Utterance-initial connective elements in early Scottish epistolary prose

Anneli Meurman-Solin, Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki

1. Introduction

This study is related to my recent research in which I have examined utterance-initial co-ordinator-like and adverbial elements which share connecting and structuring functions at the levels of discourse and text. Most recently, I have investigated the four utterance-initial connectives and, for, but, and only (Meurman-Solin forthcoming, a), positioning their use in discourse and text on the continuum of evolving grammars and registers of prose writing in the history of English. While the main question in that study was how the frequency and use of these utterance-initial connectives affected information structural preferences and the development of “grammars of prose” (Perret 1988; on the evolution of styles of writing, see also, e.g., Adamson 1999, Claridge 2007, Kohnen 2007, Lenker 2010), closely related questions were also asked. When did grammars develop in which looser links between chunks of text, those realised by and, for and but, for example, become less frequent? When did prose writing start reflecting a preference for semantically explicit adverbial connectors and syntactically hierarchicising adverbial subordinators at the clause- and sentence-level? Even though there is clear evidence of the general tendencies in this process of change from looser links to semantically explicit links (Lenker 2010), the data this study was based on proved to be insufficient in the sense that the time-span of the two corpora used as the data source, the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence (CSC), 1500–1715, and the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEEC), 1418–1680, still represents a transition period, the development of the new system taking place only later. As Lenker (2010: 9) points out in her discussion of adverbial connectors in long diachrony, ‘the English of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries … sees crucial changes in (a) the preference of adverbial connectors over coordinating conjunctions and their collocations, and (b) the sentence position of adverbial connectors’. See also Lenker & Meurman-Solin (2007).

In Meurman-Solin (2007a), I examined discourse and text structure by analysing systems of anaphoric reference signals. The aim was to develop criteria for the identification of relative links which vary with personal pronouns and deictic expressions, both pronouns and adverbials, at the sentence level. This study extracted data from the multi-genre Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (HCOS), 1450–1700, showing that there is a distinct category of “relative connectives”, which is particularly frequent as a subject and in relative adverbials such as whereapon, whereat, wherefor, and until which time in sentence-initial position (see also Meurman-Solin 2000).

Benefiting from evidence provided by these earlier studies, the present study aims to improve our understanding of utterance, discourse, and text structure by expanding the range of utterance-initial connective elements attested in the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence (CSC), 1500–1715. Besides a quantitative analysis over time, the aim is to examine the functions and contextual features of these items in discourse and text structure. The analysis will permit us to position the co-ordinator-like items such as and and but, those retaining their ability to create logical links and to mark information status, such as for, only and as (also), and others used in explicitly adverbial roles such as therefore, thus, and yet on a continuum according to how their use can be related to the evolution of prose writing, epistolary prose in this particular case. Depending on the position of an item on this continuum, it will be regarded as a connective or a connector. The term “connective” refers here to a co-ordinator-like item such as and, and categorially fuzzy items such as for, signalling links between utterances and chunks of discourse in various functions. The term “connector” refers here to adverbial connectors such as yet (cf. Lenker 2010: 1, fn. 2). The expression ‘connective element’ is used as an umbrella concept applicable to both connectives and connectors.

2. Data and retrieval method

The Corpus of Scottish Correspondence (CSC), 1500–1715, is a manuscript-based, lexico-grammatically annotated corpus which comprises diplomatically edited original manuscripts of royal, official, and private letters by writers originating from the various regions of Scotland.

Detailed information about the CSC corpus is available online (e.g., via the VARIENG site):

• The online CSC Manual
• See also CoRD
• See Meurman-Solin (2007c)

In the present context, the most important feature of this particular database is that no normalisation or modernisation has been allowed in the transcription and digitisation of the texts and thus the syntactic structure remains as in the original. For a comparison of nineteenth-century editions of Scottish letters and the CSC transcripts, see Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, b).

Seeing punctuation, spacing, or capitalisation, for example, do not indicate syntactic structure by means of the same or similar devices (or, from the modern perspective, as regularly and systematically) in these sixteenth- and seventeenth-century letters as in modern or modernised texts, it has been necessary to develop new methods for the identification of utterance boundaries in these historical texts. Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, b) contains numerous digital images of manuscripts in the CSC as well as information about such features of visual prosody as largely idiosyncratic punctuation systems, spacing and marked character shapes that reflect syntactic structure. In Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a), the method which is used for utterance analysis (see the Appendix) is illustrated by marking utterance boundaries in a seventeenth-century letter.

The selection of utterance-initial connective elements discussed here is based on inventories created by using the list in Appendix A2 in Lenker (2010). However, only those occurring in utterance-initial position have been included in the data. Enumerative (e.g., first and finally), summative (e.g., altogether and in sum), and modal (e.g., certainly and truly) connectors have also been excluded, the first two representing a very infrequent structuring device in family letters. In my view, the items belonging to the third group are closely related to author involvement (Biber 1988, Meurman-Solin 1997), and their function is not directly comparable to that of discourse- and text-organising items. [1] In general, in both Lenker (2010) and the present study, the analysis of the connective or connector function is based on a careful reading of the context and co-text of each instance. I would also like to stress that uses in epistolary prose may differ from those in other genres and registers because of the conventionalised move structure.

The utterance-initial position has been indicated in the annotation, which has facilitated the retrieval of relevant examples. For more information on the annotation of the CSC corpus, see Manual and Meurman-Solin 2007b.

