This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core
Bibliography
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Introducing Historical Orthography , pp. 198 - 212Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Agha, A. 2003. ‘The social life of cultural value’. Language and Communication, 23, pp. 231–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. D., Anderson, D., Becker, J., Cook, R., Davis, M., Edberg, P., Everson, M., Freytag, A., Jenkins, J. H., McGowan, R., Moore, L., Muller, E., Phillips, A., Suignard, M. & Whistler, K. (eds.) 2012. The Unicode Standard. Version 6.2 – Core Specification. Mountain View: Unicode Consortium, https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ [accessed 2 August 2021].Google Scholar
Ambrosiani, P. 2020. ‘Graphematic features in Glagolitic and Cyrillic orthographies: a contribution to the typological model of biscriptality’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammon, U., Bickel, H. & Lenz, A. N.. 2016. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz, Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien und Südtirol sowie Rumänien, Namibia und Mennonitensiedlungen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. 1994. ‘Elaboration and codification: standardization and attitudes towards the French language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’. In Parry, M. M., Davis, W. V. & Temple, R. A. M. (eds.), The Changing Voices of Europe: Social and Political Changes and Their Linguistic Repercussions. Temple: University of Wales Press, pp. 53‒73.Google Scholar
Baddeley, S. 2012. ‘French orthography in the 16th century’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A.. 2012a. ‘Introduction. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe: a comparative view’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.). 2012b. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baines, J., Bennet, J. & Houston, S. (eds.). 2008. The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 1997. ‘Developing ways of writing vernaculars: problems and solutions in a historical perspective’. In Tabouret-Keller, A., Le Page, R. B., Gardner-Chloros, P. & Varro, G. (eds.), Vernacular Literacy: A Re-evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 93–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Holquist, M.; trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barteld, F., Hartmann, S. & Szczepaniak, R.. 2016. ‘The usage and spread of sentence-internal capitalization in Early New High German: a multifactorial approach’. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), pp. 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbanes, N. A. 2013. On Paper: The Everything of Its Two-Thousand-Year History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Basu, A. 2016. ‘“Ill shapen sounds, and false orthography”: a computational approach to Early English orthographic variation’. In Estill, L., Jackaki, D. K. & Ullyot, M. (eds.), Early Modern Studies after the Digital Turn. Tempe: Iter Press and ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies), pp. 167–200.Google Scholar
Bell, A. 2007. ‘Style and the linguistic repertoire’. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
Benskin, M. 2004. ‘Chancery standard’. In Kay, C., Hough, C. & Wotherspoon, I. (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Berg, K. 2019. Die Graphematik der Morpheme im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berg, K. & Aronoff, M.. 2017. ‘Self-organization in the spelling of English suffixes: the emergence of culture out of anarchy’. Language, 93(1), pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Berg, K., Primus, B. & Wagner, L.. 2016. ‘Buchstabenmerkmal, Buchstabe, Graphem’. In Primus, B. & Domahs, U. (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 337–55.Google Scholar
Bergmann, R. & Nerius, D.. 1998. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen von 1500 bis 1710. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Berkenbusch, E. 1997. Übungsbuch der chinesischen Schriftzeichen für praktisches Chinesisch, vol. I. Beijing: Kommerzieller Verlag.Google Scholar
Berlanda, E. 2006. ‘New perspectives on digraphia: a framework for the sociolinguistics of writing systems’. Major research paper, York University, Toronto.Google Scholar
Bishop, H. G. 1895. The Practical Printer: A Book of Instruction for Beginners; a Book of Reference for the More Advanced, 3rd edn. Oneonta: H. G. Bishop.Google Scholar
Bland, M. 2005. ‘Further information: Drummond’s Democritie, A Labyrinth of Delight and his “Certain Informations and Manners of Ben Jonson”’. TEXT, 17, pp. 145–86.Google Scholar
Bland, M. 2010. A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, P. 1996. Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Poetry MS 31.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. 2011. ‘Self-organization and language evolution’. In Gibson, K. R. & Tallerman, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 612–20.Google Scholar
Bredel, U. 2005. ‘Zur Geschichte der Interpunktionskonventionen des Deutschen – dargestellt an der Kodifizierung des Punktes’. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 33, pp. 179–211.Google Scholar
Bredel, U. 2008. Die Interpunktion des Deutschen: Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Bredel, U. 2009. ‘Das Interpunktionssystem des Deutschen’. In Linke, A. & Feilke, H. (eds.), Oberfläche und Performanz: Untersuchungen zur Sprache als dynamischer Gestalt. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 117–35.Google Scholar
Brengelman, F. H. 1980. ‘Orthoepists, printers, and the rationalization of English spelling’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 79, pp. 332–54.Google Scholar
