Visual prosody in manuscript letters in the study of syntax and discourse

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

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1 Corpus of Scottish Correspondence (CSC)

The principles and practices described in this study have been developed drawing on the experience of transcribing, digitising, and annotating manuscripts of royal, official and private letters by chiefly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writers of Scottish origin. The annotated collection of correspondence is available online in the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1500–1715 (CSC).

• The Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1500–1715 (CSC)
• The CSC comprises diplomatically transcribed and digitised editions of original manuscripts of royal, official and family letters by both male and female writers originating from the various areas of Scotland.
• The data has been tagged using software developed by Keith Williamson (Institute for Historical Dialectology, University of Edinburgh).
• The CSC is a web-based resource, with a Manual, auxiliary databases containing language-external information, and software for data retrieval and presentation.

The online version of the CSC comprises data representing five different regions:

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

• The online CSC Manual
• See also CoRD

Beside the fact that the letters originate from a geographically restricted region, they were mostly written by members of the upper social classes or professionals, whose linguistic, social and stylistic literacy draws on the normative ideals of a much larger area informing conventions and shared letter-writing practices. Thus, the user of the corpus is invited to reason carefully about the position of Scottish letter-writing and its representativeness and distinctiveness in the wider British and European context. However, it should be noted that there are also numerous letters in the CSC data by less trained and inexperienced writers, women in particular.

Two observations prompted the use of manuscript sources. Firstly, during the process of transcribing, digitising, and tagging the manuscripts, it became obvious that the data was quite different from that available in editions (e.g., by Fraser). Most importantly, language in letter manuscripts reflected a much larger degree of heterogeneity than that in the editions, chiefly produced in the nineteenth century; even at the idiolectal level, there was more variation in the manuscript originals than could be detected in the printed editions.

Therefore, it seemed necessary for research based on variationist principles to ensure that a corpus be made available in which the data would be based on diplomatically transcribed texts, in preference to previously edited texts that appeared to reflect the history of varying editorial principles and practices rather than variation and change in the Scottish variety of English. As in numerous editions of other historical documents, literary and non-literary (cf. HCOS), editorial principles applied to letters permitted “normalisation”, i.e., modernisation of various kinds, the typical areas subjected to tacit editorial interference being the expansion of contracted forms, and the application of Present-Day English rules of punctuation and capitalisation. In early printed works, the policies printers adopted also tended to favour at least some degree of standardisation, reducing the degree of variation in areas such as spelling and morphology. The validity of texts of this kind as data for linguistic research is further reduced by the fact that the various in-house preferences of printers are frequently difficult or impossible to reconstruct, there being insufficient or no information about them.

For example, the study of a categorially fuzzy and polyfunctional feature such as connectives is dependent on the authenticity of sentence structure in the data. Earlier descriptive work drawing on non-modernised data has shown that there are significant differences in how thoughts are processed in terms of sentences and clauses (cf. the concept of the “utterance”) in different periods (Meurman-Solin 2000, 2004, 2007c, 2011, 2012; Claridge 2007, Lenker 2010). In general, in a corpus of letters, we are dealing with an especially wide range of idiolectal and local as well as regional and national grammars of which no previous description is available.

In the majority of cases, the assessment of women’s training and experience as regards their writing skills can be defined by language-external information, e.g., their social rank, script type, handwriting, and layout in their autograph letters. Only in rare cases such as Anne Campbell’s letter does the writer explicitly state that she is writing her first letter.

Anne Campbell writes: ‘to remimber your l: [lordship] in my absence with this tocken of my advancing in wreating’ (lines 3–4) and ‘this my first letter’ (line 9).

Some of the digital images of manuscripts may have catalogue numbers or comments added later by archivists or historians. These can be easily interpreted as not part of the original by checking the CSC transcript, in which they are of course always excluded.

In the CSC corpus, principles and practices of philological computing have been applied to the transcription and digitisation of the manuscript originals of the letters in order to ensure the authenticity and validity of data. In other words, the text in the original manuscript has been reproduced faithfully, and no emendation, tacit expansion of contracted forms, modernisation or normalisation has been permitted. For more information, follow the links below to the Sources section, where links to the appropriate sections of the CSC manual can be found:

Transcription and digitization
Principles of tagging
Practices of tagging

The CSC has been annotated using software created by Keith Williamson, Institute for Historical Dialectology, University of Edinburgh. However, the basic tagging system has been elaborated to improve its applicability to research on historical syntax and typology in particular.

For detailed information on the CSC, see CoRD, the CSC Manual, and Meurman-Solin 2007b.

1.2 General principles of annotation in the CSC

As described in the Manual and in Meurman-Solin 2007a and Meurman-Solin 2007b, the annotation system provides information in three different ways: lexico-grammatical information in tags, information about zero-realisations of particular linguistic features (such as that-deletion and a zero relative) in tags and comments, and information about visual features of the text and script (here referred to as features of visual prosody) in comments. [1]

Tags and comments

• Tags in the lexico-grammatical annotation of linguistic features
• Comments and tags in the case of zero-realisations of linguistic features (e.g., /0RO{y1} = non-expression of a relative link in object function with singular inanimate reference)
• Comments on features of visual prosody (e.g., layout, spacing, and paragraph structure)

The most important principle in the CSC approach to annotation is based on the general theoretical assumption that linguistic categories are inherently fuzzy. Moreover, since in diachronic corpora the annotation must permit the tracing of variation and change over a long time-span, tags must provide information about the various stages in the development of a particular linguistic item, also indicating the frequently recorded phenomenon of an item remaining polyfunctional. Fuzziness, polyfunctionality, and change can be indicated by using tags that are structured into strings of “co-ordinates” on a cline, each piece of information in such a string depicting a particular characteristic in the use of the item in long diachrony. The concept of a co-ordinate is used to stress the fact that, in the present theoretical approach, particular synchronically and diachronically relevant characteristics provide co-ordinates for a map which presents the variational space of a particular linguistic feature, such a map also recording change over time.

• The tags indicate categorial fuzziness, polyfunctionality, and change by structuring this information into strings of co-ordinates on a cline (In this system, there is no need to insist on membership of a single category.).
• The order of these co-ordinates is carefully controlled, and the hierarchy between different types of information is transparent; core properties precede components providing contextual information.
• The co-ordinates permit the positioning of a particular feature in variational space and the tracing of developments over time.
• No tag is merely an interpretation of a particular occurrence in a particular context, but provides information about all the different stages, faithfully reflecting historical continua.

For further information, see Meurman-Solin 2007a.

2. Principles in editing documents both historians and linguists use

The majority of the letters in the CSC have not been edited before. Although the language (e.g., word-forms) has not been standardised consistently in the existing previous editions of some of the letters, yet the texts cannot be used as valid data for linguistic research. Punctuation and sentence structure in particular have been modernised, thus making the original syntactic structure unrecoverable. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century editors have usually changed the original text tacitly. The editorial principles remain opaque, as they have not been properly reported on in the prefaces or introductions to the editions.

Let us compare the principles and practices applied to editions of some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century letters and those applied to the CSC. The examples from editions have been extracted chiefly from family memoirs published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these memoirs, early Scottish correspondence related to a particular noble family’s history usually appeared as a separate volume, the aim of the editor presumably being to make these documents more readily available to historians. This is reflected in the editions in two areas in particular: firstly, the editor’s preface only very rarely provides information about the principles he has applied to the transcription of the documents. If there is a section on how particular characters, variants, or word-forms have been transcribed, it tends to be a far cry from systematic description of decisions made on a restricted number of linguistic features of the original manuscript – perhaps the editor has considered these features difficult for the modern reader and therefore replaced them by more transparent or modern variants.

Secondly, the text has been subjected to normalisation, or modernisation, especially punctuation and capitalisation. As regards Scottish correspondence, good examples of traditionally applied editing principles can be found in the memoirs of Scottish noble families, those edited by Sir William Fraser, for example; see also the Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine.

The two versions of the randomly selected letter below (example (2)) illustrate the significant differences between the traditional editorial principles in printed volumes of sixteenth and seventeenth-century letters, mostly published in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the philologically sensitive principles in modern digital editions (for more examples, see the section on punctuation 4.2, for example):

As edited by Sir William Fraser:

My mest worth self – This present is to kreuf pardin for bygein sellinis, as lykwyis to acknalege my oblegecoun to zour ladyschip for the manye faffauris I haue reseuit in zour last, quhilk in ne sorrt I can attriboutit to any merit of my auin; bot out of zour ladyschips auin courtisie, it is plist zou chau me theis faffauris, quhilk I sall be cerfull to deserue, and wosis I may haue that happines as to find the ocausoun quher to I may gif prouf till zour ladyschip of my doutiefull gudwoll. Ther suld be nein in the wareld mor redy to dischergis the same nor I: so til new ocausioun, I rest as I sall euer remein,     Zour most affectiounatt self to do zow service,

Dalgatie, 17 September 1613. Margret Hay [a facsimile of the original signature]

Let this beir testimonie of my humel deutie to my lord zour hisband, my Lady Wentoun, and my Lady Perth.

The CSC edition:

My mest uorth Self this present is to kreuf pardin for \ Bygein sellinis, as lykuyis to aknalege my oblegecoun to zour la for the manye faffauris I haue reseuit \ In zour last quhilk In {ins} ne {ins} sorrt I can attriboutit to \ any merit of my auin, bot out of zour la auin courtisie \ it is plist zou chau me theis faffauris / quhilk I sall \ be cerfull to deserue and wosis I may haue that happines \ as to find the ocaucoun quher to I may gif prouf \ till zour la of my doutiefull gudwoll ther suld be \ nein In the wareld mor redy to dischergis the same \ nor I, so til new ocausioun I rest as I sall euer \ remain \ Zour mest affectiounatt \ self to do zou seruice

Dalgatie 17 September \ 1613

Margret Hay

{ins} Let {ins} this {ins} beir testimonie of my humel deutie \ to my lord zour husband my lady uentoun \ and my lady perth {ins}

In another letter by Margaret Hay, the two versions can be compared by reading the comments in red attached to Fraser’s edition:

Margaret Hay, Countess of Dunfermline, to Anna Livingston, Countess of Eglinton, Dalgatie, 17th September 1614[?]. National Records of Scotland GD 3/5/120. Previously edited by Sir William Fraser in the Memorials of the Montgomeries, vol. 1, 40: 194–195.

Transcribed in situ; a digital image of the manuscript not available.

