This chapter reviews what we know about scribal practices of orthography (focusing on spelling), how their orthographies have been studied and interpreted, and where avenues of future research lie. It covers fundamental aspects of studying scribes, showing the multidisciplinary interest in scribes and providing a broad background for thinking about scribal variation in orthography. It discusses issues such as the term and concept of a scribe, the contexts in which scribes worked, and how the role of the scribe has changed over time. The chapter focuses on research concerning scribal orthographies within three broad contexts: studies focusing on phonology and phonetics but using scribal orthography as the source of information; research that concentrates on the intersection of phonology/phonetics and orthography; and studies that are interested in orthography as an exclusively or primarily written phenomenon. It also addresses the issue of orthographic standardization specifically, as scribes have been seen as central in this process, and touches on the various frameworks and approaches adopted for the study and interpretation of spelling regularization and standardization. Finally, the chapter points to some of the avenues open for new discoveries in the future.

This chapter discusses the relationship between spelling and writers’ social background, identifying how access to literacy and literacy practices in the history of English contributes to the spelling forms and conventions used in historical texts. It provides an overview of spelling and literacy in Old and Middle Englishes. Gender and social status inflect the spelling evidence from these periods, with the historical manuscripts largely representing the orthographic preferences of elite men, typically linked to religious houses or royal administration. More recent periods provide a broadening picture as access to literacy increases; nevertheless, when analyzing and interpreting historical spelling practices, it is important to recognize the potential skewing of any dataset. The chapter then surveys studies that have attempted to identify authorship on the basis of orthographic evidence. Citing examples from Shakespeare studies, it identifies the potential of this approach, and the need for caution when making pronouncements without an empirical baseline of spelling norms for a period. Finally, the chapter considers the relationship between gender and spelling in the history of English, highlighting negative social attitudes toward women’s spelling in a range of publications, and showing that claims made about women’s practices are not always borne out by empirical analysis.

This chapter presents current research demonstrating that orthographic variation does not only occur naturally in historical texts, but also shows systematic patterns and functional uses. Premodern orthographic systems are flexible and offer room for innovation. This is a decisive characteristic and an important precondition for orthographic variation and change. This chapter includes an overview of types and functions of historical orthographic variation and different processes of orthographic change on the basis of examples from the history of German and from runic writing. It aims, on the one hand, to give a general introduction to the topic, and, on the other hand, to discuss theoretical and methodological issues in the study of variation and change in historical orthography that provide a background against which a research question and design for the study of variation and change in historical orthographies can be defined.

This chapter explores various aspects and examples of analogy and extension, with particular attention to their interrelations. Analogy can be understood as an automatic cognitive process by which what is known is extrapolated to what is considered similar, which leads to similar outcomes, that is, extension. Later cognitive development usually prevents incorrect analogy. Extension following perceptual analogy in conventional semiotic systems produces changes in the system; instead of being interpreted as erroneous, it should be considered as a reflection of evolving human perception. Thus, semiotic systems generally evolve via extension generated by analogy, which can be illustrated by language and graphemics. Analogy between graphemic systems in contact may induce intergraphemic extension, and analogy between different categories of a given graphemic system may lead to intragraphemic extension. Because graphemic systems are related to language in many ways (for example, to elements of phonemic and morphemic systems), analogy concerning graphemics may produce intersemiotic extension, either from language to graphemics or in the opposite direction. The seemingly ideal synchronic correlation between graphemics and linguistic elements may have been caused by historical analogy and extension between them, and this evolution can be studied by diachronic analysis of language–writing relations.

This chapter discusses the notion of orthographic principles, the associated theoretical issues and the relevance of these principles in the (diachronic) study of spelling. It provides an overview of the aspects of writing that should be taken into consideration when identifying general patterns or rules governing spelling practices within a specific historic orthographic system, such as the typological make-up of the writing system, levels and regularity of linguistic representation, and graphotactic constraints. The discussion focuses on alphabet-based spelling systems and delineates several general pathways for the conventionalization of spelling across various European vernacular spellings systems at different historical periods, making particular illustrative use of Cyrillic Lithuanian. In addition to foregrounding the importance of sound-oriented and meaning-oriented graphic mappings in shaping alphabet-based spelling systems, this chapter emphasizes the role of graphotactic constraints, which have been central in contributing to morphographization of some European spelling systems in the early modern and late modern periods.