Brooksbank, J. 1651. An English Monosyllabary […]. London: Printed for Edward Brewster.Google Scholar
Bullokar, W. [1580] 1968. The Amendment of Orthographie for English Speech, repr. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum.Google Scholar
Bunčić, D. 2012. ‘The standardization of Polish orthography in the 16th century’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 219–54.Google Scholar
Bunčić, D., Lippert, S. L. and Rabus, A.. 2016. Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Burkhard, C. 2002. ‘Zur Ungleichzeitigkeit in der Weltgesellschaft. Erkenntnistheoretische Kommentare zur Kriegsursachenforschung, Arbeitspapier 1/2002’. Universität Hamburg – IPW, Forschungsstelle Kriege, Rüstung und Entwicklung, www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/sowi/akuf/Text_2010/Weltgesellschaft-Conrad-2002.pdf [accessed 27 February 2021].Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, J. 2009. ‘Line-final word division in late Middle English Fachprosa’. In Díaz Vera, J. & Caballero, R. (eds.), Textual Healing: Studies in Medieval English Medical, Scientific and Technical Texts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, J. 2011. ‘Line-final word division in early English handwriting’. In Thaisen, J. & Rutkowska, H. (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals in Their Texts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2021. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, 4th edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelli, A. 1899. Lexicon Abbreviaturarum Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli.Google Scholar
Chassant, A. A. L. 1846. Dictionnaire des abréviations latines et francaises usitées dans les inscriptions lapidaires et métalliques, les manuscrits et les chartes du Moyen Ǎge. Evreux: Cornemillot.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S. & Torgersen, E.. 2011. ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15, pp. 151–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christin, A.-M. (ed.). 2002. A History of Writing: From Hieroglyph to Multimedia. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. & Kytö, M. (eds.). 2020. Punctuation in Context: Past and Present Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Clement, F. 1587. The Petie Schole with an English Orthographie […]. London: Thomas Vautrollier.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. C. 2019. ‘Spelling focusing and proto-standardisation in a fifteenth-century English community of practice’. Studia Neophilologica, 91, pp. 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, M. 2020a. ‘From the early modern era to an international research area’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674171.001 [accessed 1 March 2021].Google Scholar
Condorelli, M. 2020b. ‘Positional spelling redistribution: word-initial ˂u˃/˂v˃ and ˂i˃/˂j˃ in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’, English Language and Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000349 [accessed 1 March 2021].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, M. 2020c. ‘The standardisation of i and y in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’. English Studies, printed in 2021 in 102(1), pp. 101–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2020.1785169 [accessed 1 March 2021].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, M. (ed.). 2020d. Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, M. 2022. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing on Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condorelli, M. Forthcoming. ‘The standardisation of vowel diacritic spelling in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics.Google Scholar
Condorelli, M. & Rutkowska, H. (eds.). Forthcoming. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, M. & Voeste, A.. 2020. ‘Synergic dialogue in historical orthography: national philologies, comparability and questions for the future’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–49.Google Scholar
Coote, E. 1596. Englishe Scholemaister […]. London: Widow Orwin for Icksten and Robert Dexter.Google Scholar
Corrie, M. 2006. ‘Middle English – dialects and diversity’. In Mugglestone, L. (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 86–119.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 2003. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 2012. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cresci, G. F. 1560. Essemplare di più Sorti Lettere […]. Rome: per Antonio Blado ad instanza del autore.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2012. Spell It Out: The Story of English Spelling. London: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2015. Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Dale, I. 1980. ‘Digraphia’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 26, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. 2001. ‘Writing systems’. In Aronoff, M. & Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 43–80.Google Scholar
Denholm-Young, N. 1954. Handwriting in England and Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. 2003. ‘Standard languages: taxonomies and histories’. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, E. J. 1957. English Pronunciation 1500–1700, vols. I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dumville, D. 1993. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism A.D. 950–1030. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, C. [2002] 2016. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik, 5th edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Early English Books Online (Text Creation Partnership). 2015–. www.textcreationpartnership.org/tcp-eebo/ [accessed 15 May 2021].Google Scholar
