is again reinforced in
(6.5), where the author discusses linguistic involvement. In (6.6), the author
discusses how Austen referred to close relatives (e.g. using ‘my mother’ when
writing to her sister). Last, the chapter ends with (6.7), ‘Jane Austen’s
Linguistic Fingerprint’, which brings together the features described in the
previous sections to show us what was typical of Austen’s language. 

Chapter 7, ‘The Language of the Letters: Grammar’, aims to describe “to what
extent her use of grammar in the letters can be considered idiosyncratic”
(166), and “the extent to which Jane Austen’s usage reflects ongoing changes
at the time” (170). These aims are pursued in the following sections, namely
(7.2), which examines self-correction, double negation, flat adverbs and
double comparatives or superlatives in her letters and novels. In (7.3),
variable grammar is discussed (e.g. the periphrastic ‘do’, pied piping and
preposition stranding), followed by verbal ‘-ing’ forms in (7.4), and changing
grammar (7.5), where it is argued that Austen’s “usage did not agree with the
current state of development which particular features were undergoing at that
time” (206). Thus, the author concludes that various external influences
caused Austen’s grammar to be “subject to change” (207). However, “what these
influences were is hard to say, but it is clear that she was receptive to
ongoing linguistic developments around her, no matter how limited her
circumstances were as far as social or geographical mobility was concerned”
(207). 

Chapter 8, ‘Authorial Identity’, uses the results found in the previous
chapters to discuss spelling, grammar and words in Austen’s literary works,
particularly in the drafts of her unfinished manuscripts. In (8.2), the
discarded ‘Persuasion’ chapters are discussed, followed by different house
styles for ‘Mansfield Park’ (8.3) and ‘The Watsons’ (8.4). Because of spelling
and forms that appear in ‘The Watsons’, the author claims that it was written
in 1805-1806 instead of 1804. Last, the author shows the importance of
analyzing spelling (8.5) because it produces results such as suggesting “a
more accurate date for her unfinished novel ‘The Watsons’; [thus], it is well
worth our while to analyse an author’s private spelling habits, as these,
along with their use of vocabulary and grammar, constitute their authorial
identity” (224). 

The monograph’s conclusion is presented in Chapter 9, which ties together the
results found in previous chapters and presents suggestions for future
research. Chapter 9 is immediately followed by four appendices: ‘Letters
referred to in the text’, ‘Letters (sent and received) referred to by Jane
Austen’, ‘Transcription of letter 139’ and ‘Jane Austen’s epistolary network’.

EVALUATION

Overall, I found this monograph to be very accessible, well-structured,
informative and pleasant to read. 

The book very convincingly describes Austen’s writing practices and her social
network, but perhaps most importantly, her ‘own’ language use. The quality of
the primary research is clearly rigorous and benefited by the addition of
substantial background material. The extensive historical background, from
detailed writing/authorial practices of Austen’s time to the fine points of
the postal system, all add to the sound argumentation prevalent throughout the
book. Because of the limited number of surviving letters (about 5%), the data
are limited to some 149,000 words (mostly correspondence to Jane’s sister
Cassandra, while Jane Austen’s letters to her mother are completely lost, as
is much of her correspondence to other family members and friends). Although
the corpus is small, the author is able to adequately pinpoint many of Jane
Austen’s linguistic idiosyncrasies. 

The author has fulfilled her goal for the book; the line of questioning is
made clear in the introduction and is followed through the course of the book,
and the conclusion(s) are well-argued and made clear in each respective
chapter and the Conclusion. In the introductory chapter, the author explains
that the monograph is intended to fill in the rather large gap in scholarly
literature dealing with a linguistic approach to Austen’s letters. To guide
the reader, she  states her argument clearly, asserting, for example, that
“[w]hen trying to identify a writer’s idiolect, as Barchas aimed to do, I want
to argue instead that the language of private letters is more suitable for
analysis than an author’s narrative or fictional style” (4). The author also
clearly states in several places that the aim of her study is “throw light on
Jane Austen’s linguistic identity in as far as it can be reconstructed from
her letters” (5); she fulfills pieces of this aim in each chapter, and her
short concluding chapter recaps her results in the clear, approachable style
and manner that is present throughout the book.

The book opens up avenues for future research. For example, the author states
that further historical sociolinguistic research with “large-scale studies of
Late Modern English [which] would allow us to place the language of an
individual author like Jane Austen into a wider perspective” (225) is needed.
Further studies like the one in this book would help scholars better “assess a
particular author’s, or group of authors’, usage as either outstanding or not
in relation to the time in which he or she lived, and to try and account for
why this should be the case” (226). In this way, the author opens up areas for
further research of letters written by other writers of Jane Austen’s period
(or other periods) to “lead towards a rather more complete picture of the
complexities of English usage in a fuller sociolinguistic context than ever
before” (226). Despite the author’s thorough investigation of Austen’s
letters, inevitably more needs to be done – other words could be focused on,
such as emotive interjections or expressive features. Furthermore, the
appendices present material that could be examined in more detail by
specialists. 

Last, the book is accessible and would be of interest to students and scholars
of not only historical sociolinguistics, but also lexicography, corpus
linguistics and the disciplines of history and English literature. Because the
book is structured so that each chapter follows the other logically and
smoothly with clear definitions and a pleasant writing style, the book is
accessible to scholars of many disciplines and approaches. 

REFERENCES

Burrows, J.F. 1987. Computation into Criticism. A Study of Jane Austen’s
Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Page, Norman. 1972. The Language of Jane Austen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Phillipps, K.C. 1970. Jane Austen’s English. London: Andre Deutsch.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dorota Lockyer is a PhD student in the Department of English at the University
of British Columbia, Canada. Current research interests include expressive
language in social media and fanfiction using corpus linguistics, discourse
analysis, pragmatics, and stylistics approaches.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1457	
----------------------------------------------------------