Since the 2007 version of the CSC corpus only contains approximately 250,000 words, some connectives or connectors are quite infrequent or do not occur at all. Section 3.1 provides a quantitative account of the items recorded in the CSC. [2] However, where the 2007 version of the corpus is not sufficiently representative for investigating less frequently occurring items, the approach is qualitative. The forthcoming Extension of the Corpus of Correspondence (ECSC) will allow a statistically significant account, as well as extending the range of utterance-initial items sharing the connective function.

3. Utterance-initial connective elements

3.1 A quantitative analysis

As pointed out, the data for the quantitative analysis of utterance-initial adverbial connectors has been retrieved primarily drawing on the inventory in Lenker (2010: Appendix A2). To allow comparison with her findings, the semantic categorisation is also the same. Numerous items in this Appendix have not been attested in the CSC.

In addition to and, but, and for, which are discussed in detail in Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a), Table 1 is based on the occurrences of the following items (in order of decreasing number of occurrences):

Table 1 shows that the general frequency of utterance-initial connective elements is quite high (147.5/10,000), but the mean frequency remains relatively stable across the four time-periods, except that a slight increase is suggested by the finding in the 1650–1715 sub-period. [3]

Table 1 also shows that the mean frequencies of the first three features are much higher than those of any of the unambiguously adverbial connectors, whether grouped according to their semantic role or examined individually. As Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a) mentions, an s-curve has been attested in the frequencies of the utterance-initial connective and, but, despite a decrease, its frequency remains high compared with the other connective elements. The mean frequencies of but and for clearly increase over time, these two also being considerably more frequent than the utterance-initial adverbial connectors. [4] Items representing the category of result come close to for in terms of mean frequency because of the frequencies of therefore (6.0/10,000) and especially so (11.3/10,000), the latter showing as high a frequency as 17.1 (/10,000) in the first half of the seventeenth century (on the relevance of contextual features, see sections 3.2–3.6). While the mean frequency of the semantic category of contrast/concession is 11.2 (/10,000), the remaining three semantic categories are shown to remain at 2.2–5.1 (/10,000). The three most frequent items in the category of contrast/concession are yet (6.1), always (2.3), and only (1.3/10,000), the remaining six items having a very low frequency (0.2–0.4).

As pointed out in section 1, the general assumption in this study is that the semantically looser links will decrease in frequency and the semantically more explicit adverbial links will gain ground. While Table 1 shows that the former still remain considerably more frequent than the latter, Table 2 illustrates that the development in the frequencies of the CCCC-connectors [5] over time forms an s-curve:

Table 2 identifies the early stage of a trend towards semantically explicit adverbial links. However, it is necessary to stress the fact that the use of so and therefore, for example, is closely related to particular discourse features (see section 3.2).

3.2 Connectors in the category of result

Table 3 provides the mean frequencies of so, therefore, thus, and herefor in utterance-initial position:

The most important finding is that all the four connectors occur almost exclusively in marked contexts. [6] With the exception of four occurrences, three of them in the fourth sub-period, thus is used in the concluding section of a letter, in the majority of cases introducing letter-closing formulae: [7]

(1)

yus beseikis anser of zour grace quhom~ [whom] god conserue

(CSC 1543 StewartCR54301)

(2)

Yuss efftyr mast hartle commendatione~ to zur L [lordship] I pray god to consseryff [conserve] zur L evyr

(CSC 1554 4Huntly55401)

(3)

thus rembring my seruice to my ladie and remitting all farther to this berar I rest Zour lo [lordship’s] Cusing \ and seruantt Mar

(CSC 1634 7Mar63401)

(4)

Thus wish\ing the lord to blesse your Noble lord your la [ladyship] your hopeful chil\dren I doe ever continue \ Madame \ your la/ obleiged \ servant in theis \ James Fergusson

(CSC 1664 FergussonJ66401)

Examples (1)–(4) illustrate that the context is marked by (i) conventional expressions of best wishes, including the protection of God, addressing only the recipient or also his or her family, (ii) formulae functioning as assurances of loyalty, (iii) a fixed phrase (such as til meeting) referring to a wished-for meeting in the near future, or (iv) information about the bearer providing more information on the matter discussed in the letter or its writer’s circumstances (see example (3)).

Similarly, therefore and the rare herefor typically introduce requests, thus indicating that a particular discourse type follows:

(5)

therefore pleiss zo^r grais [grace] to gif yaim na credence quhat evir [whatever] yai raport of me

(CSC 1524 6Angus52401)

(6)

thair\for I must intreat your Lo [lordship] to adwyse me quhat is best

(CSC 1600 8Argyll60001)

(7)

therefore delaye not to vret [write] to me at lenth

(CSC 1600 KeithMA60002)

(8)

therefore my direstt heartt cause John grigor with your consentt sell itt as itt bestt will

(CSC 1662 3Findlater66201)

(9)

herefor sir I will alss reqwest zow to send me ye acqwyttans quhilk the Laird zour gwidsir resawit [received]

(CSC 1588 GrahamMJ58801)

The proportion of requests as the marked contextual feature of therefore is as follows:

As discussed in Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a), there is another marked context in which utterance-initial connective elements tend to be used: in addition to the dialogic type, i.e., assurance, suggestion, and request, there is a monologic type represented by expressions of first-person stance (see Note 6).