Elmentaler, M. 2003. Struktur und Wandel vormoderner Schreibsprachen. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S. 2005. Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, S. 2012. ‘The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 156–69.Google Scholar
Evans, M. 2013. The Language of Queen Elizabeth I: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Royal Style and Identity. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Feldherr, A. & Hardy, G. (eds.). 2011. The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Beginnings to AD 600. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, L. B. & Barac-Cikoja, D.. 1996. ‘Serbo-Croatian: a biscriptal language’. In Daniels, P. & Bright, W. (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 769–72.Google Scholar
Van der Feest Viðarsson, H. 2017. ‘The syntax of others: “un-Icelandic” verb placement in 19th- and early 20th-century Icelandic’. In Tieken-Boon, I. van Ostade & Percy, C. (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards Across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–67.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1935. ‘The technique of semantics’. Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 36–72.Google Scholar
Fisher, J. H. 1996. The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W. 1966. Strukturelle Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. 2019. The Russian Graphoshere, 1450–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, N., Buchmann, F. & Berg, K.. 2011. ‘The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable: evidence from German and English’. Written Language & Literacy, 14(2), pp. 275–92.Google Scholar
Gallmann, P. 1985. Graphische Elemente der geschriebenen Sprache. Grundlagen für eine Reform der Orthographie (= Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 60). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gaskell, P. 1972. A New Introduction to Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. E. 2009. The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goebl, H. 1970. Die Normandische Urkundensprache: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der nordfranzösischen Urkundensprachen des Mittelalters, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Band 269.Google Scholar
Goebl, H. 1995. ‘Französische Skriptaformen III. Normandie. Les scriptae françaises III. Normandie’. Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik, 2(2), pp. 314–37.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Görlach, M. 1990. ‘The development of standard Englishes’. In Görlach, M. (ed.), Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 9‒64. English version of M. Görlach. 1988. ‘Sprachliche Standardisierungsprozesse im englischprachigen Bereich’. In U. Ammon, K. J. Mattheier & P. H. Nelde (eds.), Sociolinguistica: Internationales Jahrbuch für Europӓische Soziolinguistik 2. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Grimm, C. 1991. Zum Mythos Individualstil: mikrostilistische Untersuchungen zu Thomas Mann. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Harpel, O. (1870) Harpel’s Typograph, or Book of Specimens Containing Useful Information, Suggestions and a Collection of Examples of Letterpress Job Printing Arranged for the Assistance of Master Printers, Amateurs, Apprentices, and Others. Cincinnati: Oscar H. Harpel.Google Scholar
Hart, J. [1569] 1955. An Orthographie. In Danielsson, B., John Hart’s Works on English Orthography and Pronunciation [1551. 1569. 1576], 2 vols. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 165–228.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1966. ‘Dialect, language, nation’. American Anthropologist, 68, pp. 922–35.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1987. ‘Language planning’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J. & Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics, vol. I. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, pp. 626–37.Google Scholar
Heikkonen, K. 1996. ‘Regional variation in standardization: a case study of Henry V’s Signet Office’. In Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 111–27.Google Scholar
Hellinga, L. 2014. Texts in Transit: Manuscript to Proof and Print in the Fifteenth Century. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. M. 2015. Sociolinguistic Styles (Language in Society). Maiden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.). 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Malden; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hladký, J. 1985. ‘Notes on the history of word division in English’. Brno Studies in English, 16, pp. 73–83.Google Scholar
Hodges, R. 1649. The Plainest Directions for the True-Writing of English […]. London: William Dugard for Thomas Euster.Google Scholar
Hope, J. 2000. ‘Rats, bats, sparrows and dogs: biology, linguistics and the nature of Standard English’. In Wright, L. (ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. 1969. ‘Language and its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts by Ronald W. Langacker’. Language, 45(4), pp. 886–97.Google Scholar
Howard-Hill, T. 2006. ‘Early modern printers and the standardization of English spelling’. The Modern Language Review, 101, pp. 16–29.Google Scholar
Hume, A. 1617. Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue […]. London: Truebner & Co.Google Scholar