This chapter investigates the topic of orthographic reconstruction of a historical writing system taking as case study the Linear B syllabary of Bronze Age Greece. The Linear B syllabary was used to render the oldest Greek dialect attested in written form, so-called ‘Mycenaean’ Greek (c. 1400–1190 BC). The reader is guided step-by-step through the stages involved in the reconstruction of the orthography of the Linear B syllabary, so as to understand how to bridge the gap between actual attestations and their phonetic rendering (e.g. Linear B a-to-ro-qo representing alphabetic Greek ?????p?? /anthropos/ ‘man’). The discussion covers some of the methodological issues scholars had to reckon with when reconstructing a historical orthographic system in the Bronze Age Aegean context. This complex process eventually made it possible to draw up the ‘rules’ that govern the system and, by assessing deviations, to evaluate the extent to which these were adhered to. This chapter also illustrates the role played in such reconstruction by the historical and linguistic backdrop, within which the adaptation of an already existing writing system (‘Minoan’ Linear A) took place to render a linguistically different language (Greek).

This chapter provides a brief introduction to grapholinguistics, focusing mainly on its core subdisciplines – graphetics and graphematics (or graphemics). Historically, grapholinguistics can be perceived as a neglected subdiscipline of linguistics, though it also explores the topic of written language in its totality, which is not entirely linguistically oriented. The author specifies that its beginnings, as an organized movement, date back to Germany of the 1970s, but various instances of grapholinguistics emerged at different places (and in different languages). The field now has an established textbook, a special section in the online Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science, and, as of quite recently, a proposal for a unifying general theory. This chapter is centered on graphetics and graphematics in order to expose the crucial linguistic dichotomy – that between form and function. Whereas the primary concern of graphetics is the materiality of writing, graphematics deals mainly with the functions of abstract units. The interplay between these two interrelated grapholinguistic subdisciplines is especially evident in the analysis of allography, which focuses on the variation of both concrete and abstract units (graphs and graphemes, respectively).

The goal of his chapter is twofold: firstly, to provide a general review of the literature on language contact and orthography, with a special focus on how situations of language contact can bring about alternation or conflict among various spelling traditions, and spearhead the emergence of new orthographic standards; and secondly, to explore how a historical sociolinguistic approach can contribute to the study of historical orthographies in language contact situations. Specifically, the chapter tests the possibilities of an ecological framework to the study of historical orthographies in contact settings, by considering spelling norms as a reflection of multiple, simultaneous linguistic and cultural environmental forces. This framework is illustrated in the second half of the chapter by means of a case study of the emergence of orthographic norms in a high-contact environment, namely the development of spelling protocols in colonial Nahuatl and the application of these protocols to Spanish loanwords containing sibilants. This case study exemplifies the interface between linguistic, social and cultural effects typical of language contact environments, and illustrates the affordances of an ecological approach to the study of historical orthographies and orthographic normativization in other contact settings.

This chapter formulates some relatively new lines of enquiry for research in historical orthography, which stem from the concept of a community of practice. The authors propose the idea that communities of practice represent a key bridge across material which inevitably stimulates divergent research interests in the field. They suggest that communities of book producers in England and the Low Countries were not self-standing entities, but were engaged in more or less loose, professional and social interactions, forming networks of practice. The respective histories of English and Dutch had some fundamental similarities with reference to early book production and local organization, and there were links existing even between those working on manuscripts and printed material. This chapter provides useful background information on early book production and large-scale professional networks, with a view to inspiring future researchers to explore the intricate correlation between professional organization, culture and society in the complex framework of early modern Europe.