(10)

and therefore I beleve y^t [that] france and yngland hes Jonyt [joined] yame self in mutuale kyndnes mair surelie yan of befoir

(CSC 1546 OtterburnAA54607)

(11)

Therefore I tho^t [thought] gwid [good] agane to requeist zow to lat zowr hono\ble frindis be zowr iugdis

(CSC 1611 1LDunkeld61101)

(12)

therfore I am content your la [ladyship] intromet with it your selfe

(CSC 1640 ErskineCCh64001)

The proportion of stance as the marked context of therefore is as follows:

Figure 1 permits us to compare the proportions of the contextual types:

Figure 1 illustrates the salience of expressions of first-person stance and especially requests as the discourse types therefore is used to introduce in the data (on the representativeness of the data in the period 1550–1599, see Note 3).

It is striking that the most frequent adverbial connector in the result category, namely so, should also mostly connect the letter-closing formulae with the body of the text:

(13)

So wishing your lo [lordship] all perfite happines I rest your lo [lordship’s] affectionat seruant

(CSC 1625 1Haddington62503)

(14)

Sua recommending this to zour lo [lordship’s] Vyse [wise] Consideration I rest Zour lo Cousing \ to serue zou. \ Argyll

(CSC c1600 7Argyll60001)

(15)

So taking my leiue [leave] I praye God blis [bless] zou and be \ with zou \ Zour luuing [loving] Mother Annes Keith

(CSC c1600 KeithMA60009)

The considerably higher mean frequency in 1600–1649 (cf. Table 3) reflects conventionalisation of the practice of using so as a text-structuring device.

In sum, the pattern in the result category suggests that so, therefore, and thus are hierarchically higher among the various connective elements because, by introducing chunks of text sharing the same communicative function, they have the role of macro-organisers in the text.

3.3 Connectors in the category of contrast/concession

Table 4 shows that with the exception of yet, always ‘in any event’, and only, the mean frequencies of connectors in the contrast/concession category are very low, (how(so)ever, nevertheless, nonetheless, notwithstanding, and still ranging from below 0.1 to 0.4): [8]

The connective only, especially its syntactic fuzziness, is discussed in detail in Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a). In this section therefore, the discussion focuses on the two most frequent concessive connectors always ‘in any event’ and yet.

The pre-1650 examples of utterance-initial always in the OED originate from northern texts. In fact, this connective is particularly frequent in letters representing Northern Scots in the CSC, such as those by Alexander Gordon, postulate of Caithness, and Alexander Gordon of Navidale.

The earliest example in the OED, given in example (16), illustrates a use in which always relates to the concessive subordinator how be it that in an initially-positioned adverbial clause:

(16)

How be it that he had grete pyte [pity] and compassyon of her ... alwayes he determyned hymself and went his way

(OED 1490 CAXTON Eneydos xxi. 76)

However, in the CSC, there are only two examples of a main clause introduced by always related to a subordinate clause of concession (introduced by albet in (17) and houbeit in (18); for further information, see Sorva 2006, Sorva 2007):

(17)

Alwayis I hawe bein wsing my best meanes to your lo [lordship’s] behowes albet I cwm litill sped [‘failed to achieve the desired aim’] heir be reasone of the former great levies

(CSC 1627 9Erroll62701)

(18)

alwayes I hoip ye will not be offended therwith houbeit tedious to read

(CSC 1645 ForbesW64501)

The following paraphrases are provided in the OED for this sense 3: ‘In any or every circumstance; whatever the circumstances; whatever happens, whatever one may do or say; in any event, anyhow’.

Unlike the case of now and also (see sections 3.4 and 3.5), for instance, the occurrence of always in a connective bundle of a transitional item and an adverbial connector (such as but always) in the left periphery is rare (only four examples of the total of 58). Despite the relatively low frequency, a pattern emerges in the contextual analysis, the concessive aspect of always ‘whatever other things we (either the writer or the addressee) might want to discuss further (in addition to those mentioned in the letter)’ being highlighted. In 45 per cent of occurrences, always is followed by an expression of first-person stance (examples (19)–(21)), and in 28 per cent of the cases, by a narrative (example (22)). It introduces a request or a recommendation in 27 per cent of the instances (examples (23)–(24)):

(19)

Bo^t always I feir [fear] we do lytyll at yis tym”

(CSC 1548 GordonCA54804)

(20)

always I wisch your Lo [lordship] may not be slo [slow] in your oune busines least [lest] your Lo neglect mak your self bear the bleam [blame] of your oune misfortoune

(CSC 1628 8Argyll62802)

(21)

allwayis I am glaid he hes no bleam as zit to ley [lay] to our charge

(CSC 1627 GordonNA62701)

(22)

allways nou I haue tene [taken] my liue [leave] both of the king and of the prence

(CSC 1622 ErskineBJ62201)

(23)

allwayis lat him wryt to me w^t [with] onie of his crearis [crayers] [ellipted subject] cumis to this towne

(CSC 1627 GordonNA62701)

(24)

alwayis ze wilbe weill to adwyis wt [with] zur wyis [wise] freindis speciallye wt mr jhone montreiff

(CSC 1600 StewartGT60003)

(25)

always remiting all to your Lo [lordship’s] self I rest Your Lo Lowing sonne to serwe you

(CSC 1629 8Argyll62902)

(26)

allwayis I remit all to your owin wisdome & goode consideration" not douting bot ze will wse the best courss ze can yarin [therein]

(CSC 1636 GordonNA63602)

Besides the letter-closing formulae in (25) and (26), the writer’s assurances of loyalty have also developed into conventionalised politeness strategies:

(27)

Bot alwayis y^t [that] aduersete nor feir [fear] of deid [death] sall neuer cum to me y^t sall gar [‘cause’] me offend zow^r g [grace]