Jacobi, C. T. 1892. Some Notes on Books and Printing; a Guide for Authors, Publishers, & Others. London: C. Whittingham.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. & Jucker, A.. 1995. ‘The historical perspective in pragmatics’. In Jucker, A. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., Androutsopoulos, J., Sebba, M. & Johnson, S. (eds.). 2012. Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janečková, M. 2009. K jazyku českého baroka. Hláskosloví, pravopis a tisk, označování kvantity. Prague: Arsci.Google Scholar
Jones, R. F. 1953. The Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions Concerning the Vernacular from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, R. M. & Aaron, P. G. (eds.). 2014. Handbook of Orthography and Literacy. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaverina, V.V. 2010. Stanovlenie russko orfografii XVII–XIX vv.: pravopisny uzus i kodifikacii͡ a. Dissertation summary, Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Keszler, B. 2003. ‘A magyar írásjelhasználat és Európa’. Magyar Nyelvőr, 127, pp. 24–36.Google Scholar
Keszler, B. 2004. Írásjeltan: az írásjelhasználat szabályai, problémái és történet. Budapest: National Textbook Publisher.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, F. &. Primus, B.. 2016. ‘Punctuation’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 114–31.Google Scholar
Klinkenberg, J-M. & Polis, S.. 2018. ‘On scripturology’. Signata. Annals of Semiotics 9/ Signatures. Sémiotique de l’écriture, 9, pp. 57–102.Google Scholar
Krogull, A. 2018. Policy versus practice: language variation and change in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch. Dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT), Utrecht.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1976. English Phonology and Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 2004. ‘Ut custodiant litteras: editions, corpora and witnesshood’. In Dossena, M. & Lass, R. (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
Lepschy, A. L. & Lepschy, G. 2008. ‘Punteggiatura e linguaggio’. In Garavelli, B. Mortara (ed.), Storia della punteggiatura in Europa. Rome-Bari: Laterza, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Liuzza, R. M. 1996. ‘Orthography and historical linguistics’. Journal of English Linguistics, 24(1), pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
Pombo, Llamas. 2020. ‘Punctuation in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century French and Spanish: a model of diachronic and comparative graphematics’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–123.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. & Strässler, J.. 2008. ‘Introduction: standards and norms’. In Locher, M. A. & Strässler, J. (eds.), Standards and Norms in the English Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Lutz, A. 1986. ‘The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts’. English Studies, 67(3), pp. 193–210.Google Scholar
Maas, U. 2007. ‘Die Grammatikalisierung der satzinternen Großschreibung: Zur schriftkulturellen Dimension der Orthographieentwicklung’. In Redder, A. (ed.), Diskurse und Texte: Festschrift für Konrad Ehlich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 385–99.Google Scholar
MacKellar, T. 1866. The American Printer: A Manual of Typography, Containing Complete Instructions for Beginners, as Well as Practical Directions for Managing Every Department of a Printing Office. Philadelphia: MacKellar Smiths & Jordan.Google Scholar
Malone, E. A. 2006. ‘Learned correctors as technical editors: specialization and collaboration in early modern European printing houses’. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(4), pp. 389–424.Google Scholar
Martin, G. (trans.). New Testament: 1582. The Nevv Testament […]. Reims: John Fogny; Old Testament: 1609‒1610. The Holie Bible […]. Douai: Laurence Kellam.Google Scholar
Martineau, F. 2013. ‘Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage’. In van der Wal, M. J. & Rutten, G. (eds.), Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-documents. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129–47.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A.. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, D. F. 2002. ‘Printing and publishing 1557–1700: constraints on the London book trades’. In Barnard, J. & McKenzie, D. F. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. IV: 1557–1695. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 553–67.Google Scholar
McKitterick, D. 1992. A History of Cambridge University Press, vol. I: Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge 1534–1698. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLelland, N. 2014. ‘Language description, prescription and usage in seventeenth-century German’. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W. (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1700: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–76.Google Scholar
Meisenburg, T. 1990. ‘Die großen Buchstaben und was sie bewirken können: Zur Geschichte der Majuskel im Französischen und Deutschen’. In Raible, W. (ed.), Erscheinungsformen kultureller Prozesse: Jahrbuch 1988 des Sonderforschungsbereichs ‘Übergänge und Spannungsfelder zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 281–315.Google Scholar
Meletis, D. 2019. ‘The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing’. Writing Systems Research, 11(1), pp. 26–49.Google Scholar
Meletis, D. 2020. The Nature of Writing: A Theory of Grapholinguistics. Brest: Fluxus Editions.Google Scholar
