At the start of each research enterprise, historical sociolinguists have to deal with the key issue of the required historical data. In the present world of big data optimism, the idea may arise... Show moreAt the start of each research enterprise, historical sociolinguists have to deal with the key issue of the required historical data. In the present world of big data optimism, the idea may arise that the time-consuming compilation of specialised corpora is no longer needed. Can taking a shortcut still lead us to convincing results? In this article I discuss the crucial relationship between specific research questions and appropriate historical data. This methodological issue will be illustrated by concentrating on three historical-sociolinguistic research programmes, conducted at Leiden University: Letters as loot: Towards a non-standard view on the history of Dutch (2008–2013), Going Dutch: The construction of Dutch in policy, practice and discourse (2013–2018) and Pardon my French? Dutch-French language contact in the Netherlands, 1500–1900 (2018–2023). What do we learn from these large-scale projects which address different research questions and focus on different periods in the history of Dutch? The use of specific sources, handwritten material such as ego-documents, a multi-genre approach and details of corpus compilation will be discussed. The various approaches and results are considered against the background of methodological developments and current debates in historical sociolinguistics. I argue and conclude that the careful compilation of specialised corpora remains essential as a solid foundation for historical sociolinguistic research. Show less
Apart from literacy rates and reading and writing acquisition,the actual writing practices of the past, which include the phenomenon of delegated writing, belong to a history of literacy. Delegated... Show moreApart from literacy rates and reading and writing acquisition,the actual writing practices of the past, which include the phenomenon of delegated writing, belong to a history of literacy. Delegated writing occurred when illiterate or partly literate individuals wanted to keep in contact with relatives at a distance and had to rely on the assistance of professional or social scribes. The details of this process and the role played by the sender of a letter and its actual, usually unknown, scribe often remain unclear, although different scenarios may be assumed. Cultural historian Lyons explored scenarios for delegated writing in France, Italy and Spain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focusing on the writing of ordinary people during the First World War and in the age of mass migration. For the Dutch language area, we have the opportunity to delve further back in time by exploring the late-seventeenth-century part of the Letters as Loot (LAL) corpus. This corpus previously allowed us to establish linguistic differences between autographs and non-autographs. For a detailed view of the delegated writing process, however, theLAL corpus also provides us with instances of two types of letters written by the same, identified, female scribes: their own letters and the letters they wrote for others. A comparative analysis of these different letters will be shown to contribute to opening the black box of Early Modern delegated writing.Keywords: autographs/non-autographs; delegated writing; epistolary formulae; literacy; social writers Show less