(CSC 1548 GordonCA54805)

(28)

su?e? [so] always in this and all other things [ellipted subject] concerns your Lo [lordship] thair shall be nothing wanting in me to proowe [prove] my \ self \ Your Lo / lowing \ sone to serwe you \ Lorne

(CSC 1627 8Argyll62702)

(29)

allwayis will asswre zow^r g [grace] y^t [that] ye pwre [poor] witt and mynd god hes gyfin [given] me sall be vigilent to that thyng

(CSC 1549 GordonCA54903)

Yet in initial position in a main clause is considerably more frequently related to a subordinator of concession than always, especially in the latter half of the seventeenth century:

The proportion of uses of yet as unrelated to a concessive conjunction in an adjacent subordinate clause decreases over time from 100 to 43 per cent of the total occurrences. The mean frequency of these uses is especially high in 1600–1649 (5.7/10,000), having increased from 0.8 to 3.8 in the sixteenth century. A decrease to a mean frequency of 2.8 is recorded in 1650–1715. While the mean frequency of yet as an utterance-initial connector unrelated to a concessive subordinator decreases, that of yet in main clauses related to adjacent subordinate clauses of concession increases over time (from 0.8 to 3.7/10,000).

3.4 Connectors in the category of time

Non-conventionalised adverbial phrases of time occurring in utterance-initial position as a result of fronting have not been included in the analysis, even though their role in structuring narratives in particular is important. Besides now and then, the present study restricts the focus to the variants of Present-Day English in the mean time. Since the role of time is an important dimension in the communicative situation of letter-writing, defining the uses of now and then as devices structuring an argumentative text, for example, does not seem justified in general. Even though a number of instances may remain ambiguous, these two items have both been regarded primarily as connectors of time.

In 68 per cent of the occurrences, now is preceded by another text-structuring connective (and, so or but), there being a decrease in these connective bundles from 100 and 83 in the sixteenth century to 64 and 59 per cent in the seventeenth (cf. also in 3.5) (on lexical bundles and collocations, see Biber et al. 1999: section 13.2). The autonomy of the utterances may be stressed by the immediately following term of address, as illustrated by examples (30) and (33).

(30)

and now (broyer) since I haue obtened libertie \ to cum” and visitt ye contrey, haueing sett catione [caution] wnder paine off fyue thow\sand merkis ayer [either] to subscrywe & suear, or ellis to entir in waird again” at \ mertimes nixt, I wald not haue gottin” relief without I haid sett yis \ catione;

(CSC 1615 12Sutherland615h121)

(31)

So now In the last sessioun I tuik occasion to remember wnto zour lo [lordship] the satling [settling] off that particular

(CSC 1624 1Airlie62401)

(32)

but now I thank God I am much recover\ed

(CSC 1699 1Cromarty69901)

(33)

now my direst heart teak [take] head ye ofend naither god nor yourselfe by immo\deratt grive [grief]

(CSC 1669 3Findlater66902)

(34)

butt noue blessed be god I heave dun [done] my exchecker and counsell bussi\nes verie weall

(CSC 1669 3Findlater66902)

(35)

and nou withall I intreat your Lo [lordship] as your Lo knoes best hou to remember his M^a [Majesty] of that fawour

(CSC 1600 8Argyll60004)

As regards discourse type, the largest proportion of the uses of now occurs in narrative discourse, the conveyance of first-person stance remaining at circa 20 to 30 per cent and the presentation of requests at 5 to 10 per cent in the various time periods. A salient contextual feature is the occurrence of an immediately following topic-forming adverbial clause such as one introduced by seeing (that) (cf. the general pattern in the positioning of clauses referring to “Given” information in Meurman-Solin & Pahta 2006):

(36)

nobill Lord nou seaing the resolutiounes so posatife [positive] that ar taken a gainst [against] us nesessatie emforsis [enforces] eather [either] a going out of the Countrie, or giuing obediance

(CSC c1600 3MHamilton600h14)

(37)

and nowe seinge your lo [lordship] and the Rest of our noble freinds hes the differenceis Referred to you yat is betuix us; I do beseiche you \ go one to make an end of it

(CSC 1629 3Tullibardine62901)

(38)

And now seing yat he bereifis [bereaves] me of my leifing [living] sowmis [sums] off siluer auchtand [owing] to me [subject ‘he’ left unrepeated] vill no^t mak me compt off his intromissione nor re\leif [relieve] my annwall [annual] renttis [rents]

(CSC 1594 5LOgilvy59401)

A topic-forming when-clause has also been attested in the immediately following context:

(39)

Now when I expect not that any letter of myne [mine] can fynd him at court I must crave leave to trouble your lo [lordship] / with things that occurre

(CSC c1600 1Haddington60002)

An immediately following if-clause may also be topic-forming, referring to the writer’s stance (40); similarly, now may precede a because-clause which refers to circumstances known to the writer (41):

(40)

nou My diear if I wear [were] nott persuaded thatt ye heade [had] greace to dispence with the actings of god … I should be \ loth att such distance to be the messinger of \ some grive [grief] to you

(CSC 1669 3Findlater66902)

(41)

and now becaus I am named in the paper and leist [lest] my absence might be any impediment to your affairs I did fullie \ communicat my thoughts in the particulars to the \ Erle of Lothian

(CSC 1656 9Argyll65601)

Topic-forming adverbial clauses following now may also be non-finite:

(42)

and now haweing cum bake heir I tho^t [thought] goode to wryt these few lynis to zow

(CSC 1628 GordonNA62801)

On the basis of these illustrations, another study is required for a detailed account of findings concerning sequences of frequently co-occurring bundles of particular items in the left periphery. Apart from those illustrated above, utterance-initial now may show a significant correlation pattern with another adverbial of time: and now presently, so now in the last sessioun, & now yis thurisday at evin, now att this terme, etc.

Utterance-initial then is functionally more homogeneous than now in letters, being chiefly used in narratives. It is also less frequent, in the seventeenth century in particular (e.g., now 3.4 and then 0.6 in 1600–1649), which may be diagnostic of the prevalence of narrative passages in letters.

3.5 Connectors in the category of additive/reinforcing

The connectors also and further [9] have a sufficiently high mean frequency to suggest a pattern of use:

As Table 7 illustrates, the mean frequencies (/10,000) of also in the text-structuring function show a considerable decrease over time. The proportion of instances with an immediately preceding connective (and, &, or as) in the various periods is as follows: 1500–1549: 37%; 1550–1599: 20%; 1600–1649: 40%; and 1650–1715: 88%. Interestingly, while this use of also decreases in frequency in general, its occurrence in a sequence of two text-structuring connectives becomes considerably more frequent over time (cf. now in 3.4). Example (43) illustrates its use in a sequence of polite expressions:

(43)

for your Lo [lordship] knoues what is best expedient for me to doe better then [than] my self di?d and allso yee knoue that I will doe nothing with out you as allso your Lo ma?y rest confident? and assoured that ther shall bee nan [none] mor readie and willing to receve your advise and \ commandes then [than] he who in all humilitie shall \ strive to approue himself \ Sir Your / Lo / most affectionat cousing and humbe [humble] servant \ ffindlater

(CSC 1658 3Findlater65801)

(As) also shows the typical tendency to introduce either an expression of first-person stance or a request (in 52 per cent of the instances) or a narrative (48 per cent). [10]

The adverb further in utterance-initial position is particularly frequent in the first half of the sixteenth century in the CSC, 85 per cent of the occurrences having been recorded in pre-1550 letters.

Two contexts are salient: further introduces a conventionalised letter-closing formula (cf. so as discussed in section 3.2) or a polite request, or these two contexts co-occur, as in examples (44) and (47).

(44)

& feryer ples zur graice to yir effectis gif credens to master william \ steward & ye eternell god conserve zur graice

(CSC 1548 1LMethven54802)

(45)

forder god haif zur L [lordship] in hyss kepyng

(CSC 1543 CampbellJ54301)

(46)

farder zour grace sal be aduertisit of all newis y^t [that] occurris be zowr g^ris [grace’s] humill [humble] Obeysand serwitur dribrught

(CSC 1545 ErskineTh54501)

(47)

fordar I refer all vthyr newellis [novels] to my cummyng to zow^r grace Prayand god Madame efter my maist hmyll [humble] commendacion" off hartlye service preser [preserve] yowr nobill grace eternaly

(CSC 1544 GordonCA54402)

3.6 Connectors in the category of contrast/antithetic

Among the three utterance-initial connectors in the contrast/antithesis category, else and otherwise increase in frequency in the seventeenth century but remain as infrequent as this category in general compared with many other adverbial connectors and semantic categories (see Table 1):

In their text-structuring function, else and otherwise are semantically closely related in the CSC letters:

(48)

and ze man [‘must’] mak haist orellis [or else] ze will not find me

(CSC 1543 3Ruthven54301)

(49)

I houp to put him from it or vther vayes ze sal vret [write] to him zour self

(CSC 1600 KeithMA80008)

The salient feature of the immediately following context is that it expresses modalised first-person stance: in (48) ‘or else I am sure you will not find me’ and in (49) ‘or otherwise I am convinced that you will have to write to him yourself’.

Inexperienced writers may use otherwise in the sense of ‘anyway’ or, if interpreted more literally, ‘in other respects’:

(50)

ze ken my nem [name] is deir to me & I beleue so schall my dessyr [desire] be to zou wtheruays Thers [There is] non [ellipted subject] salbed [shall bid] feruell [farewell] to frendchep sunner [sooner] wpon erth then zour Inchengabell coussenge & saruant E K [Elizabeth Ker]

Despite a careful analysis of styles of writing in individual letters, instances of otherwise may remain ambiguous, including that in (50). However, especially when otherwise is preceded by a negated alternative, it is obvious that it is used as a text-structuring connector:

(51)

…as allso I deisiyer yow for your ouene good that ye compone not withe hime one any termes till ye see my warand to hime otherwise ye will wrong yowr selef

(CSC 1666 DouglasQI66601)

4. Conclusion

Utterance-initial connectives and connectors have been shown to belong to those features of language use the frequencies and functions of which can be related to the evolution of registers and styles of writing in English prose representing various genres and text types (Rissanen 2007, Lenker 2010, Lenker, this volume, Meurman-Solin forthcoming, a). However, for the investigation of utterance-initial connective elements over a long time-span, the prerequisite is that it be possible for us to identify utterance boundaries in texts the language of which reflects various grammars, including those which contain numerous idiosyncratic features and lack a detailed description in the literature. There are two problems. Firstly, historical data may be available in editions in which the normalisation or modernisation of the texts have been considered useful for non-linguists such as historians. As illustrated by Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, b), from the perspective of linguists, editing principles of this kind distort the evidence completely, especially in an area such as clause and sentence structure, since the introduction of modern punctuation is one of the most widespread modernisation practices. Thus one of the motivating factors for the present undertaking is the fact that there is a corpus which draws exclusively on diplomatically transcribed and digitised original manuscripts of letters, the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence. Secondly, there is the problem of the necessity of developing quite a sophisticated range of tools for identifying utterance boundaries. Beside linguistic tools, Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, b) suggests that features of visual prosody in manuscripts also provide relevant information.

