Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


When addressing family members or friends, letter writers enter a common ground of some sort, where, as research has shown, the rules of everyday interaction apply ( Nurmi and Palander-Colin 2008 ). In different historical periods, familiar correspondence is thus very much about maintaining existing bonds and about phatic communion. The situation is likely to be very different in the case of institutional recipients, in particular if somebody addresses a given institution for the first time. The data selected for the study, the 1819 applications to the British Colonial Office for the Cape of Good Hope colonisation scheme (TNA 48/41–6), include many letters written by “first timers” (i.e., the encoders who have not addressed the institution before). These letters may provide some insights into the specific participation framework of the first-time writers in their interaction with the institution.

In the paper, I propose that contact initiation may be related to the literacy levels of letter-writers, focusing on what I refer to as “technical literacy”. Based on some parameters thereof, I distinguish between two broad groups of informants, reflecting what may be described as standard and non-standard literacies, respectively. The two groups, I assume, do not operate within the same participation framework and, therefore, display pragmatic and linguistic differences in constructing the initial encounters. Moreover, the analysis of these initiations offers a new perspective on the routinisation of institutional correspondence.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, Francis
    2004 “‘Heaving this Importunity’: The Survival of Opening Formulas in Letters in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”. Historical Sociolinguistics & Sociohistorical Linguistics. AccessedAugust 2014at: www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/heaving_this_importunity.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barron, Anne
    2003Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.108
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.108 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barton, David
    2007Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. (Second edition.) London: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton, David and Mary Hamilton
    1998Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203448885
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203448885 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bax, Marcel
    2010 “Epistolary Presentation Rituals: Face-work, Politeness, and Ritual Display in Early Modern Dutch Letter-Writing”. In Jonathan Culpeper and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Historical (Im)politeness Research, 37–86. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beetz, Manfred
    1999 “The Polite Answer in Pre-modern German Conversation Culture”. In Andreas H. Jucker , Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds), Historical Dialogue Analysis, 139–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.66.06bee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.66.06bee [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chambers, Jack K.
    2004 “Dynamic Typology and Vernacular Universals”. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets Typology, 127–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooke, Thomas
    1801The Universal Letter-Writer; or, New Art of Polite Correspondence. London: Gainsborough.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2009 “Historical Sociopragmatics: An Introduction”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics10 (2): 179–186. doi: 10.1075/jhp.10.2.02cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.10.2.02cul [Google Scholar]
  11. Diller, Hans , Hendrik De Smet and Jukka Tyrkkö
    2011 “A European Database of Descriptors of English Electronic Texts”. The European English Messenger19: 21–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dossena, Marina
    2012 “The Study of Correspondence: Theoretical and Methodological Issues”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.218.02dos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.218.02dos [Google Scholar]
  13. Dossena Marina and Susan Fitzmaurice
    (eds) 2006Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Berlin: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Elspaß, Stephan
    2007 “‘Everyday Language’ in Emigrant Letters and its Implications for German Historiography – the German Case”. In Stephan Elspaß and Wim Vandenbussche (eds), Lower Class Language Use in the 19th Century, 151–65. Special issue ofMultilingua26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012 “Between Linguistic Creativity and Formulaic Restriction: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Nineteenth-century Lower Class Writers’ Private Letters”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.218.04els
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.218.04els [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairman, Tony
    2007 “Writing and “the Standard”: England, 1795–1834”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication26: 167–201. doi: 10.1515/MULTI.2007.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Healey, Joseph F.
    2010The Essentials of Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Held, Gudrun
    1989 “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication8 (2–3): 167–206. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.167 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2010 “‘Supplica la mia parvidade…’: Petitions in Medieval Society – A Matter of Ritualised or First Reflexive Politeness?”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics11 (2): 194–218. doi: 10.1075/jhp.11.2.02hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.11.2.02hel [Google Scholar]
  20. Houston, Robert Allan
    2014Peasant Petitions: Social Relations and Economic Life on Landed Estates. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137394095
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137394095 [Google Scholar]
  21. Laitinen, Lea and Taru Nordlund
    2012 “Performing Identities and Interaction Through Epistolary Formulae”. In Marina Dossena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe, 65–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.218.05lai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.218.05lai [Google Scholar]
  22. Landert, Daniela
    2013Personalisation in Mass Media Communication: British Online News between Public and Private. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meurman-Solin, Anneli
    2013 “Visual Prosody in Manuscript Letters in the Study of Syntax and Discourse”. In Anneli Meurman-Solin and Jukka Tyrkkö (eds), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data. Helsinki: VARIENG. AccessedAugust 2014at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/meurman-solin_a/.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nash, Marjorie D.
    1987The Settler Handbook: A New List of the 1820 Settlers. Diep River: Chameleon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nevalainen, Terttu
    2001 “Continental Conventions in Early English Correspondence”. In Hans-Jürgen Diller and Manfred Görlach (eds), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, 203–24. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nurmi, Arja and Minna Palander-Collin
    2008 “Letters as a Text Type: Interaction in Writing”. In Marina Dossena and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds), Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Palander-Collin, Minna
    2009 “Patterns of Interaction: Self-Mention and Addressee Inclusion in the Letters of Nathaniel Bacon and his Correspondents”. In Arja Nurmi , Minna Nevala and Minna Palander-Collin (eds), The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800), 53–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.183.05pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.183.05pal [Google Scholar]
  28. Peikola, Matti
    2012 “Supplicatory Voices: Genre Properties of the 1692 Petitions in the Salem Witch-Trials”. Studia Neophilologica84 (1): 106–18. doi: 10.1080/00393274.2012.668078
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2012.668078 [Google Scholar]
  29. Peires, Jeff
    1989 “The British and the Cape: 1814–1834”. In Richard Elphick and Hermann Giliomee (eds), The Shaping of South African Society, 1652–1840, 472–518. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Perelman, Les
    1991 “The Medieval Art of Letter Writing: Rhetoric as Institutional Expression”. In Charles Bazerman and James Paradis (eds), Textual Dynamics of the Professions, 97–119. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal
    2012 “Functions of Epistolary Formulae in Dutch Letters from the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics13 (2): 173–201. doi: 10.1075/jhp.13.2.01rut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.2.01rut [Google Scholar]
  32. Sairio, Anni and Minna Nevala
    2013 “Social Dimensions of Layout in Eighteenth-Century Letters and Letter-Writing Manuals”. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English (Volume14). AccessedJanuary 2015at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/sairio_nevala/.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schneider, Klaus P.
    1988Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sokoll, Thomas
    2006 “Writing for Relief: Rhetoric in English Pauper Letters, 1800–1834”. In Andreas Gestrich , Steven King and Lutz Raphael (eds), Being Poor in Modern Europe: Historical Perspectives 1800–1940, 91–111. Berlin: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Street, Brian
    1995Social Literacies: ‪Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Svennevig, Jan
    1999Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Taavitsainen, Irma
    2012 “New Perspectives, Theories and Methods: Historical Pragmatics”. In Laurel Brinton and Alexander Bergs (eds), Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 1457–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Włodarczyk, Matylda
    2013a “1820 Settler Petitions in the Cape Colony: Genre Dynamics and Materiality”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics14 (1): 45–69. doi: 10.1075/jhp.14.1.02wlo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.14.1.02wlo [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013b “British Colonial Office Correspondence on the Cape Colony (1820–1821): Metatextual Keywords vs. Analytic Categories”. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics49 (3): 399–428.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Włodarczyk Matylda
    2013c “Community or Communities of Practice?” In Joanna Kopaczyk and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Communities of Practice in the History of English, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.235.06wlo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.235.06wlo [Google Scholar]
  41. Włodarczyk, Matylda
    2014 “Literacies on the Move to the Cape Colony: The 1820 Settler Database”. Unpublished conference paper presented at Mobility, Variability and Changing Literacies in Modern Times . June 2014. Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 “Nineteenth-Century Institutional (Im)Politeness: Responses of the Colonial Office to Letters from William Parker, 1820 settler”. In Marina Dossena (ed.), Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English, 153–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016Genre and Literacies: Historical (Socio)pragmatics of the 1820 Settler Petition. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wolfson, Nessa
    1983Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cape Colony; epistolary initiations; Late Modern literacies; petitions; requests
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error