As edited by Sir William Fraser:

My most worthie self – [a dash inserted] At [<a> in at capitalised] the reseit of your last, [a comma inserted] I was so grefed at my sonis siknis [\] that I culd not for that tyme wryit [\] anye, [a comma inserted] becaus I exspektit nothing bot deid for him [\] ; [a semi-colon inserted] but [bot replaced by but] now thanks to God [<g> in god capitalised] he is well, [a comma inserted] excep som thing [\] trebolt [trobelt read as trebolt] with the cold [cald replaced by cold]. [a comma replaced by a full stop] My [<m> in my caplitalised] Ladie [<l> in ladie capitalized] Wonton, [a comma inserted] yowr frind, [a comma inserted] [\] ded me the fafour to com wisit me, cho can chaw you [yow replaced by you] at miting [a comma inserted] qwhat resin I had to conjakter the [\] warst. [a comma replaced by a full stop] I resewit letly word frome my lord my his[\]band; [a semi-colon inserted] he is well thanks to God [<g> in god capitalised]: [a colon inserted] I do not exspek [\] is homecoming, [a comma inserted] till efter Pes [<p> in pes capitalised]. [a full stop inserted] No [<n> in no capitalised] nowis I hard of for sartintie, bot Ser [<s> in ser capitalised] James Fulartine [f in fulartine capitalised] is to be merit [\] with my Ladie Kellos [<k> in kellos capitalised]: [a comma replaced by a colon] it is dowin or now. [a comma replaced by a full stop] I hear [\] of nows letly comit to thes town, but [bot replaced by but] no greit [\] warrant from them, that Ser [<s> in ser capitalised] John [Ihon replaced by John] Degbe [<d> in degbe capitalised], [a comma inserted] efter is [\] arayfell in Ingland, presently was comitit to the [\]Towar [<t> in towar capitalised]. [a comma replaced by a full stop] I thank yow for the cer your ladyschip [la replaced by ladyschip] his to [\] know of my good asteit, [a comma inserted] qwch is allwys the beter [\] that ye be well, and ewer the mor affekcownit [\] incresing your happienis as be comis [\]

Your [<y> in your capitalised] slef most lowfing [\] to sawer yow, [a comma inserted]

MARGRET HAY. [a full stop inserted] [\]

[capitals instead of Margret Hay]

[a postscript follows]

The CSC edition:

My most worthie self \ at the reseit of your last I was so grefed at my \ sonis siknis that I culd not for that tyme wryit \ anye becaus I exspektit nothing bot deid for him \ bot now thanks to god he is well excep som thing \  trobelt with the cald, my ladie Wonton yowr frind \ ded me the fafour to com wisit me, cho can chaw yow at miting, qwhat resin I had to conjakter the \ warst, I resewit letly word frome my lord my his\band he is well thanks to god I do not exspek \ is homecoming till efter pes no nowis I hard of for sartintie, bot ser James fulartine is to be merit \ with my Ladie kellos, it is dowin or now, I hear \ of nows letly comit to thes town, bot no greit \ warant for them, that ser Jhon degbe efter is \ arayfell in Ingland, presently was comitit to the \ towar, I thank yow for the cer your la his to \ know of my good asteit qwch is allwys the beter \ that ye be well, and ewer the mor affekcownit \ incresing your happienis as be comis \

your slef most lowfing \ to sawer yow

Margret Hay \

[a postscript follows]

For a discussion of the linguistic features in this letter by an inexperienced writer, see Meurman-Solin 2001 or [2].

To sum up the comments on these illustrations, while in the nineteenth-century editions of these letters there is some harmonisation, i.e. reducing the degree of variation and standardisation by replacing idiosyncratic variants by more widely diffused or modern ones, we notice that the editor, Sir William Fraser in these examples, has retained most of the variants and word-forms in the original manuscript. However, features of syntactic, discourse, and text structure are unrecoverable because of the editor’s decision to impose the rules of a modern grammar of prose on the original text.

The present study stresses that an important difference has been attested between the traditional editing principles, involving modernisation of syntactic, discourse, and text structure, and the CSC principles of philological digitization of historical documents. The main aim is to discuss a range of features of visual prosody which provide highly relevant information for the analysis of syntax and discourse structure. An intriguing question the readers of this discussion will probably want to consider is what implications the marginalisation of these features has on the grammar we apply to annotation.

3. Visual prosody

In my view, the concept of visual prosody succeeds in highlighting two properties that I learnt to consider significant during the long process of transcribing and digitising original manuscripts of letters. First, the term “prosody”, even though it is a well-established one in phonetics, a completely different field of linguistics, invites us to read epistolary prose keeping in mind the following features:

1. Letters represent an interactive genre; the fact that letters are dialogic means that, in order to understand the writer’s intention, it is often necessary to read them similarly to the way we read a piece of conversation. Addressee-orientedness may be expressed implicitly or explicitly, so that, for example, an indirectly dialogic formula has the function of a suggestion, request, or assurance, or the addressee is approached directly by using lexical phrases such as ‘let me remind you’, ‘let me ask you’, and ‘let me assure you’. (see Meurman-Solin 2012);
2. The writers’ linguistic and stylistic literacy varies in epistolary prose more than in many other genres. Idiosyncratic grammars of prose in letters written especially by inexperienced and less trained writers can be identified by applying various types of reading to the text; for example:
3. a reading sensitive to the writer’s style in forming and sequencing utterances (e.g., utterance length, relations between utterances, etc.); it should be noted that I do not think we can refer to resemblance with the spoken idiom in describing writing styles, not even in the case of private letters between socially equal correspondents; [3]
4. a reading based on the analysis of syntactic and information structure, for example, a structure which is made explicit by the use of connectives and adverbial connectors (see Lenker 2010, Meurman-Solin 2011 and Meurman-Solin 2012).

Cf. a reading based on punctuation, which is often impossible in the CSC data because of lack of systematicity in the application of punctuation marks. See 4.2.

Secondly, the attribute “visual” in the term “visual prosody” usefully distinguishes between features which are visually observable in the original manuscript but which are usually omitted in digital transcriptions of historical documents in particular. In editions in which there is some information about visual features, these may have been annotated in a way which does not allow the retrieval of this information; even more importantly, the annotation system may not permit searches by queries which would provide information about visual features as attached to linguistic features in a particular manuscript.

In the present approach, the following features are considered to provide relevant information for the linguistic analysis of the original manuscripts of letters:

• physical condition (e.g., torn margin or damage by damp)
• number of folio
• line-break
• position of text (in margin, before or after the body of the letter)
• change of hand
• script type
• idiosyncratic features of a particular hand
• insertion; cancellation; correction
• punctuation
• spacing
• marked character shape
• paragraph structure

Each feature type can be shown to provide relevant information the absence of which would easily lead to misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the data. Historical documents are often damaged in various ways, for example, being torn or injured by damp, this affecting or even hindering the reading of the original text. Users of manuscript-based corpora will have to be informed of this difficulty arising from damage, so that they do not fail to notice that evidence provided by such ambiguous occurrences of items remains doubtful. Number of folio and such layout features as text in the margin or after the signature, and paragraph structure are discussed in more detail in Meurman-Solin 2013b and Sairio & Nevala 2013, in this volume. However, in general, the practices of using writing materials often provide information about the author’s choice of a particular variant when being forced to continue on a new page or in the margin. This also applies to why information about line-breaks may be important in the linguistic analysis, line-final words tending to be compressed, reduced or contracted in various ways.

Handwriting and change of hand provide evidence for investigating authorship. Consequently, script type and change of hand must be annotated to make it possible for the user of the corpus to differentiate between autograph and non-autograph letters. However, even though relatively rare in epistolary prose, change of hand may also be related to a particular linguistic feature such as marking direct speech, a quotation, or a formulaic expression. Insertions, cancellations, and corrections may provide evidence of the writer’s linguistic competence or the communicative situation; spacing and marked character shapes may indicate syntactic and discourse structure.

In the CSC, idiosyncratic features of a particular hand have been described in the compiler’s comments positioned before the digitised text. These comments focus on irregular realisations of characters, i.e., those that are different from the systematically occurring character shapes in a particular text.

It is noteworthy that, in the CSC annotation, contracted forms and variants with superscript elements have not been regarded as features of visual prosody; instead, these items have been digitised as variant word-forms and will appear as such in the item and form lists created by the software available on the CSC site.

It is obvious that a much wider range of features could be included when the principles and practices of annotating visual prosody and especially tools for retrieving this information develop further.

Illustrations in the present context will focus on three types of visual prosody: punctuation (4.2), spacing (4.3), and marked character shapes (4.4). The illustrations will stress the relevance of these features, especially in the identification of utterance boundaries and discourse and text structure.

Since problems related to the taxonomisation, annotation, and retrieval of variation have not yet been solved (see Meurman-Solin 2013a in this volume), the general approach in this chapter is descriptive, the observations not being assessed by their statistical relevance.

4. Illustrations of three visual prosody types

4.1 Relations between the three features

When punctuation, spacing, and capitalisation or marked character shape are all used in a letter, they tend to provide converging evidence; this evidence may be further strengthened by layout features (see Meurman-Solin 2013b and Sairio & Nevala 2013, in this volume). However, there are numerous letters, especially among the pre-1650 letters by less experienced writers, in which these three features are used quite unsystematically, their absence, infrequency, or inconsistent use making the analysis of syntax and discourse quite challenging.

The letter written in 1618 by Margaret Seton, Countess of Winton, to Anna Livingston, Countess of Eglinton, her daughter-in-law, shows that, spacing, marked character shapes and layout ideally provide converging evidence, so that, for example, utterance boundaries can be identified by systematicity in there being both an extra space between utterances and an initial capital and a connective (e.g., but, and, and so) at the beginning of an utterance. (For information about assessing space, see Meurman-Solin 2013a, in this volume; on connectives, see Meurman-Solin 2011 and Meurman-Solin 2012.)

The CSC transcript:

Madame and Loving dochter I ressauit your letre from Thomas \ Huttoun quharby I persauit ze war all in goode {omission of word} quharof I was not \ a litle joyfull Bot yaireftir I hard be ane letre writtin To \ Robert Setoun yat your childrein had bein seik bothe of ye cauld \ and sum fever qlk I assure yow procedit of nothing bot of evill \ governament And will intreat yow To caus haue ane better \ cair of them in tymes comeing not Looking to everie ones Idle \ opinioun bot evin to wse them efter ane equall and mid forme \ Praisit be god all our childrein heir hes had nathir cauld nor \ fever this year, qlk bothe is and hes bene exceiding colde and \ Tempestuous. Ze schew me also yat your husband was to \ be heir schortlye Bot I think it will not be so soone as ze \ expectit being most sorie from our hairts of the occasioun of \ his {incomplete} s {incomplete} {torn} I think freinds will visit him befoir he come hither \ As for anye vther news we haue none bot yat all freinds w^th \ your sone Hew is in goode health and sall evir from our hairts \ wishe to heir ye lyke of yow w^th your childrein So desyring \ yow at all occasiouns to acquent me w^th your estaits wishing yow \ w^th your childrein all health and happines Rests\ Zour la: most loving {damaged} \ at power \ Setoun the 27 \ of marche 1618 \ Margaret lady setoun \ {ins} The bairne Jeane hes \ hir seruice remembrit {torn} yow w^th hir commendations {ation damaged} to \ hir mamye \\ As for m^rs morray hir dyet to go to Ingland \ I heir scho is not to go befoir May {ins} {end}

The chunks of text in bold (and red on the screen) indicate where those structurally important utterances begin which have been marked systematically by visual means by this particular writer. This systematicity is quite striking, seeing the letter is dated as early as 1618. However, the role of punctuation is still marginal.

In a mid-sixteenth-century letter by the 4th Earl of Morton, we find the same elegance in the general layout of the text and the marking of its structure by full stops, spacing and capitalisation:

The CSC transcript:

Eftir my hartlie Commendatioun” / eftir the Ressi?t {<or e} of zour \ wryting sua sone as oportunytie {del} ser {del} micht serue we \ travelit in zour materis And hes takin sic ordour yarin \ as was thocht the nixt to ye weill of zour cauiss for \ the present. we haue causit ye quenis ma^tie to alter \ hir Iornay from~ tevydaill to cum to SancIohnnestoun” \ quhair hir grace/ intendis to hald ane Iustice courte \ Pryncipallie for ye pvnischement of sic as hes assistit \ and fortife?it ye glengregur. And farder intendis befoir \ hir ma^teis Returne from” thyne to se a stay put \ to zour trowbillis. quhat ze wald haue doun~ in yir \ materis. wryte zour mynd w^t sum freind bak vnto zour \ freindis heir in courte And we salbe willing to sett \ fordwarttis ye same. zour bedfallow will declair \ zow ye Maner how all thingis procedit heir Thair\foir / I will trowbill zow w^t na langar letre at \ this tyme. bot Committis zow to ye keping of ye \ leving god” from” Edinburgh ye xiij Ianuar \\ 1563 \\ Zouris assurit \\ morton

Another example of similar tools in structuring a letter is provided by Francis Hay, 8th Earl of Erroll:

The CSC transcript:

My werie hono^ll good lord. I reseauit your lo / letter / \ and was glaid / be this berar / to knaw your lo / health / bot sorie \ of your fasheries / and the burding Imposed wpoun yourlo / spe?tialie \ for want of your presence / in sa dangerous a tyme / for the \ estait of this cwntrie / Alwayis I hawe bein wsing my \ best meanes / to yourlo / behowes / albet I cwm litill sped \ heir / be reasone of the former great levies / And hawe \ wretin to my sone sowthward / wha will hawe cair / to my \ awin cuming / qlk godwilling salbe shortlie / And wilbe \ glaid to sie your lo / in health / qlk I excedinglie lang for / \ To the qlk remitting all farther / wishing your lo / all happines \ My affectioun rememberit / to your lo / My lady / and rest of the \ ladi?es and your lo / wther bairnes / I remain \\ Zour lo maist loving frend \\ Erroll \ {adjacent >} Slanes 29 August \ 1627

In this letter, an initial capital occurs in Alwayis, And, And, and the conventionalised letter-closing utterances To the qlk remitting all farther, and My affection rememberit. This usage suggests that capitalisation is a consciously used device for structuring the text. There is a full stop only after the initial term of address. In general, virgules in this letter seem to mark the raise of the quill, rather than syntactic structure.

It is useful to keep in mind this interrelatedness of punctuation, spacing, and capitalisation or marked character shapes. For pragmatic reasons, these three features will be discussed below in separate sections 4.2–4.4.

4.2 Punctuation

The time-span covered by the CSC corpus, from 1500 to 1715, permits us to trace major changes in the punctuation system. While the majority of the sixteenth-century letters almost exclusively use a forward slash and, towards the end of the century, a comma, a number of letter writers in the seventeenth century start using a wider variety of punctuation marks more regularly, and in a way that can be considered to reflect syntactic structure more directly. Since the aim of the present study is to highlight the important differences between editions in which the punctuation system has been modernised and those applying principles of diplomatic transcription, the examples below have been chosen to allow the reader to compare these two types of edition, especially as regards punctuation. In addition, differences between variants have been indicated by first providing the variant in the original manuscript and then the variant in the nineteenth-century edition in square brackets. Contracted word-forms have been transparently expanded by putting the contracted elements in italics.

In the two examples below, a CSC transcript appears with a commentary which provides information about a previously published edition. First, an autograph letter by Margaret Robertson of Strowan, Countess of Erroll (NAS SP2 4: 262) dating from 1554, a letter previously edited by Annie I. Cameron in the Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine (CCLXII: 393–394) and published in 1927. The differences between the manuscript and the edition have been indicated by using the following mark-up system:

• P indicates that there is a difference in punctuation between the two versions.
• The text in red in square brackets, immediately following P, provides specific information about this difference.
• Words edited in the two versions exactly as they are in the manuscript appear unmarked. Where there is a difference between the CSC transcript and the early twentieth-century edition, the variant in the former has been underlined, the variant in the latter being put in square brackets immediately following the underlined word.

The CSC transcript, with comments on features which have been previously edited in a different way:

{address>} To ye quenis grace Mademe~ [word-final flourish ignored]  P [, inserted] efetyr [eftyr] maist hwmyll commendatione [commendatione] w^t [with] serveiss [serveis] and prayarris P [, inserted] zour [your] grace {\} plaiss [plais] wit y^t [that] P [, inserted] no^tw^tstending [nochtwithstending] ye [the] promissis [promissis] my lord my husband maid to zour [your] grace y^t [that] I {\} In” [in] all behalffis suld be wssit and traittit as his wyff and according to my facultye {\} he neueryeles [nevertheless] at yis [this] tyme Is [is] far chengit frome y^t [that] purpoiss [purpois] and frome ye [the] keping of {\} his said promissis [promissis] / / P [// replaced by .] he [He] hes laid to my charge and desyrit me to refar me to freindis [freindis] {\} twiching ye [the] modefeing of my sustentatione / P [/ replaced by .] I was contentit [contentit] y^t [that] he suld wiss [wis] ye [the] {\} counsall of his awin” [awin] freyndis [freyndis] as he thocht best / P [; inserted] bot as for my pairt I wald {\} refar y^t [that] matter [matter] to nane vdyr [udyr] bot to zour [your] grace P [. inserted] and [And] sen” [sen] syne he hes requyrit {\} me na fordyr P {, inserted} And [and] gyff he continew [continew] in” [in] ye [the] sammyn [sammyn] mynd he Is [is] In” [in] P [, inserted] on” [on] forss [fors] {\} I man cum [cum] and tak my sustentatione of zour [your] grace quhyll zour [your] grace provide [provide] {\} sum [sum] way y^t [that] I may haue [have] my honest leving P [. inserted] q^lk [Quhilk] being providit [providit] P [, inserted] considderand [considderand] {\} my lord is nodyr desyrus nor contentit [contentit] w^t [with] my companye [companye] P [, inserted] I will cum [cum] and spend {\} ye [the] sammyn [sammyn] in zour [your] gracis serveiss [serweis] P [. inserted] Attour [Attour] P [, inserted] yis [this] wedinsday [Wednisday] I haiff [ha[if ?] {incomplete} kin [[spo ?]kin] {incomplete} {torn} w^t [with] my {\} lord quhay hes declarit his mynd to me P [, inserted] y^t [that] he can In? n?a [[in n ?a] {torn} way {\} stand content w^t [with] me P [, inserted] allegand me to be participant [participant] and fortefiar of zour [your] {\} brokin men q^lk [quhilk] maid ye [the] spoilze vpone [upone] his guddis [guddis] / P [/ replaced by .] It may be weill {\} knawin y^t [that] I wald desyr na skay^t [skayth] nodyr nodyr [repetition omitted] to hym [hym] me nor my bernis [bernis] {\} P [, inserted] seing y^t [that] his skay^t [skayth] is bay^t [bayth] myne and my bernis [bernis] als~ [word-final flourish ignored] weill as his P [. inserted] Swa I {\} haue [have] na refuge bot vnto [unto] zour [your] grace P [, inserted] And [and] w^tout [without] zour [your] grace put sum [sum] {\} remade to yis [this] besenes I persaue [persave] na wdyr [wder] thing bot ye [the] wtter [wtter] confusione [confusione] of {\} his hous me and my bernis P [. inserted] And as to ye [the] furnissing of me P [, inserted] ye [the] maister [maister] {\} my sone will schaw zour [your] grace of y^t [that] & [and] all wdyr my affairris P [, inserted] to quhome {\} zour [your] grace plaiss [plais] gyff crydens P [. inserted] Besekand zour [your] gud grace to aduerteiss [adverteis] {\} me w^t [with] my said sone quhat zour [your] grace thinkis best y^t [that] I do in all behalfis [behalfis] {\} P [: inserted] And [and] ye [the] lord [Lord] god [God] haiff zour [your] gude grace evir in his twischione~ [word-final flourish ignored] & [and] keping P [. inserted] {\} At petht [Pe[r]tht] P [, inserted] ye [the] xiiij day of november [November] be zour [your] gracis humble [humble] servitrice at command [command] and powar {\\} Margaret cowntess [cowntes] of Erroll 

Among the 26 changes made by Annie I. Cameron in the punctuation of this letter, there are fifteen inserted commas, seven inserted full stops, one inserted semi-colon, and one inserted colon; in one instance a full stop replaces a single forward slash, and in another a double one.

The second example is an early seventeenth-century letter:

The CSC transcript, with comments on features which have been previously edited in a different way:

• P indicates that there is a difference in punctuation between the two versions.
• The text in red in square brackets, immediately following P, provides specific information about this difference.
• Words edited in the two versions exactly as they are in the manuscript appear unmarked. Where there is a difference between the CSC transcript and the early twentieth-century edition, the variant in the former has been underlined, the variant in the latter being put in square brackets, immediately following the underlined word.
• Hand: {hand1>} {hand1<} allow the identification of a chunk of text in the writer’s own hand.
  {hand2>} {hand2<} allow the identification of a chunk of text as non-autograph.

{hand2>} Madame and lowing doghter P [a dash inserted] I ressauit zour [zour] /l/ [ladyships] Lettir [lettir] frome [from] captan [Captan] {\} Crombie P [, inserted] bot could not haiff ye [the] ocatioun to wryt to zour [zour] /lla/ [ladyship] quhill {\} now / P [; inserted] and hes spokin the folkis quha will do nathing with ony {\} bot ather with me Lord [lord] P [, inserted] zour [zour] /la/ [ladyships] husband P [, inserted] or {ins} zour [zour] la [ladyships] {ins} [insertion not indicated] self P [: inserted] sua thay desyrs not {\} to be knavin / P [; inserted] bot I hoip to wryt to zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] schortlie the secreitis {\} off [of] all thins [things] at lenth P [, inserted] and sall do guid into it P [; inserted] bot thay thocht {\} not the Captane meit for that purpoiss [purpois] / P [/ ignored] for mony respectis {\} P [, inserted] as I sall acquent zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] eftirvart / P [/ replaced by .] {space} Seing zour [zour] /la/ [ladyship] sone {\} Alexander [Alexander] is distant frome zow P [, inserted] I haiff send zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] his portrat P [, inserted] q^lk [quhilk] {\} I think zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] sall think guid off P [; inserted] and hoipis in god [God] he {\} sall mak ane prettie man / P [/ replaced by ,] as me lord zour [zour] la/ [ladyships] husband P [, inserted] and {\} sindrie that hes sein him P [, inserted] can schav zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] at lenth P [. inserted] I will {\} no^t [not] fasch zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] with fardir letre [letter] P [. inserted] My hairtlie devtie remembrit {\} to zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] and all zour [zour] bairnis / P [/ replaced by ,] Comittis [committis] zour [zour] la/ [ladyship] hairtlie to {\} god [God] P [, inserted] and restis {<hand2} {\} {hand1>} Zour la/ [ladyships] Loving [loving] father {\} to command [command] P [, inserted] Linly^tg^w [Linlythgow] {<hand1} {\} {hand2>} At Callender P [, inserted] the {\} sext day of December[December] 16i9 [1619] {<hand2}

The extent to which punctuation has been modernised can be assessed by the frequency of P. Type of modernisation can be identified by reading the comments in square brackets:

The total number of changes in punctuation in this relatively brief letter is 22, most of these being insertions in places where there is no punctuation mark in the original. Obviously, these changes will affect the linguistic analysis of the document. The margin of error increases when larger corpora based on editions of this kind are used, especially if the principles in introducing punctuation in these editions have been left opaque by the editor. Moreover, even a careful analysis of Fraser’s modernised punctuation has not allowed me to identify the rules this particular editor applies to his transcripts.

To illustrate the original punctuation in this letter by Alexander Livingston, 1st Earl of Linlithgow further, the comments on the use of punctuation marks have been coloured blue and inserted immediately after each mark:

Madame and lowing doghter I ressauit zour / l / Lettir frome captan \ Crombie bot could not haiff ye ocatioun to wryt to zour / lla / quhill \ now / <The proposition following the slash is semantically contrasted with the writer’s failure to write. The use of / can be interpreted as ‘However/Yet, I have spoken …’, indicating a new proposition in the writer’s narrative. The first-person subject often remains unrepeated in epistolary prose, and its absence cannot be automatically interpreted as suggesting coordination with what precedes> and hes spokin the folkis quha will do nathing with ony \ bot ather with me Lord zour la / husband or {ins} zour la / {ins} self <What follows functions as an expression of the author’s attitudinal remark, this function relating the contents of the clause introduced by sua closely to the idea of secrecy. There is no punctuation mark> sua thay desyrs not \ to be knavin / <The slash marks a sentence boundary> bot I hoip to wryt to zour la / schortlie the secreitis \ off all thins at lenth and sall do guid in to it <The sentence boundary has not been marked> bot thay thocht \ not the Captane meit for that purpoiss / <The slash is followed by two adverbials, both of which can again be interpreted as expressions of the author’s stance> for mony respectis \ as I sall acquent zour la / eftirvart / {space} <The slash, a marked space length, and the initial capital to indicate topic change> Seing zour / la / sone \ Alexander is distant frome zow I haiff send zour la / his portrat q^lk \ I think zour la / sall think guid off and hoipis in god he \ sall mak ane prettie man / <A comment clause corresponding to ‘let me assure you’ follows the slash>  as me lord zour la / husband and \ sindrie that hes sein him can schav zour la / at lenth <The sentence boundary has not been marked> I will \ no^t fasch zour la / with fardir letre <Letter-closing formulae follow> my hairtlie devtie remembrit \ to zour la / and all zour bairnis / The slash and the initial capital mark the boundary between two letter-closing formulae> Comittis zour la / hairtlie to \ god and restis \ Zour la / loving father \ to command \ Linly^tg^w \ At callender the \ sext day of December 1619

Another set of examples illustrates variation in the use of punctuation. Unfortunately, there are problems in the digital reproduction of variants of punctuation marks in early manuscripts because of the limited number of searchable symbols available for this on the keyboard. In the CSC, a more sophisticated system of annotating punctuation marks would perhaps have been possible. In hindsight, the use of such a system would have been very useful in the analysis of utterance structure. In the 2007 version of the corpus, the variants have been reduced to two prototypes: a slash (as in (8)) and a comma (as in (10)). The other punctuation marks, such as full stops, colons, semi-colons, question-marks, and exclamation marks are digitised as such. The main principle here is that all punctuation marks are included in the transcripts, and the system of using them has not been standardised or modernised. In the CSC data, there is abundant variation in letters as regards the general practices of using punctuation: there may be practically no punctuation (as in (9)) but there are also letters applying a rather dense and regular punctuation system (as in (10)).

A punctuation system that makes the syntax and discourse structure quite transparent can be illustrated by Lord Methven’s letter, dated 1549:

The CSC transcript:

Madem~ Eftir all hummill and obedient seruice / \ pleis zour graice / sen zour grace departit of pertht ye erll of huntlie spak \ wy^t ye lord Ruthven” ffor gud dress of yis sla^ttir committit laitle on" \ an" seruand of ye lard tulibardin // ye ruthven" schew his Innocence / and \ yat he had promittit vnto zour grace to do yarin” as zour grace pleissit com\mand him / ye erll of huntle send for” me & caussit ye erllis of \ arroll & athoill & me to pass to tulibardin / quhar we commonit \ at lync?ht {<or t} wy^t ye lord & his vyeris freyndis / quhaj on" his part Inlyk \ wyss sayis he will do ye ordinance of zour graice / madem" \ sen" zour graice has evir vssit perseverand lawbouris for ye common" \ weill of yis realm~ / now reconsaill~ yis causs // And now presentlie at \ ye cummyng of ye erll of huntle & argaill zour graice & my lord” gouer\nour to dissyr yam~ to speik wy^t ye lord ruthven" & ye lord tulibardin \ & wy^t yar freyndis & yar efter zour graice & my lord gouernour to mak fineill \ concord quhilk suld perseveyr constantlie & of luf in tym" to cum // yis \ beand yaj wy^t yar kyn~ freyndis & seruandis ma ye bettir serve ye \ auctorite // and gif It pass ony lang tym~ no^t reconsallit / ma \ cum to greit inconvenyentis quhilkis salbe Impediment to ye seruice \ yarof / Madem~ as ane~ of zour graice humill seruitouris I tho^t best to \ to aduertice zour grace herof beseking ye eterneill god to consarve \ zour graice evir of methven~ yis xxiiij day of octobeir \\ be zour graice maist hummill & obeisan?d? \ seruitour \\ henry lord methven~

We note here that there is a hierarchy between the single and double forward slash: it is possible that the latter is used to mark boundaries of paragraph-like chunks of discourse. See Meurman-Solin 2013b.

In contrast, there is practically no punctuation in a contemporary letter by Elizabeth Keith, Countess of Huntly (16th August 1543):

The CSC transcript:

Madame” I commend” my hartly Seruice to zour grace It pleis zour grace I haue resauit zour \ grace writing fra zour servand yis berar makand” mentyoun" y^t my lord gouernour hes rasit ane” \ cursing on~ my lord and” done be his awyn" avyce to stop y^t he cum” no^t to zour grace at yis \ tyme” as zour grace Is Informyt Madame" I assuyr zour grace ze {cancellation} will fynd y^t Informatione” \ alss falss as vyeris quhilkis hes bene" maid to zour grace abefoir yair Is na syk letres cummin \ on" my lord as zit as ze wrayt bot my lord” wes Informyt y^t syk letres wes to cum” and” \ hes gottin” ane" absolutione" fra my lord cardinall In aventuyr of ye samyn Madame" beleif \ na vyer thing bot my lord” wilbe ye samyn man~ he promist to zour grace And” hes gottin” \ greyt Laubouris be ye gouernouris waye to brak hym fra zour purpoiss and had ya bene" \ any alteratioun" of purposis I suld” no^t haf falit till aduerteis zour grace w^t deligens \ and” aye salbe redy to do {del} syk {del} zour grace syk plesuyr and” seruice as I ma at \ all tymes as knawiss god quha mot haue zour grace In keping eternalye \ at huntlie ye xvj daye of august be \ {space} zouris grace humill Seruatrice \ {space}  

Elizab^t countes of Hwntlye

The letter by the third Earl of Winton illustrates a rather dense and regular punctuation system:

The CSC transcript:

{indented} My noble lord, and loving brother, {space} \ hauing this good occasioune of our Nepheu, could not ommitt to remember all \ our hairteliest love, and best service unto zour lo./ {ins} and {ins} zour whole chilldreine, - \ praying god to blisse zou with all conteinnouing happiness; leist zour freinds \ micht haive missing of zou, in thir eivle dayes; beyng all our best pairte \ to be most thankefull for zour kyndenes, and caire hadd of thaime at this \ tyme; itt beyng no small trouble, besyds what may be the hayzarde of zour \ lo^s./ suffering for us: this bearer can schau zour lo./ whatt hes occurred heire \ all this whyle, better then I can possible expresse by wrytting: the summ of \ all thair caireiadge as zitt, beyng still, as I ever concaived, that both the - \ Englische parliament, and we wold gett all our will, and that, by his only - \ meanes, who hes ever brotched all the course of this haille cairreiadge from - \ the beginning; beyng one, whom cheifely nayther zour lo./ nor any of us \ neides ever exspect any graice or favoure of, we doe not exspect zour lo^s/ - \ heirebeyng befor the / 14 / of Jan^r / againe whitch tyme, we will be most \ glaide to awaitte upon zou; and with our best wissches till then will - \ ever, rest. ~ ~ {space} \\ Seatoune / 16 / of Decb^r / \ / 1640 / \\ {space} Zour lo^s./ most loving brother, \ and reddie servaunt \ Wintoun {address>} for my very honorable lord, \ and loving brother. ~ \ The earle of Eglintoune: ~ {address}

Even though the Earl of Winton applies a rather dense and regular punctuation system, numerous letters by the same writer would be required to suggest any kind of systematicity in the hierarchy between a comma, a colon, a semi-colon, a full stop, and a dash, or some combination of these. This is rarely possible either because each informant in the CSC is only represented by a restricted number of letters. In fact, there may not be a sufficient number of letters representing a particular idiolect extant in the public record offices or family archives either in the case of most informants.

Punctuation is often systematic when analysed by discourse type. Thus, a less skilful writer such as Margaret Montgomery may structure her letter by punctuation which marks boundaries between chunks of discourse:

The CSC transcript:

{f1r} loudoun 2i iuly \ 68 {adjacent>} My deir Sister \\ ded not I knou you war a person \ woid of changabelnes (espesily \ wothout iust grund) I wold apreh\end you had tacken so grat \ a pregidus at me that you ar \ resolued not to mack me so hapy \ as ons in {cancellation} aght or ten monaths \ not to knou hou you your lord \ and childrin is whos welbing I \ may confidantly asur yow non \ wiles . mor than I do; and if you \ haue wrong misconstruckted any \ of my laters or if any his {cancellation} \ misrepresented me to you I hop \ you wil be both so iust to your \ salf and me as to let me knou if \ our father and mother hes ben dri??en {correction unclear} \ of the fisikal wals at mofet this \ 3 wiks and I heir thay both ar \ much the betar of it. thay {cancellation} ar \ to return this wick, for I am nou \ within a fortnight of my rasning {<s correcting another character} \ {f1v} and hes ben bot wery sickly this long tim; \ wising you al halth and hapines and intret\ing that distanc and obsanc may not mack \ you any longer forget thos who lous you \ so dirly as I do I rest \ your most affectionat \ Sister and humbl Saru{ins}e{ins}nt \ Margaret Loudown \ {ins} my lord presents \ his humbel saruis \ to you and both \ of us to your lord and childrin {ins}

This letter is structured into five chunks of text: between the first, blaming her sister(-in-law) for not having been in contact, and the second, asking her to keep her better informed, she uses a semi-colon. In the third, the writer provides news in an utterance which follows a full stop and ends with a comma. The fourth utterance describes the writer’s circumstances and is separated from the fifth by a semi-colon, this latter utterance containing a conventional set of letter-closing formulae.

She also uses a similar system of punctuation as a structuring device in her shorter letter dating from 1667:

The CSC transcript:

halyrodhouse i4 march 67 \\ dear Sister I was extrem glad when I hird by \ the berer of your welbing, and \ your childrins; which I shall \ a?sur {fold} you is wery much wished \ by me; and if I knou of any \ way wherby I might testify \ my reall and unspeekabel affeksion \ to you, beliue me I wold do it \ at any rat; for ther is nothing \ I desier woth mor ardensie; then \ to aproue my salf \ My dear Sister \ your most affeksionet \ sister and most humbell \ saruent \ Margaret Montgomerie? \ {ins} I receued this day laters from the \ wast al our frindes ther is wery \ well if my halth wil permit me I \ intend to go thar within a fortnight {unclear correction} {ins}

4.3 Spacing

Spacing refers here to variation in the width of space between words, the discussion excluding features of layout, such as the use of space in the positioning of place and time of writing, terms of address, the letter-closing formulae, the signature, and such conventional insertions after the signature as good wishes to members of the addressee’s family (for these features, see Meurman-Solin 2013b, in this volume). The illustrations aim to show that information about spacing may be relevant in the analysis of syntax as well as discourse and text structure, even though this information may be difficult to taxonomise for data retrieval (see Meurman-Solin 2013a, in this volume). As far as I know, the assessment of variation in spacing has not been attempted before in the way it is done here.

The following extract from a letter by William Douglas, Marquis of Angus, dating from 1642, illustrates an exceptionally large degree of regularity in the marking of utterance structure by three different devices: punctuation (a full stop at the end of the first two utterances), and both an initial capital and a space wider than the approximate width between the four utterances:

The CSC transcript:

Sen I can haue no vyer [other] delling [dealing] in yat bissines but be ri?gour \ Lettye mater go so on. {space} I amno to blame to seik yis deweteis \ restand yis fourtene zeiris. {space} In Iust Iugement the reteneris \ thairof ar no^t blameles {space} Quha bothe intrudit him selff in yois \ Landis & retenis my deweteis but my consent.

Spacing can be interpreted as suggesting that this passage consists of four separate utterances, the relative connective Quha (notice capitalisation) in the last utterance being replaceable by a personal pronoun. See Meurman-Solin 2007c.

Another example of a similar marking of utterance boundaries is a contemporary letter by the Marquis of Argyll:

The CSC transcript:

Loveing freynd \\ Sen your parteing frome this I have gottine certaine \ Informatioune that my lord ogilvie is this night \ In zour hou?se For ye whilk causs I could doe \ no less Then direct a companie To ly about zour \ howse Till it be searched Wherat I intreat \ zow to tak no exceptiounes For I doe nowayes \ doubt zow, O?nlie {<ink blot} . {< or :} I will give zow this warning \ That iff ze press to conceall my lord ogilvy in your \ hows at this tyme It wilbe moir to your preiudice \ Then ze ar awar off And so I hope ze wilbe \ wyise The gentleman that is commander of this \ company is Coline campbell Calderis sonne \ So referring this to your consideratioune I \ rest \ Your affect?tionat freynd \ Argyll {adjacent>} frome my Camp at \ airlie – 7 – Iuly 1640

Despite the scarcity of punctuation, the syntactic structure reads well by means of visual signals highlighted in the CSC transcript. In addition to being upper case, capital letters are often given a wider space horizontally as well, and structure the text in a particularly visible way by also being preceded by a space which is somewhat longer than that between words elsewhere in the text.

The initial capital may be conspicuously bigger in size in the term of address, as <L> in Loveing in this particular letter. The reader should pay attention to the utterance-initial variants Sen, ffor/For, Whereat, ffor/For, O?nlie, It, And so, The gentleman, and So, highlighted and in bold in the CSC transcript. However, this letter illustrates that capital letters may also mark a subordinate or dependent clause: e.g., <T> in Then, To ly, Till, That, and Then in blue. Overall, character shape is a property that is just one among a particular set of several properties which permit the analysis of linguistic and discourse features.

In the letter by the 10th Earl of Angus, the syntactic structure is apparent in the use of markedly extended shapes of capitals:

The CSC transcript:

Trustie and luiffing freind Ze sall witt that I \ haue appointit to be vpoun ye grund of contravertit \ land betuix pittarro and edzell the xxviij of apryll \ nixtocum {space} And Becaus that I resolue to speik \ w^t my tennentis of keremure Anent the libertie \ of yar bur^t {space} THairfor I thocht meit to aduerteis \ zow that I will be w^t zow ane nicht ayer in the \ weik efter pasche qlk will be my furthgoing Or - \ ellis in my heamcumming qlk will be in ye weik efter \ lawsounday {space} And this I thocht gude to mak zow \ aduertisit of And {<damaged} sua {<damaged} to farder occasioun I rest \ Zouris assurit freind \ V D Erll Anguss \ {adjacent>} Edinburgh xxxj Martij 1606

Ze, And, THairfor, and And, highlighted in red, all have a considerably extended character shape, which can be considered a way of using space to reflect syntax. It is noteworthy that in the utterance-initial THairfor extra space is given not only to the initial but the second character as well.

Anna Hay’s letter illustrates a very neat and regular style of writing:

The CSC transcript:

My verie hono^ll love I resauit zour letre / and is glaid to haue hard \ both be ye samen as also be ye beirar of zour guid healthis / \ thair , & of zour bairnes sauetie in thair Trauell, as for \ zour wisching of me yair {space} Zie did not wische me oftiner \ nor I did my self to haue beine wth zow. {space} And salbe \ werie loth ( god willing ) to stay behind my ladye if hir la: \ cum wast, {space} ffoir I think long to sie howe zie luik in zour \ avine hous, {space} but if ye weather {ins} contina?w {ins} as it hes doun since zour \ pairting frome heir, {space} I feir my ladyes voyage wilbe \ Stayit. {space} for hir la: hes gottin no teynding {torn} all this same day \ that hir la: is begun to teynd in setoun, {space} we ar all werie \ weill heir (praised be god) as zie wald wische, except \ onlie we think the hous a litle more wncouth nor it \ was / {space} Bot I will assure zow zour sone hughe dois \ neuer mis ane of zow he is werie weill as can be \ I desyre zow that zie will remember my dewtie to my \ lord. I wisching at god that he may thryve and prosper yair \ to his honour and credite yair as I wald desyre; for I doubt \ not but all his freindis thair is most glaid of zow all. I \ will not faill at all occasiones to lat zow knawe howe zour \ sone is and all the rest yat is heir / {space} Desyring zow to do ye lik \ Not Omiting my lord his most loveing remembrance to zow, and \ all the bairnes altho zour sone hugh will not grant to cum \ wast be no meanes, {space} So restis. \\ {space} Zour most a?ffectionat {<torn} love \ To serue zow \ Anna Hay {adjacent>} Setoun 8 of \ September 1617 {ins} George hes his love rememberit \ to hearie randering him most hartlie \ thankis for his Troumpet In recompence \ quhairof wth the nixt occasioun he \ will send hearie ane Swase {ins}

Naturally, spacing between words also depends on space available and position at the end of a line, for example, but, as this letter illustrates, there is some indication of a short distance between words occurring much less frequently at utterance-boundaries. In this letter, extra space is usually combined with a punctuation mark. For example, in line 5, there is an utterance initial And with an initial capital with extended shape and a full stop at the end of the preceding utterance. In line 7, the double <f>, here in the word ffor is usually interpreted as a capital <F>. There is a semi-colon at the end of the preceding utterance and a relatively long space before ffor. See also a comma and a space in front of but in line 8, while in line 9, there is also a sequence of a comma succeeded by a clearly longer space before I feir and in line 10 a full stop at the end of this utterance.

In contrast, there is a semi-colon but no extra space before for I doubt (in blue) in line 18.

At the beginning of a line, a marked character shape may be the only way of indicating an utterance boundary: for example, in line 16, I in I desire zow (in blue in the CSC transcript) has a much larger initial capital than in any other instance of the first-person singular pronoun in the letter (e.g. in line 1). See section 4.4.

Adverbial phrases, here with a nominalisation as head, may also be set off by an extra space: in lines 3–4, the adverbial phrase as for \ zour wisching of me yair is followed by a space before the rest of the clause zie did not wische me oftener.

Cf. univerbation [4]

4.4 Marked character shape

The concept of “marked character shape” refers here to variant realisations of initial characters in words occurring at utterance boundaries. Three marked shapes have been attested especially frequently in the CSC material:

• upper-case characters of considerably varying shape and size;
• upper-case characters which have been extended horizontally;
• lower-case characters which have been extended horizontally.

A number of characters have variants in which the lower and upper case are difficult or impossible to distinguish. For example <c> may have the same height in both; <l> may have a horizontal loop on the left in both, even though, in neat and regular hands, the loop is usually attested only in the upper case. In some hands, this ambiguity is also present between <w> and <W>. The criteria for distinguishing between the variants are based on an investigation of variants in an idiolect and those occurring in contemporary hands.

Large upper-case characters especially or those with a flourished shape typically occur in terms of address (see, e.g., (3), (14), (17), (18), (20), (21), (22), (23), and (27)) or in letter-closing formulae which introduce the signature (see examples (3), (5), (16), (25), (27), and (36)), but there are also syntactically significant ones in connectives occurring at the beginning of utterances (e.g., (3), (5), (14), (16), (28), (29), (30), (31), and (32)). The horizontally extended shapes of both upper- and lower-case characters are particularly frequent in example (25), but these are quite frequent in many other letters as well (in the present selection, see example (15) in particular).

The term of address here is in a separate line before the body of the letter, with conspicuously larger characters taking a wide space in My, the first word in My honorabll Lord and dear father.

Similarly, M in the term of address My right honorable Lord and at the beginning of the body of the letter:

In general, the present study will not report on instances of capitalisation in non-utterance-initial position (see, however, examples (22), (23), (25), and (28)). Moreover, we are not concerned here with idiosyncratic realisations of lower-case characters, which may resemble upper-case ones.

In the CSC corpus material, there are basically three systems in the use of capitalisation: (i) virtually no capitalisation (e.g., (19), (20), and (21)), (ii) capitalisation which does not exclusively reflect syntactic structure (e.g., (22), (23), and (24), and (iii) capitalisation which can be directly related to syntactic structure (e.g., (13), (14), (15), and (25)).

Type (i):

In a letter by Anna Cunningham, the only capitals are in the final formula (Zours as to my seluf) and the name in the signature.

The CSC transcript:

deir sistir I hard that zour guid sonne sould \ abein seik this last consel day / quhilk I was \ sorie for and I beseik zou send me wird \ with the beirer hou he is I haue leitly \ reseufit lettirs from court I thank god my \ lord and his sonne is weil he hes writtin \ hom to sir Ihone to imbreis al my lord of \ abbircornis bisines as his auin for he thinkis \ to dispon on him obsolonitlay as on his auin \ sonne and my lord register sayis he hes \ meid him souir for zour dochtir I heir that \ thair is grit apirens of wairis in ingland \ aganist Spaine for it is thocht thay haue \ not minit onestly to one king bot I think \ we sal heir farder schortly remembir my \ louit to zour dochtir and hir hisband so uising \ zou al happienes I rest \ Zours louing as \ to my seluf \ Anna Cunnynghame \ {adjacent>} hamiltoun the \ xv of octobir

Examples (20) and (21) represent letters dating from as late as 1651 and 1666; yet capitalisation only occurs in initial and final terms of address (Deare Cousen, Dier Madem, Dire Madam), polite references to other people (my Ladie Montgomrie, Dier lady Margrat), the first-person subject pronoun I, names of months (March), a place-name (Tinengem), the letter-final polite formula (Your affectniot cousin) and the signature. Thus, the syntactic structure is not indicated by punctuation, spacing or marked character shape.

The CSC transcript:

March the 13 \ 1651 \ Deare Cousen \ neuer after this despuete kindnes with \ {ins} me {ins} {in margin} this is my seconde since I hade the satis\faction of hearein from you nether will \ {ins} I {ins} {in margin} accepte of satisfaction any way {ins} now {ins} excepte \ you come and so make apeare to me that \ I charge you rongefully since your will \ was not giltye though cartanliye your \ action as yet apeares so to me so pray \ come and uendecate your selfe I am con\fedent thare is none whare you are thare \ seuelectie beien so great that will be un\willin that you should come heare to see \ those who you{character cancelled} are so nearelie intrested \ in and to obledge me so much / this bearer \ will be glade to wate one you hether he \ has often wated one both your frends \ and mine which I knou will not make \ you the {del} the {del} more unwillin to receue \ the same seruies from him / I shall say \ no more to you this way becase I expect to \ {in margin >} haue your selfe to conuerse with and \ in the mene time beleue I am sincerelie \ Your affectniot cousen \ and saruant \ A Hammilton {ins} present my serueis to {del} my {del} \ my Ladie Montgomrie my sister doth the same \ to you I must giue you yet one inuetation more to \ come I promies you your mothers puter : tho when you get it \ it must be with a condishion {ins} {in margin} {address >} For my Ladie Anna \ Montgomrie My Deare \ Cousen {end}

The CSC transcript:

Tinengem the 24 \ nouember \ 1666 {adjacent>} Dier Madem \\ to heir from your la: is auerey gret joy \ to me bot I am soray {cancellation of F} for the deth of \ Dier lady Margrat bot I pray the lord \ preserue thos that he heth continoud \ with you, it heth plesed god to gif me \ asaefe deleurey of a liueng douchter tho \ I had fires of the dethe of both her and \ my self befor I was brought, to bed I \ was so extremly sik bot it plesed god that? \ my laber was shorter then my ordener \ bot I am stel wek and thes hath bin \ the ferst that I hef wret sins I was \ brought to bed and the wekenes of my \ ies uil not let me say much bot I asour \ your la: that ther is non in the world \ that is mor your la: seruand then \ sho that is \ Dire Madam \ your la: afecenat cosen \ and seruant \ Chrestin Lindesay \ {ins} my lord presentes hes {a character after s cancelled} serues to your \ la al my cheldren is your seruentes {ins}

Type (ii)

In examples (22) and (23), Patrick Murray, 3rd Earl of Tullibardine, uses marked character shapes resembling upper-case characters not only in utterance-initial position and in names (in red), but also a number of words in other positions (in green) (instances of the first-person pronoun have been left unmarked):

The CSC transcript:

{f1r} My honora^ll~ good lord \\ my lord of Munteihe haueinge dowine me yat \ hono^r as to cum and wiseitt the loge in his goinge \ home hes maide me wrytt this letter wnto \ your lo, altho I haue no great Mater to \ wrytt of, Moire then I hawe downe laitly \ be lewes sommerwell, only I schall {a character cancelled} onis \ Moire Intreat your lo and the Rest \ to be plesed to put an end to the \ bissines wche is betuix my nephewe and \ {in margin} {ins} me {ins} and all the fauore wche I desyr is no \ thinge bot to do me yat Right, wche \ your lo and the Rest of our noble frends \ schall fynd to be Iustly belonginge \ to me, and lykwayis yat you wil be \ plesed to tak in consideratione the trewe \ staitte of Atholl, to prewentt, what \ meye fall heirafter, least we all Repentt \ it when we cane not mend it I haue wryt\tine dyuers tymis to your lo to Intreat \ your fauor, about my pensione, I beseiche \ your lo be plesed at this nixt peymentt \ of the Rents of stratherne wche my ould \ serwantt william Murray is to peye into \ the excheker schortly to let me hawe \ yat mone?y?e {damaged} towards the peymentt of \ my pensione, and the Rather becaus as I \ am a trewe man, I hed not so Muche need \ of moneye this dossone yeris, Remember I \ beseche your lo. yat it is not good to be too \ far behynd, and lykwayis what fauore \ {f1v} you schall do to me, it is to one whome you^r \ meye command when it schall pleis you to mak \ tryell of him yat schall euer Rest \ Your lo faithefull? {ink blot} kinsman \ and serwantt \ Tullibardin {adjacent>} {del} londone {del} theabolls the 8 of Iune 1629 \ {ins} I beseiche your lo to haue a caire \ to prowyde sum halks for you^r freinds \ in England as I did wrytt to you^r lo \ befoire and let not them be halks? {unclear correction} to \ Muche the first yeire / for the nixt \ yeir in grace of god I bring my \ wyffe w^t me to scotland

The CSC transcript:

{f1r} My honora^ll~ good lord \ I most giwe your lo great {<g correcting another character} thanks yat it dothe \ pleis you to Remember me sum tymis w^t \ your lo letters, wche I do aknowlege I haid \ Resaued, and for thois Bissinesis {<cancellation between e and s} that \ is Referd to your lo and the Rest my Newphe{ins}w? \ and my freinds I lewe it altogidder to your \ lo and the Rest, assuringe my self, that \ you will deall Indifferently betuix us bothe \ I desyr no fauore, altho I hawe Resaued \ greatte lose; bot yat you wilbe plesed \ to do me Right; and for my cwminge home \ to scotland. this sommer trewly it cane \ not be, I  haweinge beine laitly seek, I hawe \ giwine my cowsinge corronell Brus power \ to deall for me as I wer present my self \ wche I hoipe will giwe your lo satisfaction \ this is all that I will wrytt of this perticuler? {<damaged} \ my good lord giwe me lewe, to prefer my \ ould serwantts sutte befoir my owne wche \ is yat your lo wilbe plesed to fauore \ my ould serwantt, wche nowe is the kinge \ chamberlen of stratherne, and your lo servan{ins}t \ this Ma^tie hes giwine a Reference of his \ Iust demands to your {cancellation} lo and the Rest of \ the {damaged}, I do beseiche your lo noble \ fauore {damaged; to?} him, wche I will tak as downe \ to my self I hoipe your lo schall fynd his \ Bissines so Ressonable, yat you will giwe \ passage to it, and for my owine pensione. \ I knowe you^r lo will not forget me \ seing nowe the king cumis not home to scotland \ {f1v} this yeir, it is not good to be too far behynd, least a man {an unidentified word} \ haid to cum wpe, and yit cum behynd; as your lo seise dayly \ in horsemacheis, y^rfoir I preye you^r lo to haue myndis \ of me for their wilbe at this witsondaye nixt too yeir dewe \ to me I salbe Intreated m^r faillertone my good friend to \ put you^r lo in mynd of me: this {cancellation} hes beine a sarie \ yeir w^t me, in my exterordinarye thaigeis, and to helpe \ me at this witsondaye, I most peye for our cowsinge \ S^r dauid Murray whou Rests w^t god sewinteine thowsand \ marks. \\ I hed a long discurse w^t the Marques of hwntly and I \ do fynd him werie desyrus that all questionis betuix \ your lo and him meiye be takine awaye in a frendly \ forme, wche alwayis he hes offereit and beine will\inge to do, bot the breathe wes alwayis on your \ lo syde as he seyis, Iff he meine {cancellation} as he seyes \ I think it in my simple Iudgementt werie fitt \ it schuld be so bot I do lewe it to you^r lo self \ and I will euer Remayne \ your lo faithefull kinsman \ and serwantt \ Tullibardin {adjacent>} Londone the 20 of maj \ 1629

The analysis of the marked words shows that, in fact, it is not capitalisation but punctuation that reflects the writer’s syntax; capitals in red occur in contexts typical of type (i), those in green represent the idiosyncratic practice of preferring a shape resembling an upper-case character.

A similar pattern of preferences in the choice of character shapes is also present in example (24), which is a non-autograph letter signed by the Countess of Lennox:

The CSC transcript:

{hand 1} My very good Lord . thowghe perverse fortune hathe byn \ Suche in that Realme towardis me that there I have \ Lost my chefest comfortis having cawse Sufficyent there \ by / that the Remmembraunce of the cowntry Shulde be \ grevowse vnto me / Yet the naturall Love {h cancelled} I have \ to the yong king , w^th allso your L frendly dealingis \ allwayes and Last Letter of w^ch I am enformed thowg{ins}h \ I Sawe It not hathe made me yelde to the perswade\mentis of Sum~ abowte me to wryght a?t {< ink blot} this tyme \ And wheare your . L . hathe now the government w^ch is \ Sum~ comfort~ to me / for thereby I yet hope of the \ kingis preservacyon / you shalbe assured that what \ I maye Doo in the advauncement~ of his accyons~ I shale \ not Leave any thing of my power vnaplyed {y possibly correcting e} theretoo \ Lyke as I have allreddy thowghe tyme vnfyt therefore \ I trust Sumwhat fordered the cawse / And wheare \ your L Dothe So frendly offer to advaunce the howse \ agayne to the auncyent estate / When soever I \ shale here the Same to be Done It shalbe much \ to my comfort~ / but the order how and what waye I \ Refer to you^r L / who I trust wyll Remember the Same \ for his Sake that is gone~ , as allso to Revenge his cruell \ end / as I have and shale procure the Sume in theis partis / \ And where there is Sum mony~ owing aswell to Servauntis as \ to other poore men / that the Same may be discharged the \ Rather in Respect that all he had was willingly consumed \ in the kingis Service / {space} And for Suche Ientellmen and \ others that Served him whome he ment to Recompenc \ and had no tyme , I commend them to your L / to be good \ vnto them as you maye and en especyall the berer hereof \ who hathe well Deserved and for any that hathe other wayse \ w^ch maye be better knowne to you then to me vse your \ Discrecyon as in all thingis elles I Refer to your wisdom~ \ And So commitis your Lordshipe and your procedingis to the \ proteccyon of the allmighty frome my howse at hackney \ this 4 of october 1571 \\ your L assured Loving \ ffrend \\ {hand 2} margaret \ lennox

The important difference between (22) and (23) and example (24) is the fact that utterance-initial text-structuring elements are all capitalised. Non-utterance-initial capitalisation is highlighted with green, but otherwise the following comments focus on the utterance-initial uses highlighted with red. The utterance-initial And is regularly capitalised (five instances) and so are the connectives Lyke as, When soever, and And So. A clause of concession introduced by thowghe is followed by a main clause introduced by Yet, with an initial capital.

In reading the words in green, transcribed by initial upper-case characters in example (24), we notice that the scribe prefers variants resembling upper-case characters instead of lower-case ones for <d>, <l>, <r>, and <s>. In the CSC transcription system, these have been rendered as capitals, since the scribe consistently uses a different shape of these four characters for lower case in word-medial and final position (see words such as cause and as for <s>; Lord and towardis for <d>; allreddy and wyll for <l>, and fortune and other for <r>. There is ambiguity in the realisation of <w>.

In contrast with letter types (i) and (ii) in the use of capitalisation, marked character shapes in type (iii), when used relatively systematically, can be shown to provide highly relevant information for syntactic analysis. A letter by Sir John Campbell of Lawers, 1st Earl of Loudoun, to the Earl of Morton is a good example of such systematicity. The letter contains examples of various shapes of and in utterance-initial position. A wider space is frequently combined with an extended shape in the succeeding initial capital:

The CSC transcript:

My most honored and nobill Lord \\ THare wes premonitione maid to me for redemeing of ane wedset which \ I haiff of ye few dewtyis and Superioritie of {an unidentified place-name} In zo^r lo^ps / name \ and my lord of Troquairis {space} And I heir sum of the fewa^ris ar gone to \ edinburgh , Expecting that peyment and redemptione wilbe maid at this terme \ conforme to ye premonitione {space} And I am" glaidlie content to receive my money \ And grant renunciatione conforme to ye reversione contenit in ye contract past \ betuixt his Ma^tie and me {space} And will tak it as ane favo^r that \ zour Lo^p / may be pleased to cause pey that Litill sowme his Ma^tie Is \ adebtit to me at this terme , {space} Bot if the fewa^ris offer to advance the \ money ather in whole or in" part wpon security to be grantit to yame Off ye \ few dewtyis which I now haiff . Till they be repeyed of the money which \ they sall advance , {space} I am" bold to Intreate zo^r Lo^p / not to Let ane bargane \ be maid w^t yame In these termes , {space} ffor I can not bot {del} ta?k evill {del} {ins} heuielie regreite {ins} that \ his Ma^tie sould redeeme these few dewtyis from" me: {space} And dispone ye \ sam~ back again" to these fellowis wha wer my tenentis and dependa^ris - \ WHairthrow they may exact my few dewtyis {space} And becume {correcting another word} as it wer \ my superio^ris {space} And I haiff assurance wnder his Ma^ties hand - \ That no vther man sall get any richt of that superiortie nor few \ dewtyis ; {space} And I am" confident zo^r lo^p / will not suffer any course \ to be takin to my preiudis Which is not agreeabill to his Ma^ties / pleasur \ As I shall ever be ready to approve myself {an independent flourish} \\ Lowdoun" ye 6 \\ of Iunij i633 \\ Yo^r Lo^ps / affectionat cousine \\ to serve zow \\ Loudoun

The horizontally extended shape of <A>, taking the space of 5-10 lower-case characters, occurs in all utterance-initial instances of And, but, unlike instances of the utterance-initial connectives Bot and For, no punctuation mark precedes it. This example shows that spacing and using a marked character shape may co-occur as devices structuring a text and indicating the syntactic properties of this particular varietal grammar.

Each idiolect must be analysed by reconstructing its grammar without assuming similarity to contemporary grammars. The letter by the 10th Earl of Erroll, written in a very regular and formal secretary hand, usefully illustrates quite a complex system of using marked character shapes, which, if examined in terms of a hierarchy, succeeds in reflecting the writer’s grammar. Such a hierarchy is described by the mark-up in the CSC transcript: connective elements at the text level are in red, relative connectives in green, infinitives in dependent and subordinate clauses in blue, and phrasal structures in orange:

The CSC transcript:

Worthie freind quhair as the kingis ma^tie is resolvit (God willing) In \ this approacheing summer To honour this his antient kingdome w^th his \ royall presence Alsweill for ressaveing of his Croune as for holding \ of Ane Parliament qlk is procleamed to be haldin at Edinburgh and \ to begin vpon ye auchten day of Iunij nixt w^th continuatioune of dayes \ AT ye qlk solemnitie his majestie luikes that ye nobilitie of this \ kingdome and cheiflie the officeris of the Croune Off quhich number \ I have the greatest chairge & burdine Out of the dewtifull respect \ to his ma^ties obedience and for the Credit & honour of yair {possibly couming; the latter half torn} \ will give yar presence and assistance according to his majesties \ directioune sent to ws in yat stoutlie and direct forme as besemeth \ the dignitie of suche ane actioune THairfoir yat I may be ye \ more able to obey his majestie and to dischairge my dewtie in ye \ place and office of Constable I thought gud according to ye \ Custome of my predicessouris To require & desyre & intreat the \ assistance and attendance of my kynd and best affected freindis \ Off qlk number esteiming zow on of the Cheife will expect yat ze \ will repair to Edinburgh against the Tuelff day of Iunij in suche \ maner as zour qualitie does require for the credit of the Countrie \ In doing of ye qlk ze sall obleis me evir to be readie to requyte zour kyndne??? {<torn} \ in any occasioune yat may offer And tyme to remain \ Zour maist loving freind to my \ Power \ Erroll

The passage from quhair as to ane actioune narrates the circumstance as new information for the addressee. This is followed by a request, frequently introduced in formal letters in particular by the connective therefore, its central function in discourse highlighted here by the use of capitals in both the first and the second character. And tyme to remain is an abridged variant of a conventional letter-closing formula. As discussed in Meurman-Solin 2007c, relative connectives are frequent in Scottish Renaissance letters where a new sentence would begin in Modern English. It is interesting that the writer should indicate by capitalisation the beginning of structures such as infinitive clauses and adverbial phrases.

Meurman-Solin 2011 and Meurman-Solin 2012 have shown that capitalisation, among other things, is one of those features which allow us to identify the use of a connective or an adverbial connector in the discourse- and text-structuring function. Similarly, Meurman-Solin 2007c illustrates the occurrence of upper-case characters in relative elements to indicate their use as a relative connective. [5] In the following extract from a letter by the 9th Earl of Erroll, the relative connective To the qlk [until the which] serves to introduce a conventionalised letter-closing expression:

Francis Hay, 9th Earl of Erroll, to the Earl of Morton, Slanes, 29th August 1627. National Library of Scotland MS 82/8. CSC 9Erroll62701 #668.

An extract from the CSC transcript:

And hawe \ wretin to my sone sowthward / wha will hawe cair / to my \ awin cuming / qlk godwilling salbe shortlie / And wilbe \ glaid to sie your lo / in health / qlk I excedinglie lang for / \ To the qlk remitting all farther / wishing your lo / all happines \ My affectioun rememberit / to your lo / My lady / and rest of the \ ladi?es and your lo / wther bairnes / I remain \\ Zour lo maist loving frend \\ Erroll

To the qlk (‘until which time’ or ‘until then’) refers to the time at which the writer and the addressee are envisaged as meeting again. While syntactically or only semantically related to the context, the utterance can be regarded as prosodically independent in introducing the letter-closing strategy.

The function of structuring sequences of conventionalised formulae is also reflected in the use of capitals in Wherein in example (27):

An extract from the CSC transcript:

my neere relations to him and engagements for him, Haue \ given me the boldnesse to become an earnest suter in his behalfe \ That your lo~p would be pleased to be assisting to him, in pro\cureing payment of the aforesaid money assigned to him out of \ these places {space} Wherein your lo~ps favour shall ( amongst your \ many other courtesies ) lay a speciall obligation vpon \\ Your lo~ps most affectionat \\ and humble seruant \\ Loudoun

As Meurman-Solin 2007c shows, Wherein has a longer passage describing what the addressee’s assistance is called for as its anchor. The compound is analysed as varying with a connective phrase such as In all this, both a relative connective (Wherein) and a deictic expression (In all this) linking what has been said before with the final formula and signature.

Utterance-initial co-ordinator-like, or transitional, connectives such as and, but, and for in examples (3), (5), (16), and (28), and adverbial connectives such as only, so, always ‘in any case’, now, and then in examples (5), (14), (28), (29), (35), and (36) are sometimes also written with a capital or an extended initial character shape. It must be stressed, however, that there is a lot of variation between idiolects.

An extract from the CSC transcript:

Only your Sister Loudon \ is in hazard of Miscaring ║ And I do not \ denay I think hir well Maried ║ for He \ is ane Extrordinar kynd husband and \ A werie fine gentilman

A Present-Day English paraphrase:

‘But your sister Loudon is at risk of miscarrying. And I don’t deny that I think her well married. For let me assure you he is an extraordinarily kind husband and a very fine gentleman.’

The utterance introduced by for functions as a gesture of politeness rather than expressing a causal argument which would then justify the stance taken by the writer in the previous utterance.

An extract from the CSC transcript:

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

An extract from the CSC transcript:

Alwayis I hawe bein wsing my \ best meanes to yourlo behowes albet I cwm litill sped \ heir be reasone of the former great levies

An extract from the CSC transcript:

ffor I am” all zour graceis ass ze wyll \ plais command this madam” eftir mast humyll \ commendatione~ off serwyce to zur g [grace] I pay [pray] god \ ewyr to conseryffe zur g [grace]

An extract from the CSC transcript:

Bot I think it will not be so soone as ze \ expectit

An extract from the CSC transcript:

Bot I will assure zow zour sone hughe dois neuer mis ane of zow

An extract from the CSC transcript:

ffor I doe nowayes doubt zow O?nlie I will give zow this warning \ That iff ze press to conceall my lord ogilvy in your \ hows at this tyme IT wilbe moir to your preiudice \ then ze ar awar off

The semantic link in the following example is created between ‘I do not fear’ and only as an alternative expression for ‘However, I would only like to say/add this’.

An extract from the CSC transcript:

so \ as I doe not feare his lo^p contracting anie sickness upon oc\casion of his fall, Onlie because it is like my lord shal \ not be able to undertake anie long journey this summer, ther\fore his lo / desyre is, that when in dwe tyme {space} your la / hath \ weaned your childe, ye would be at the paines, if ye be able \ and your effairs can permitt, {del} ye would {del} {ins} to {ins} give him a visit

Particularly interesting is the use of discourse-organising only in sequencing polite formulae. Letter-closing formulae also occur as reduced forms of fuller variants, only the verb complementation of a conventionalised polite formula being retained:

An extract from the CSC transcript:

sua to meitting or new occasiun \ Onlie my most Loveing dewtie to zour self and \ zour ladye by wishing zow all happines as euer \ sall rest \\ Zour lops most lovenge \ Brother to serue zow \\ Wintoun

‘But please allow me to express my most loving duty …’

For more information about utterance-initial connectives with word-initial capitals, see Meurman-Solin 2011 and Meurman-Solin 2012.

5. Concluding remarks

This study has examined original manuscripts of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scottish letters in order to illustrate the functions features of visual prosody have at the levels of syntactic, discourse and text analysis. Practices of punctuation and capitalisation in historical documents are quite different from those we find in modern texts; in fact, it has been necessary to become involved in a process of learning to identify utterances and chunks of discourse which perform particular communicative functions in epistolary prose. In this exercise, information about features of visual prosody complement linguistic information in a useful and relevant way. In fact, since imposing the rules of a standard grammar on language use recorded in correspondence is not a legitimate exercise, it is necessary to draw on evidence provided by layout, script type, idiosyncratic features of handwriting, including spacing and character shapes, variation between full and contracted word-forms, and variation in the range and form of punctuation marks, for example. Moreover, visual features of writing reflect the individual writers’ linguistic and stylistic literacy as well as their thought-styles, ways of processing information and creating a socially acceptable relation with their addressees. These features will also have to be related to knowledge about conventions of structuring a letter as a text and how such devices as fixed formulae are used to meet the contemporary stylistic expectations.

The analysis of manuscript letters by writers ranging from quite inexperienced to more competent and stylistically highly professional writers requires tools similar to those applied to recorded spoken data. One of the tasks of the present project is to develop methods that are sensitive to the special characteristics of manuscripts written by a wide variety of writers, many of them non-professional writers who use their writing skills primarily in private and informal settings for a restricted range of communicative purposes. At this stage, it has been necessary to focus on the identification of practices and systems at the idiolectal level, this exercise being quite challenging as such. Despite long experience in the transcription of Scottish letters, I am rather reluctant to classify findings as grouplectal. With quantitatively representative data (ECSC), it may become possible to depict features of visual prosody as systems over time, space and social setting.

Notes

[1] Beside lexico-grammatical annotation, the following features of visual prosody have been annotated:

• physical condition (e.g., torn margin or damage by damp)
• number of folio
• line-break
• position of text (in margin, before or after the body of the letter)
• change of hand
• script type
• idiosyncratic features of a particular hand
• insertion; cancellation; correction
• punctuation
• spacing
• marked character shape
• paragraph structure

The present study focuses on the last four types.

[2] “Some of Margaret Hay’s choices of spelling variants can be interpreted to reflect her pronunciation, so that vowel 1 spelt yi or ay in lykwyis, wryit and arayfell (‘arrival’) may have been pronounced as a diphthong, as suggested by Aitken’s outline (1977) (/i:/ > /ei/ > /ai/). Vowel 4 (/a:/ > /e:/ > /e/) is spelt in various ways, mostly by choosing e, for instance cer (‘care’, n.), cerfull (‘careful’), and letly (‘lately’), or a digraph, for instance asteit (‘estate’) and kreuf (‘crave’). In addition, she uses the variants merit (‘married’) and dischergis (‘to discharge’), which suggest vowel 16 in the environment of a following r, and have been attested from the sixteenth century on. Also in reflexes of Early Scots vowel 4, /a:/, instead of the anglicised spelling o, we find her using e (ne, ‘no’) or the digraph ei (bygein, ‘bygone’, and nein, ‘none’). Her spellings for vowel 15, such as ded (‘did’), thes (‘this’), presumably reflect the pronunciation still found in Modern Scots as [ɛ̈]. The variants his or is (usually hes, ‘has’) for vowel 16, may be reverse spellings or reflect loss of distinction in unstressed vowels.”

“Her inexperience as a writer is also reflected in her spelling of a loanword such as sellinis for ‘silence’, where the use of -is suggests, as a reverse spelling, that this ending is not syllabic at this time. As in is for ‘has’, h is now and then dropped in is for ‘his’. She uses the graph ch both in chau/chaw ‘show’ and cho ‘she’, which could be interpreted as reverse spellings of the more common sch where ch is expected (cf. Aitken 1971: 199), Meurman-Solin 1993). She is inconsistent in the formation of the past participle: besides the prevailing variant in -it, she uses grefed (‘grieved’), plist (‘pleased’) and trobelt (‘troubled’). She also finds it difficult to distinguish between the base form and inflected forms, and, in example 2 [Margaret Hay’s letter from 1613], uses the past participle for an infinitive (I can attriboutit), and a suffixed third person singular form also as an infinitive (redy to dischergis). The latter two variants also demonstrate the informant’s inability to distinguish morphemic elements in contexts where these are immediately preceded by phonemes of a specific kind, for example, a past tense or past participle morpheme after a base-final -t (cf. Meurman-Solin 1997).” (Meurman-Solin 2001: 33–34)

[3] 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 conventionalized 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 2012.

{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 2012: ‘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 2011 and Meurman-Solin 2012.

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 2007c).

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).

[4] Spacing can reflect syntactic variation, for example, in the verb phrase: e.g., sould abein ‘should have been’ in CunninghamHA60003, where the auxiliary and the past participle of the main verb are unambiguously written together. In CunninghamHA60004, we find sould aattendit ‘should have attendit’, thair wold nothing ahindirit ‘would have hindered’, to atakin ‘to have taken’.

[5] Rydén 1966 (xliii) points out that in his data relatives representing the relativische Anknüpfung type are ‘often preceded by a full stop or other marks of heavy punctuation’. Nevertheless he concludes that the attested inconsistencies in punctuation prevent us from considering these relative links as a discrete category of their own. In my view, in text languages, a careful examination of the visual features of the original texts may provide useful, even indispensable, information for a reliable reading. However, the assessment of their relevance is by no means easy, and converging evidence of various kinds will have to be provided to create valid criteria for such an analysis. This procedure resembles the analysis of spoken language (from sound rather than transcript), in which prosodic features play a significant role. As regards relative structures, as Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1058) point out, ‘[a] supplementary relative is marked off prosodically from the rest of the sentence by having a separate intonation contour; there is typically a slight pause separating it from what precedes and, if it is non-final in the sentence, from what follows’.

Sources

Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1500–1715 (CSC). 2007. Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1500–1715. Second edition. Compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin. Helsinki: VARIENG.

Institute for Historical Dialectology, University of Edinburgh: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/research/ihd/

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

CoRD: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CSC/index.html

Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. 1995. Compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin. University of Helsinki: Department of English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HCOS/index.html

Transcription and digitization: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/csc/manual/part2/2_3.html

Principles of tagging: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/csc/manual/part3/3_2.html

Practices of tagging: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/csc/manual/part3/3_3.html

References

Aitken, A. J. 1971. “Variation and variety in written Middle Scots”. Edinburgh Studies in English and Scots, ed. by A. J. Aitken, Angus McIntosh & Hermann Pálsson, 177–209. London: Longman.

Aitken, A. J. 1977. “How to pronounce Older Scots”. Bards and Makars. Scottish Language and Literature, Medieval and Renaissance, ed. by A. J. Aitken, Matthew P. McDiarmid & Derrick S. Thomson, 1–21. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press.

Cameron, Annie I., ed. 1927. The Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 1542–1560 (Scottish History Society, 3rd Series, 10). Edinburgh.

Claridge, Claudia. 2007. “Conditionals in Early Modern English texts”. Connectives in the History of English (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 283), ed. by Ursula Lenker & Anneli Meurman-Solin, 229–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

ECSC = Meurman-Solin, Anneli (comp.) Forthcoming. The Corpus of Scottish Correspondence Extension. Helsinki: VARIENG.

Fraser. The Chiefs of Grant, Vol. 2: Correspondence, ed. by Sir William Fraser. Edinburgh 1883; The Douglas Book, Vol. 4: Correspondence, ed. by Sir William Fraser. Edinburgh 1885; Memorials of the Earls of Haddington, Vol. 2: Correspondence and Charters, ed. by Sir William Fraser. Edinburgh 1889; Memorials of the Montgomeries, Vol. 1: Correspondence, ed. by Sir William Fraser. Edinburgh 1859; The Sutherland Book, Vol. 2: Correspondence, ed. by Sir William Fraser. Edinburgh 1892.

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

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.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1993. Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose: Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Diss. Humanarum Litterarum 65). Helsinki.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1997. “A corpus-based study on t/d deletion and insertion in Late Medieval and Renaissance Scottish English”. To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52), ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, 111–124. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.

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 10ICEHL, ed. by Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully, 417–438. Berlin: Mouton.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2001. “Women as informants in the reconstruction of geographically and socioculturally conditioned language variation and change in 16th and 17th century Scots”. Scottish Language 20: 20–46.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2004. “Data and methods in Scottish historical linguistics”. The History of English and the Dynamics of Power, ed. by Ermanno Barisone, Maria Luisa Maggioni & Paola Tornaghi, 25–42. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2007a. “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: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/meurman-solin/

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2007b. “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. 2007c. “Relatives as sentence-level connectives”. Connectives in the History of English (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 283), ed. by Ursula Lenker & Anneli Meurman-Solin, 255–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2011. “Utterance-initial connective elements in early Scottish epistolary prose”. Connectives in Synchrony and Diachrony in European Languages (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 8), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin & Ursula Lenker. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/meurman-solin/

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2012. “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 (Oxford Studies in the History of English 2), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los, 164–196. New York: Oxford University Press.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2013a. “Taxonomisation of features of visual prosody”. Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/meurman-solin_c/

Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2013b. “Features of layout in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scottish letters”. Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/meurman-solin_b/

Sairio, Anni & Minna Nevala. 2013. “Social dimensions of layout in eighteenth-century letters and letter-writing manuals”. Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14), ed. by Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/sairio_nevala/

Rydén, Mats. 1966. Relative Constructions in Early Sixteenth Century English. With Special Reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.