Once the utterance boundaries have also been identified in diplomatically transcribed and annotated texts in which punctuation, spacing, and capitalisation are not as systematic and standardised as in later (printed) texts, it is possible to create a comprehensive inventory of utterance-initial connectives and connectors. The present study shows that the general frequency of these items is as high as 147.5 (/10,000) but that the mean frequencies remain quite stable over time. However, there is an important difference between the frequencies of the semantically looser links realised by co-ordinator-like items such as and and but and the categorially fuzzy for and the semantically explicit adverbial links in the result, contrast/concession, time, additive/reinforcing, and contrast/antithetic categories.

Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a) provides new knowledge about a grammar of prose in the evolution of English syntax which precedes the stage at which relations between propositions began to be expressed semantically more explicitly by means of adverbial subordinators (see Rissanen, this volume) or adverbial connectors (see Lenker 2010 and Lenker, this volume). The general assumption is that the semantically looser links will decrease in frequency and the semantically more explicit adverbial links will gain ground over time. However, a change of this kind is not reflected in the present findings very clearly, suggesting that it takes place later than the time-span covered by the present corpus. Even though an s-curve depicts the changing frequencies of the utterance-initial connective and in the different sub-periods, its frequency remains higher than that of any other connective element. It is also noteworthy that the mean frequencies of but and for clearly increase over time, so that the assumed decrease in looser or fuzzy links is not corroborated by the present data. However, the quantitative analysis of CCCC-connectors suggests that we may be witnessing the early stage of a trend towards an increase in semantically explicit adverbial links in this particular category.

An important difference both between the five semantic categories of adverbial connector and between individual items has been recorded, the mean frequencies of the categories ranging from 19.1 (result), 11.2 (contrast/concession), 5.1 (time), 4.1 (additive/reinforcing) to contrast/antithetic (2.2/10,000). Only the following five utterance-initial connectors have a mean frequency higher than 2(/10,000): so (11.3), yet (6.1), therefore (6.0), now (2.9) and always (2.3).

I would like to stress the fact that utterance-initial connectives and connectors tend to occur in marked contexts, i.e., they are usually followed by a particular discourse move or type. For example, so, thus, further, and always typically introduce a discourse move realised by conventionalised letter-closing formulae and, in that sense, are hierarchically higher among the various connective elements because of their role as macro-organisers in the text. Connectors such as therefore and the rare herefor typically introduce a particular discourse type, namely requests; apart from requests, the discourse type following a connector is frequently an expression of first-person stance.

As pointed out in standard grammars, particular adverbial connectors may also occur in correlative pairs such as the adverbial subordinator albeit and the adverbial connector yet in the present data. In fact, the mean frequency of yet in main clauses related to adjacent subordinate clauses of concession increases over time. Adverbial connectors may also occur in collocations consisting of a connective and a connector. For example, the connector now is preceded by a text-structuring connective (and, so or but) in 68 per cent of the occurrences. The decrease in these connective bundles from 100 and 83 in the sixteenth-century sub-periods and to 64 and 59 per cent in the seventeenth century can perhaps be related to the general trend away from semantically looser links in the evolution of written prose. However, there are differences between individual connectors in this respect. For example, while the use of the utterance-initial text-structuring also decreases in frequency, its occurrence in a sequence of two text-structuring connective elements becomes considerably more frequent over time.

Notes

[1] Lenker has sorted out the occurrences of adverbs such as certainly and truly, not counting the epistemic or otherwise modal instances.

[2] Two items have been excluded in the quantitative account (Table 1 and Table 7) because they are not included in Lenker’s list (Lenker 2010: Appendix A2): atour ‘moreover’ is very rare in the CSC, there being only three instances dating from 1551–1554; withal ‘in addition, moreover’ occurs six times in the 1600–1649 period, with five of these instances in the collocations and withal and but withal.

[3] The statistical validity of the finding in the 1550–1599 sub-period is doubtful because of the small size of the sample, which is only 13,198 words.

[4] Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a) shows that since for introduces topic-forming clauses, its use can be related to information structural concerns. Lenker (2010: 161–164) considers the connective for ‘comparable to the Latin adverbial connectors nam and enim … , both of which mainly work on the global level of textual organization’. She stresses the distinctive properties of this so-called “recursive for”, termed “transitional” in her study, by pointing out that for ‘gives an independent illocutionary weight to the second connect’, … ‘explicitly marking the voice of the speaker who comments on his view of the relation of textual portions’. Lenker highlights the function of for in ‘sketching or justifying the line of argument of the author’.

[5] Causal, Conditional, Concessive, and Contrastive relations (Couper-Kuhlen & Kortmann 2000, cf. CCC in Kortmann 1997)

[6] A more detailed analysis of the function of “discourse type indicator” is provided in Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a). The discourse types immediately following the four utterance-initial connectives and, for, but, and only are classified into four subcategories: in the element order subcategory, the connective is immediately followed either by a subordinate adverbial clause or a cleft sentence, a fronted element, or some other marked word order; in the narrative subcategory, the connective connects utterances which report events or circumstances; in the first-person stance sub-category, the writer’s personal attitude is expressed either explicitly or implicitly; in the fourth sub-category, assurance, suggestion, or request, utterances convey the writer’s assurance of loyalty, or willingness to serve, or express a suggestion or a request.

[7] Lenker (2010) has considered instances such as (3) and (4) ambiguous, as thus in these may work on either the global or the phrasal level, in the latter synonymous to ‘in this way’. However, in the conventionalised letter-closing move I have regarded these instances as examples of a text-structuring connective use. This argument also applies to my analysis of so in examples (13) and (14).

[8] For information on the adverbial use of albeit and howbeit, see Sorva 2006 and Sorva 2007.

[9] The variant farther occurs only once as an utterance-initial adverbial connector in the CSC.

[10] As regards as, in addition to uses with another connective (e.g., also, likewise), it only occurs twice in a text-structuring function in the CSC data: ‘I will say no mor but hopes ye will doe it shortlie as I wish it be also trew that my lord of skun hes qwet [quit] flakland to you alredie’ (CSC 1616 LivingstonEA61602) and ‘but I pray you lat me hear of it from your self which will mak me haue the greter desyre to liue and sie you ther as I wish my good ladie mar [Mar] pressed [praised] be god growis stronger the neirer her tyme aproches’ (CSC 1616 LivingstonEA61602). These instances illustrate as in the function of signalling that another wish of the writer follows. Semantically and syntactically, the utterance introduced by as is an independent one, the connective corresponding to such Present-Day English connectors as likewise and similarly.

Appendix

The following text has been read in terms of utterances. The use of the term “utterance” stresses the fact that it is usually impossible to analyse early epistolary prose in terms of sentences, not only because of the absence of regularised punctuation and capitalisation, but also because the grammar of writing is based on sequences of particular discourse types and their conventionalised relations to one another. The reading of Charles Erskine’s letter, dating from 1643, is based on my analysis of this particular writer’s way of expressing himself in his letters, but quite similar styles of writing have been attested in other letters, private ones in particular. The symbol || is used to signal the beginning of a new utterance, utterance-initial connectives being in bold. For a discussion of this utterance analysis, see Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a).

{f1r} My deiar heart \\ I am so ouer ioyed sinces the receat of your last letters? \ shoing of your hapie deliuyuerie of a young Charles || for \ so your father calles him || bot ye knoe that it wes not \ my deseyer || I deseyred if a sone Thomas if a \ dochter Elisabeath || and tell him so from me that \ I will blem [blame] no bodie bot you for it || allwayes it \ is suffitient for me that it heath plesit god of his \ mercie to macke you will [well] (||) for the wich I pray youe \ to be myiendfull to thanke god for it as I trust I \ shall doe whilles I lyiue || blisit be his neame \ || for he neuer for souke [forsook] them that trust in him || bot \ his mearcies indoueres [indures] for euer : || send me word houe \ ye was in the tyeme of your siknes || for I knoe ther \ wes manie longe sighe as I haue heard wreaten frome \ scotland to me || it is agenest your promise || and if ye \ brecke youres I will brecke myine and not com home \ so shoune [soon] as I promisid to you : || I haue rec?eauit ane \ letter from your brother Sir Alexander deseyring me to imploye \ bot the hauelfe [half] of the monies [moneys] wpone his wyife watche? \ {del} bot {del} and the rest wpone stufes [stuffs] for to be tuoe [two] gounes \ || as all so he deseyres sume of the best light coulered \ stufes to be {ins} tuoe {ins} pitticotes [petticoats] (||) and {cancellation} deseyres me to draue \ ane bill wpone his father or wpon him sellfe for \ the monies || I wat [wit] not weill what to doe || for his \ wyife wacthe is prowyided allredy and littell or no \ monies leffet to speake of || send me your openion \ quyitlyie whirthe [whether] I shall draue the bill wpon his \ father for the super pluse of the monie or himselfe \ or if I shall bouruit [borrow it] my sellfe || doe this quyitly \ || for I haue wreaten to him that the watche is bought? \ and the monies spent to nothing to {cancellation} speake of || bot \ I haue promisid to send the heall [whole] stufes to him \ newer the lese || so I will be glaied to knoe \ {f2v} your adwyise in it the best way || for I am resouellit \ to send them wpon anie Condishon || for I fear his \ father will not be content I doe it wpon him || yet \ he wreates that he is content I doe it : \\ || My heart || I am goieng bay [by] the derecktion of \ Docttor Dawison to bourbon to the baethes [baths] (||) wich ye \ ofte wished me to haue bein ther || it will tack [take] \ me sume tuntie dayes to goe and staye the \ the tyem [time] I most || when I com ther I trust it \ shall doe me good : || My Lord Hadington \ is nou ane oulld Maried man tuoe dayes \ sinces || and tell the Leady Troubroune that he \ doees nothing in the daylight bot kishes [kisses] bot \ || what he does in the night judge ye and shoe \ || for ye boeth knoe the waye : \\ || I haue boured fiue thousand markes more nor \ I thought to haue doune || I haue gotten the \ Len of it for thri Monthes for nothing and \ thereffter to pay annuell rent for it || ye Most \ gather fast to hellpe your goodman out of \ dett || deseyer Mester Iohne Rolloke to hellpe \ youe to gett wpe my rent boeth for your sellfe \ and me : || Send me word if Mester George Noruell \ hes payed Mester Tomas Nickollson and if \ he hes gotten my monies from my lord forrester \ || Send me word if my lord Creghall be Maried \ or Ann or Mester Georg Noruell || for thes ar the \ thrie loueres : || remember me to Iohne and \ to I wat [wit] not houe to Call him your yong sone \ {f2r} || My hart || I haue wreaten this sixt thyen bot I \ haue not hard of your receat of anie of them \ || I pray you let me knoe if? ye haue receauit anie \ of them || the heat is so great that wer not \ I knoe ye loue ane long letter I head not \ wreaten so muche || so being extremlyie weired [wearied] \ I remaien \ Yowr most louing \ and kyind \ housband \ Charles Erskine \ {adjacent>} Chatilion ii \ agust i643 \ st : noi : \ {ins} I wolld haue wreaten to harie Hope \ wer not I knoe he is on his \ Iurnay befor thir Can Com \ to your handes {end} (CSC 1643 ErskineCCh64301)