Mihm, A. 2007. Sprachwandel im Spiegel der Schriftlichkeit: Studien zum Zeugniswert der historischen Schreibsprachen des 11. bis 17. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 1992b. ‘Middle English dialectology’. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. 1994. ‘The notion of “standard language” and its applicability to the study of Early Modern English pronunciation’. In Stein, D. & Tieken‒Boon, I. van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600‒1800. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19‒29.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 2000. ‘Historical description and the ideology of the standard language’. In Wright, L. (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (Studies in English Language). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 2001. ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), pp. 530–55.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. 2007. ‘Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes’. In Cain, C. M. & Russom, G. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III. Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 149–72.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, J.. 1985a. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.. 1985b. ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’. Journal of Linguistics, 21, pp. 339–84.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 3rd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mortara Garavelli, B. 2008. Storia della Punteggiatura in Europa. Rome; Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Mountford, J. 1989. ‘Language and writing-systems’. In Collinge, N. E. (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language. London: Routledge, pp. 701–39.Google Scholar
Moxon, J. 1683. Mechanick Exercises: or the Doctrine of Handy-Works […], vol. I. London: J. Moxon at the sign of the Atlas on Ludgate Hill.Google Scholar
Mulcaster, R. 1582. The First Part of the Elementarie […]. London: Tomas Vautroullier.Google Scholar
Neef, M., Sahel, S. & Weingarten, R. (eds.). 2012 . ‘Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistic’. In Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wsk [accessed 28 June 2021].Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 2012. ‘Variable focusing in English spelling between 1400 and 1600’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–65.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 2015. ‘What are historical sociolinguistics?’. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1(2), 243–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2005. ‘Sociolinguistics and the history of English: a survey’. International Journal of English Studies, 5(1), pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2012. ‘Historical sociolinguistics: origins, motivations, and paradigm’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde Silvestre, J. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2016. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & van Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon. 2006. ‘Standardisation’. In Hogg, R. & Denison, D. (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar
Nichols, S. G. 1990. ‘Introduction: philology in a manuscript culture’. Speculum, 65(1), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Nowak, J. 2019. ‘Satzinterne Großschreibung diachron-kontrastiv: Englisch – Niederländisch – Deutsch’. In Szczepaniak, R., Hartmann, S. & Dücker, L. (eds.), Historische Korpuslinguistik (Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte 10). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 96–118.Google Scholar
Osipov, B. I. 1992. История русской орфографии и пунктуации. Novosibirsk: University Publishing House.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2021. Oxford University Press, http://dictionary.oed.com/ [accessed 3 May 2021].Google Scholar
Parkes, M. B. 1976. ‘The influence of the concepts of ordinatio and compilatio on the development of the book’. In Alexander, J. J. G. & Gibson, M. T. (eds.), Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 115–41, and IX–XVI.Google Scholar
Peikola, M., Mäkilähde, A., Varila, M.-L., Salmi, H. & Skaffari, J. (eds.). 2017. Verbal and Visual Communication in Early English Texts. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Percy, C. 2012. ‘Standardization: codifiers’. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1006–20.Google Scholar
Peter, R. (in collaboration with C. Fischer and N. Nagel). 2017. Atlas spätmittelalterlicher Schreibsprachen des niederdeutschen Altlandes und angrenzender Gebiete (ASnA). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Petti, A. G. 1977. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, B. B. 2009. Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. 1980. ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’. Speculum, 55(4), pp. 726–50.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., Kilpiö, M., Nevanlinna, S., Taavitsainen, I., Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 1991. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Robinson, A. 2009. Writing and Script: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rocha, L. M. 1998. ‘Selected self-organization and the semiotics of evolutionary systems’. In Van de Vijver, G., Salthe, S. N. & Delpos, M. (eds.), Evolutionary Systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 341–58.Google Scholar