This chapter draws on the comparative and sociopragmatic methods in historical orthography research. After first introducing writing systems and describing orthography as a supportive discipline on the fringes of other disciplines, the growing interest in this discipline is explained. The chapter presents the adoption of the comparative method in Slavic studies and principal directions therein. Then, it summarizes theoretical preliminaries in historical sociopragmatics, primarily based upon research on English historical orthography. In what follows, the author offers an overview of the most important approaches in Slavic studies, pragmaphilology and diachronic pragmatics, illustrating the differences and synergies between them mostly with Russian, Czech and Polish material. Finally, the methods proposed are critically appraised and their applicability for prospective research is demonstrated.

In this chapter, Gijsbert Rutten, Iris Van de Voorde and Rik Vosters, refine the Labovian distinction based primarily on the type of language learning involved by bringing in the contact-based insights of Milroy (2007) on this issue. Exploring the extent to which the transmission-diffusion distinction can also apply to orthographic, rather than phonological or morphosyntactic, changes, the authors discuss a range of different examples of both transmission and – various subtypes of – diffusion, mostly from Dutch, German and English. Their central argument is that diffusion must be seen as the dominant driver of orthographic change, but transmission-type changes are also possible in specific historical contexts, for instance in relation to explicit instruction in schools or in closely-knit social networks. Building on different examples and cases, the chapter also explains the link between diffusion and supralocalization, as local and regional spelling practices in medieval times give way to more supraregional writing traditions in postmedieval times. As such, these processes of geographical diffusion of innovations across communities often lay the ground work for later standardization efforts. However, by discussing a slightly more elaborate case study on spelling change and pluricentricity in Dutch language history, the authors show how the development of such supraregional writing traditions often leads not only to linguistic standardization, but also results in a linguistic landscape which can best be described as pluricentric, consisting of different national and regional normative centers from which innovations spread.

This chapter gives a presentation of writing and literacy in Norway from the first runic inscriptions until the present day, choosing certain phenomena and certain texts to exemplify the development. Where possible, the author has taken the viewpoint of the writers. The aspects discussed include the relationship between orthography and alphabets, the understanding of orthographic use in the light of reading preferences, and the importance of political ideas of nationality and democracy for the codification of the two written standards that are used today. Language-external factors had a major impact on the changes concerning writing in Norway. For example, the introduction of the Latin alphabet led to great changes in the runic literacy, and the Black Death caused a general decline in the learned literacy. Later, the political union between Denmark and Norway led to a common, Dano-Norwegian written language. Between 1750 and 1850 this common language was standardized, and variation was less noticeable in the sources. After 1850 a Norwegian Ausbau process started, and variation, with two standards and several dialects, became a trade mark of Norwegian writing, which it still is.

This chapter sketches the history of philology and charts its use as a method for analyzing and understanding orthographic variation. Its chronological arrangement spans the discipline’s development, from the roots of philology in the Classical period to present-day incarnations of the approach. Such incarnations have seen philology move from its use as a tool which sought to make sense of orthographic variation in order to facilitate textual editing, to one which, combined with newer theoretical linguistic approaches, gave rise to disciplines such as historical sociolinguistics or pragmaphilology, where extralinguistic contexts are brought to bear on linguistic data. The authors present two case studies exemplifying contemporary philological approaches to historical orthography. The first one uses a manuscript-centered methodology to illustrate the contrasting copying-practices of two scribes working on the Tanner version of the Old English translation of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. The second one focuses on the scripting of /w/ in Old English and Old High German and demonstrates how an etymological sound reference system can be employed for graphemic analysis.

The authors define the basic elements of writing and writing systems: graphemic units (graphemes and allographs), graphetic units (letters and graphs) and typographical units (glyphs and characters). Starting with graphemes, they introduce and discuss different definitions of graphemes proposed in the pertinent literature and then tackle the question of the distribution of graphemes in a given writing system and elaborate on the concept of allography. Regarding graphetic units, the authors focus on the internal structure of letters and other graphs and introduce the concept of the ‘length hierarchy’ of letters, which leads to a discussion of larger graphemic categories, especially the graphemic syllable. Looking more deeply at the functional distribution of letters, they address the question of graphemic inventories and their development. Their discussion also includes the typographical key concepts of glyphs and characters. The chapter then focuses on the graphemic subinventory of punctuation, the form of punctuation marks, as well as their decoding and encoding functions. The final issue discussed is capitalization as the functional differentiation between uppercase and lowercase, including the development of different functions of uppercase letters in the history of the European writing systems.