• utterance: Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a): ‘The term “utterance” is here used to avoid suggesting that the relevant context for the examination of the connectives the study focuses on can be formally defined as a “sentence”. The use of the term “utterance” highlights the fact that it is often impossible to analyze a text in terms of sentences in this data type, not only because of the absence of regularized punctuation and capitalization but also because criteria for the syntactic analysis of this particular variety of language use would have to be based on a comprehensive corpus-based grammatical description, which is not yet available.’
• connective: For further information on the concept of “connective”, see Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, a) and Meurman-Solin (forthcoming, b).
• for the wich, wich: The two instances of relative structures are syntactically ambiguous, it being possible to read the relative elements as relative connectives rather than relative pronouns within complex NPs (see Meurman-Solin 2007a).
• deseyres: In epistolary prose, leaving the subject pronoun unrepeated does not necessarily signify that the utterance cannot be interpreted as an independent one (Meurman-Solin 1992).

Sources

CEEC = Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 1418–1680. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin. York: University of York & Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CEEC/index.html.

CSC = Corpus of Scottish Correspondence, 1500–1715, compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin. 2007. Second edition. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CSC/index.html.

Manual of the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence, 1500–1715. With auxiliary databases containing information about the letters and their writers and addressees. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/csc/manual/.

ECSC = Corpus of Early Scottish Correspondence Extension, compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin. Forthcoming. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.

HCOS = Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots, 1450–1700, compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin. 1995. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HCOS/index.html.

OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 2000–. 3rd edition (in progress). http://www.oed.com/.

References

Adamson, Sylvia. 1999. “Literary language”. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776, ed. by Roger Lass, 539–653. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Claridge, Claudia. 2007. “Conditionals in Early Modern English texts”. Lenker & Meurman-Solin (eds.), 229–254.

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Bernd Kortmann, eds. 2000. Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. (=Topics in Linguistics, 33.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. “‘Connective profiles’ in the history of English texts. Aspects of orality and literacy”. In Lenker & Meurman-Solin (eds.), 289–308.

Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. (=Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 18.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. (=Topics in English Linguistics, 64.) Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Lenker, Ursula & Anneli Meurman-Solin (eds.). 2007. Connectives in the History of English (=Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 283.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1992. “On the morphology of verbs in Middle Scots: present and present perfect indicative”. History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, ed. by Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen, 611–623. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1997. “Towards reconstructing a grammar of point of view: Textual roles of adjectives and open-class adverbs in Early Modern English”. English in Transition: Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles, ed. by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen, 267–343. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2000. “Geographical, socio-spatial and systemic distance in the spread of the relative who in Scots”. Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL, ed. by Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully, 417–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2007a. “Relatives as sentence-level connectives”. In Lenker & Meurman-Solin (eds.), 255–287.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2007b. “Annotating variational space over time”. Annotating Variation and Change (=Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 1), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin & Arja Nurmi. Helsinki: VARIENG. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/meurman-solin/.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2007c. “The manuscript-based diachronic Corpus of Scottish Correspondence”. Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, vol. 2: Diachronic Databases, ed. by Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan & Hermann L. Moisl, 127–147. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. Forthcoming, a. “The connectives and, for, but, and only as clause and discourse type indicators in 16th- and 17th-century epistolary prose”. Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (=Oxford Studies in the History of English, 2). New York: Oxford University Press.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. Forthcoming, b. “Visual prosody in manuscript letters in the study of syntax and discourse”. To appear in Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data, ed. by Ville Marttila, Anneli Meurman-Solin, Carla Suhr & Jukka Tyrkkö. Helsinki: VARIENG.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli & Päivi Pahta. 2006. “Circumstantial adverbials in discourse: A synchronic and a diachronic perspective”. The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe, 117–141. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.

Perret, Michèle. 1988. Le Signe et la Mention: Adverbes Embrayeurs Ci, Ça, La, Iluec en Moyen Français (Xive-Xve Siècles). Genève: Droz.

Rissanen, Matti. 2007. “The development of adverbial subordinators in early English”. Change in Meaning and the Meaning of Change: Studies in Semantics and Grammar from Old to Present-Day English, ed. by Matti Rissanen, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Marianna Hintikka & Rod McConchie, 173–210. Helsinki : Société Néophilologique.

Sorva, Elina. 2006. “The concessive connective albeit: A diachronic corpus-based study”. Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces (=Studies in Language Companion Series, 76), ed. by Terttu Nevalainen, Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen, 121–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sorva, Elina. 2007. “Grammaticalization and syntactic polyfunctionality: The case of albeit”. In Lenker & Meurman-Solin (eds.), 115–143.