Roe, G. E. 1996. Writing Instruments: A Technical History and How They Work. Stockport: G. E. Roe.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. 2005. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Rogos, J. 2013. ‘Crafting text language: spelling systems in manuscripts of the “Man of Law’s Tale” as a means of constructing scribal community of practice’. In Kopaczyk, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–21.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1998. ‘Introduction’. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Rössler, P. 2005. Schreibvariation, Sprachregion, Konfession: Graphematik und Morphologie in österreichischen und bayerischen Drucken vom 16. bis ins 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rössler, P., Besl, P. & Saller, A. (eds.). 2021. Vergleichende Interpunktion – Comparative Punctuation (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruszkiewicz, P. 1976. Modern Approaches to Graphophonemic Investigations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Rutkowska, H. 2012. ‘Linguistic levels: orthography’. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. I. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 224–37.Google Scholar
Rutkowska, H. 2013a. Orthographic Systems in Thirteen Editions of the ‘Kalender of Shepherdes’ (1506–1656) (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rutkowska, H. 2013b. ‘Typographical and graphomorphemic features of five editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes as elements of the early printers’ community of practice’. In Kopaczyk, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–49.Google Scholar
Rutkowska, H. 2016. ‘Orthographic regularization in Early Modern English printed books: grapheme distribution and vowel length indication’. In Russi, C. (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw; Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 165–93.Google Scholar
Rutkowska, H. & Rössler, P.. 2012. ‘Orthographic variables’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Camilo Conde-Silvestre, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 213–36.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. 2016. ‘Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: Evidence from Dutch’. In Russi, C. (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 194–218.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. 2019. Language Planning as Nation Building: Ideology, Policy and Implementation in the Netherlands, 1750–1850. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. & Vosters, R.. 2013. ‘Une tradition néerlandaise? Du bon usage aux Pays-Bas (1686–1830)’. In Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M. (eds.), Bon usage et variation sociolinguistique: perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Editions de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), pp. 233–43.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. J.. 2014. Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruus, H. 2005. ‘The development of Danish from the mid-16th century to 1800’. In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E. H., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P & Teleman, U. (eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1282–91.Google Scholar
Ryan, D. 2016. ‘Linguists’ descriptions of the English writing system’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 41–64.Google Scholar
Saggs, H. 1989. Civilization Before Greece and Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sairio, A. 2009. Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network: Sociolinguistic Issues in Eighteenth-century Epistolary English (Mémoires de La Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 75). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Salmon, V. 1999. ‘Orthography and punctuation’. In Lass, R. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–55.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 1985. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. 1969 [1963]. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’. In Lass, R. (ed.), Approaches to English Historical Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 404–18 [Repr. from English Studies, 44, pp. 81–94].Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution, with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. 1981. ‘Spelling and dialect in the late and post-Middle English periods’. In Benskin, M. & Samuels, M. L. (eds.), So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project, pp. 43–54.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. [1921] 1949. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. [1915] 1993. Troisième cours de linguistique generale (1910–1911): d’après les cahiers d’Emile Constantin, ed. Komatsu, E. & Harris, R.. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Schaeken, J. 2019. Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia. Leiden; Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Schlögl, R. 2013. Alter Glaube und moderne Welt. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Scholfield, P. 2016. ‘Modernization and standardization since the seventeenth century’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 143–61.Google Scholar
Scragg, D. G. 1974. A History of English Spelling. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Severus, S. 2nd quarter of the ninth century. Vita Martini. Paris, BnF, lat. 10848.Google Scholar
Sgall, P. 1987. ‘Towards a theory of phonemic orthography’. In Luelsdorff, P. A. (ed.), Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Schoemaker, B. & Rutten, G.. 2019. ‘One nation, one spelling, one school: writing education and the nationalisation of orthography in the Netherlands (1750–1850)’. Paedagogica Historica, 55, pp. 754–71.Google Scholar