This chapter explores the connections of orthography to paleography and codicology, and the dependence of historical orthography on the materiality of writing and printing environments. It explains that orthography is one of the tools of paleographers, and a key to understanding (deciphering) the written language of ancient and medieval texts, whereas codicologists investigate nonlinguistic (and nonorthographic) peculiarities of early manuscript books (codices). Orthographic research, however, in some cases helps estimate more precisely the origins of codices (time and location). The chapter also presents some of the ways in which the materiality of writing and printing historically has directed the development of orthographic features (e.g. symmetricity of upper and lower cases, dependence on the limitations of printers’ type sets). The author introduces the dichotomy between the perceived durability and perishability of a text at its creation phase, and reveals its impact on the differentiation of orthographic approaches such as the historical simultaneous double orthographies of various European languages (i.e. printed versus handwritten manuscripts, books versus newspapers).

This chapter offers an overview of selected linguistic approaches to writing and writing systems, mainly to alphabetic orthographies, with special emphasis on the English language. The survey starts with the ancient views on the relationship between speech and writing, as they constitute the foundation of premodern and modern perspectives. Since the debate between the relational and autonomistic approaches took several decades in the twentieth century, an important part of the chapter covers their main tenets and representatives. The author argues that, over time, one can observe growing convergence between the previously opposite perspectives, which testifies to the increase in the awareness of the complexity of interrelations between alphabetic writing systems and the other language subsystems. Eventually, scholars, especially those focusing on English in their research, have widened their interest in writing systems to a variety of extralinguistic aspects interrelated with the patterns of orthographic variation. These interrelations are presented and illustrated in the last part of the chapter, which is devoted to the historical sociolinguistic approach.

This chapter addresses the study of orthography from a sociopolitical historical perspective, including a literature review and a case study focused on the politics of spelling in mid-nineteenth-century Spain. Scholars working with a sociopolitical historical approach to orthography realize that language and power are intertwined. Thus, orthographic processes (such as the selection of a script, the codification of a writing system, or the reform of specific spelling norms) are no longer understood as ideologically neutral scientific endeavors but rather as historically situated political activities. Examples offered in the chapter show that orthographies are powerful instruments of inclusion and exclusion, gatekeeping devices that exacerbate and naturalize social inequalities, and ideological mechanisms that reinforce (or challenge) a given political entity. The case study exemplifies the political nature of orthography by examining the spelling system that was made official in Spain in 1844 (and that, with minor changes, remains as today’s standard) as the result of a historical struggle between social actors with different political agendas and different amounts of power to influence the outcomes of the debate. In short, this chapter explains that orthographies are practical and symbolic tools strategically used to impose, maintain or resist particular social identities or politico-economic orders.

This chapter clarifies that the treatment and reliability of orthographic variables as linguistic variables has already been tested with the application of both macroscopic and microscopic approaches to digitalized historical materials. Patterns of variation and change in past periods of a given language have been evidenced through the observation of its users’ sociolinguistic behavior in social interaction. The recent prolific research output in historical sociolinguistics reflects the growth of interest in style and register within the field. The role of new genres and text types (e.g. travel accounts, court records, recipes, diaries, and letters) is thus also being highlighted as materials worth studying for both interspeaker and intraspeaker variation. The chapter explores the indexical potential of orthographic variation in style, register, genre and text types. The extralinguistic factors conditioning the use of different spelling forms in cases of variability are usually based on production, geographical location, sociodemographics (sex, age, rank), social networks, text type (and genre), style, register and medium (handwritten vs. printed). In earlier periods, when correspondence and other ego-documents were probably the most frequent means of written communication and without the existence of a well-established and fixed standard variety, orthographic variation constituted a source of social meaning.