The distinction between coercion and conversion is not always clear, and it is suggested here that this is because both are types of metonymy and it is not always clear when there is a shift from one word-class to another and when there is not.

Syntactic phrases can be used as the base in word-formation, and can be used attributively in a construction which is usually taken to be a compound. While the syntactic phrases are often familiar or citations, neither is necessary. The syntax appears to be subject to some restrictions, which suggest that word-formation is involved rather than pure syntax.

Although several patterns of word-formation appear to introduce tautology, in practice they are probably not felt to be tautologous by the speakers and listeners who are faced with them.

There is evidence that the elements that take part in word-formation, whether as a derivational base, in conversion or in compounds, are adverbs rather than prepositions. Even then, the irregularity and restricted productivity of forms involving these elements is striking, and hard to understand.

Although the notion of analogy is often deprecated in linguistics because it has proved difficult to say precisely how it works, even words that can be considered to have regular patterns of formation can be seen to be influenced by analogy as well. The formalization of analogy may not be easy, but it is clear that we need to recognize the phenomenon.

This chapter focuses on abbreviations, elements that were almost a byword for a written document from the Antiquity through the Middle Ages right until the early modern period: notwithstanding the language, text type and genre, script type, purpose and audience, these ideographic elements were nearly always to be found in a written document. For the medieval litteratus, abbreviations embodied the inextricable link between logos and imago; for the contemporary reader, they may well have a familiar feel of the multimodality we have grown accustomed to that informs digital textuality. The author outlines the origins, typology and visuality of Latin abbreviations used in medieval and early modern Europe, adding a postscript on the transition from script to print, which ultimately spelled the end of such ideograms in the modern era. This chapter, however, should not be read as a note on ‘the days of yore’ in the history of orthography in the Latin West: abbreviations do have a longue durée in Latin-based textuality and remain a feature of modern writing, if sometimes in a different guise.

This chapter is intended to offer assistance for the linguistic description of writing systems throughout the history of one or, especially, several languages and provide a comparative description of the different units of writing systems. The first section establishes the definitions of the concepts of grapheme, graph, allograph and suprasegmental grapheme. The application of these concepts to English and Romance languages is exemplified by three models and methods of diachronic and comparative description of writing systems: Romance scriptology, cultural history of European orthographies, and comparative graphematics of punctuation. The second section discusses biscriptality, the phenomenon of employing two or more writing systems for the same language, not rare in the history of languages from different families, and related to different aspects of society and language users. With examples mainly from Russian and other Slavic languages, biscriptality is shown to be present on several levels of written language, and various applications of biscriptality are characterized with the help of dichotomies such as synchronic vs. diachronic biscriptality, monocentric vs. pluricentric biscriptality, and societal vs. individual biscriptality.

This chapter discusses from three perspectives the stages of the hybridity of writing systems in the period of the formation of various alphabets as well as their adaptations to the requirements of specific languages. Firstly, the chapter draws attention to the role of borrowings and intersystemic influences at the early stage of the formation of the ‘grand’ alphabets, including the Greek, Latin Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets. These are forms of writing of a long tradition, which later became the basis for numerous national alphabets. Adaptations which adjust a certain alphabetic system (the base alphabet) to the needs of writing the phones of a different language constitute the second – narrower – perspective on contacts between alphabets and the transformations within them. The reflections in this part are exemplified by references to the Latin alphabet in its Polish edition. The chapter then focuses on the narrowest perspective, drawing readers’ attention to alphabet adaptations that did not achieve the status of national writing. This is exemplified by two – entirely different – models of adaptation, comprising the Polish graždanka (Polish Cyrillic alphabet) and the Polish and Belarusian Arabic-graphic writing (aljamiado). Additionally, the author briefly discusses Polish texts written in the Armenian alphabet.

This chapter discusses selected studies of orthography that focus on the spelling practices by mere users of the language (in crucial opposition to actors from the literate elite – norm makers), concentrating on what they reveal about processes of language change as exemplified by spelling variation. The chapter supports the idea that, within the field of historical sociolinguistics, orthographic variables are now considered a type of linguistic variables. The author shows, on the basis of specific historical sociolinguistic studies, that writers’ variable choices of orthography can inform us about broader mechanisms of language change, but always alongside other types of variation or linguistic information. This chapter examines almost exclusively material from the French language, with the studies under consideration addressing either regional French in France or different varieties of French in Canada. The author situates French orthographic variables within the broader language evolution context, explicating what information spelling variation discloses about the writer’s attitudes toward the (written or spoken) norm, toward the written form, and toward the writer’s linguistic community as a whole. The author also considers how spelling variation compares to other types of language variation in order to contribute to a greater understanding of language change.

This chapter discusses the concept of distribution in historical handwritten and printed compositions understood in its widest sense, considering the text not only as a mere arrangement of the sentences and paragraphs on the pages, but also as the contribution of other elements associated with spacing in Late Middle English and Early Modern English. The first part of the chapter describes the rationale behind the composition of early English handwritten documents, reconsidering the formatting and the layout of the folios in the preparation of the writing surface, and assessing the use of columns, margins, ruling, number of lines and line justification. The main notions of the concept of spacing are then discussed, describing the different types of word division. Finally, two case studies are offered reconsidering the emerging of spacing in the Middle Ages and its development throughout Early Modern English, both in the middle and at the end of lines. The data used as source of evidence come from the Late Middle English and the Early Modern English components of The Málaga Corpus of Early English Scientific Prose and the scientific material of the Early English Books Online corpus together with other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scientific compositions.

This chapter focuses on the relationship between writing systems and language, which is never perfect, with the result that irregularities and idiosyncrasies arise even in writing systems that ostensibly have a one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and speech sound (or other unit of language). On the basis of a diverse assortment of examples drawn from around the world, this chapter outlines the ways in which writing systems are and are not systematic and discusses various avenues by which idiosyncrasies arise. The survey begins with a consideration of systematicity at the level of individual graphemes, where both aesthetic and functional aspects are discussed, and follows this with an exploration of the various degrees to which phonetic writing systems cover a language’s phonemic and subphonemic distinctions and where irregularities can arise. Issues of spelling and orthography, already interspersed in the first two parts, are the dedicated topic of the last section. At various points the chapter showcases the tension between desire for economy and efficiency and desire for regularity.

This chapter outlines some of the difficulties of studying orthography in fragmentary languages from Ancient Italy in the first millennium BC. The authors advocate for a multilevel approach to get the most information from short, challenging and (sometimes) poorly understood texts. The chapter includes a number of case studies from Republican Latin, Oscan, Umbrian and Venetic, highlighting the problems posed by different kinds of texts. For Latin, some grammarians provide relevant information about the perceived ‘standard’ language, but their points of view may not always reflect the usage of their contemporaries. Oscan is written using three main alphabets, which allows a comparison of orthographies and of the execution of spelling rules across different regions. The Iguvine Tables, written in Umbrian, are a long and detailed religious document, written by different individuals in a small group of priests, in two main phases, and show a number of orthographic practices specific to these documents. Finally, Venetic furnishes an example of how punctuation can be as important as spelling to a community’s orthographic practices.