Shute, R. 2017. ‘Pressed for space: the effects of justification and the printing process on fifteenth-century orthography’. English Studies, 98(3), pp. 262–82.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. 1935. Proof-reading in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, J. J. 2012. ‘From Middle English to Early Modern English’. In Mugglestone, L. (ed.), The Oxford History of English, updated edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–79.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. 2015. Manuscript Communication: Visual and Textual Mechanics of Communication in Hagiographical Texts from the Southern Low Countries, 900–1200. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. 2000. A Computational Theory of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, J. & Kenny, L.. 2013. ‘Revisiting transmission and diffusion: an agent-based model of vowel chain shifts across large communities’. Language Variation and Change, 25, pp. 119–53.Google Scholar
Stenroos, M. 2004. ‘Regional dialects and spelling conventions in late Middle English. Searches for (th) in LALME data’. In Dossena, M. & Lass, R. (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 257–85.Google Scholar
Šinkūnas, M. 2014. ‘Mažosios Lietuvos raštų ortografijos reforma XVII amžiuje: I. Pučiamųjų priebalsių ir afrikatų žymėjimas’. Archivum Lithuanicum, 16, pp. 9–58.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. & Fitzmaurice, S.. 2007. ‘Historical pragmatics: what it is and how to do it’. In Fitzmaurice, Susan & Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P., Hiltunen, T., Mäkinen, M., Marttila, V., Ratia, M., Suhr, C. & Tyrkkö, J. (compilers). 2010. Early Modern English Medical Texts. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Denis, D.. 2014. ‘Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy. Evidence from Canada’. Language, 90, pp. 90–136.Google Scholar
Tamošiūnaitė, A. 2015. ‘Defining “Lithuanian”: orthographic debates at the end of the nineteenth century’. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Tesnière, M-H. 2020. ‘The mise-en-page in Western manuscripts’. In Coulson, F. & Babcock, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Latin Palaeography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–32.Google Scholar
Traxel, O. M. 2004. Language Change, Writing and Textual Interference in Post-Conquest Old English Manuscripts: The Evidence of Cambridge University Library, Ii. l. 33. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Trice Martin, C. 1892. The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records. London: Reeves and Turner.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Tyrkkö, J. 2013. ‘Printing houses as communities of practice: orthography in early modern medical books’. In Kopaczyk, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–75.Google Scholar
Upward, C. & Davidson, G.. 2011. The History of English Spelling. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, W. 2002. ‘The standardization of Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upper class documents in 19th century Flanders’. In Linn, A. & McLelland, N. (eds.), Standardization: Studies from the Germanic Languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Videsott, P. 2009. Padania scrittologica. Analisi scrittologiche e scrittometriche di testi in italiano settentrionale antico dalle origini al 1525. Tübingen: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Villa, L. & Vosters, R. (eds.). 2015. The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling (Special issue of Written Language & Literacy 18(2)). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Voeste, A. 2007. ‘Traveling through the Lexicon: “self-organized” spelling changes’. Written Language & Literacy, 10(2), pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
Voeste, A. 2008. Orthographie und Innovation: Die Segmentierung des Wortes im 16. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Voeste, A. 2012. ‘The emergence of suprasegmental spellings in German’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 167–91.Google Scholar
Voeste, A. 2015. ‘Proficiency and efficiency: why German spelling changed in early modern times’. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 248–59. (Special issue ed. L. Villa & R. Vosters.)Google Scholar
Voeste, A. 2020. ‘Investigating methods: intra-textual, inter-textual and cross-textual variable analyses’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–53.Google Scholar
Vosters, R 2011. Taalgebruik, taalnormen en taalbeschouwing in Vlaanderen tijdens het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Een historisch-sociolinguïstische verkenning van vroeg-negentiende-eeuws Zuidelijk Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Vosters, R. & Rutten, G.. 2015. ‘Three Southern shibboleths: spelling features as conflicting identity markers in the Low Countries’. Written Language & Literacy, 18, pp. 160–74.Google Scholar
Vosters, R., Rutten, G. & Vandenbussche, W.. 2012. ‘The sociolinguistics of spelling: a corpus-based case study of orthographical variation in nineteenth-century Dutch in Flanders’. In van Kemenade, A. & de Haas, N. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 253–74.Google Scholar
Völker, H. 2003. Skripta und Variation: Untersuchungen zur Negation und zur Substantivflexion in altfranzösischen Urkunden der Grafschaft Luxemburg (1237–1281). Tübingen: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. 2015. ‘Setting the scene: letters, standards and historical sociolinguistics’. In Auer, A., Schreier, D. & Watts, R. J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Wright, L. 1994. ‘On the writing of the history of Standard English’. In Fernandez, F., Fuster Márquez, M. & Calvo, J. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–15.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (ed.) 2020. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin; Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar